On Tuesday, April 7, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Ian Staples wrote:
> epa...@epa.ericsson.se wrote:
> >Its now been several weeks since I posted the original RFD. Since then,
> >we've had several postings for the group and a few against it. [...]
> Totally deviating from the original thread, epaeei's statement above
> reminded me of a bit of trivia that has often bemused me:
> Which is the greater number, "several" or "few"?

That's a lot like asking which is greater, "much" or "many"?

bruce bowser <bruce2bowser@gmail.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, April 7, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Ian Staples wrote:
>>epa...@epa.ericsson.se wrote:
>>>Its now been several weeks since I posted the original RFD. Since then,
>>>we've had several postings for the group and a few against it. [...]
>>Totally deviating from the original thread, epaeei's statement above
>>reminded me of a bit of trivia that has often bemused me:
>>Which is the greater number, "several" or "few"?
>That's a lot like asking which is greater, "much" or "many"?

A: "Where there many people in the room?"
B: "No, there were only ... people."

Which quantifier (of "several" and "few") do you expect here?

Could the answer help to indicate which of these two quantifiers
is prefered to express the idea of a small number?

On 20/07/22 01:57, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 7, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Ian Staples wrote:
>> epa...@epa.ericsson.se wrote:

>>> Its now been several weeks since I posted the original RFD. Since
>>> then, we've had several postings for the group and a few against
>>> it. [...]
>> Totally deviating from the original thread, epaeei's statement
>> above reminded me of a bit of trivia that has often bemused me:
>> Which is the greater number, "several" or "few"?
>
> That's a lot like asking which is greater, "much" or "many"?

I hope Ian Staples is grateful for your answer. Do you think he found it
worth waiting for a quarter of a century?

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 20/07/2022 03:58, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 20/07/22 01:57, bruce bowser wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 7, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Ian Staples wrote:
>>> epa...@epa.ericsson.se wrote:
>
>>>> Its now been several weeks since I posted the original RFD. Since
>>>> then, we've had several postings for the group and a few against
>>>> it. [...]
>>> Totally deviating from the original thread, epaeei's statement
>>> above reminded me of a bit of trivia that has often bemused me:
>>> Which is the greater number, "several" or "few"?
>>
>> That's a lot like asking which is greater, "much" or "many"?
>
> I hope Ian Staples is grateful for your answer. Do you think he found it
> worth waiting for a quarter of a century?
>

That's a much more interesting question that many of us have been
asking. But there is a fundamental question of ordering of non-numeric
terms:

[one], a couple, few, several, dozens, tens, many, loads (or lots),
oodles, shit-loads, thousands, millions, zillions, gazillions...

On 7/19/2022 2:34 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> bruce bowser <bruce2bowser@gmail.com> writes:
>> Ian Staples wrote: epa...@epa.ericsson.se wrote:

>>>> Its now been several weeks since I posted the original RFD.
>>>> Since then, we've had several postings for the group and a few
>>>> against it. [...]
>>> Totally deviating from the original thread, epaeei's statement
>>> above reminded me of a bit of trivia that has often bemused me:
>>> Which is the greater number, "several" or "few"?
>> That's a lot like asking which is greater, "much" or "many"?

> A: "Where there many people in the room?" B: "No, there were only ...
> people."

> Which quantifier (of "several" and "few") do you expect here?

> Could the answer help to indicate which of these two quantifiers is
> prefered to express the idea of a small number?

There are not many people or few people in that basket. There are only
.... people.

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 9:58:36 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 20/07/22 01:57, bruce bowser wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 7, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Ian Staples wrote:
> >> epa...@epa.ericsson.se wrote:
>
> >>> Its now been several weeks since I posted the original RFD. Since
> >>> then, we've had several postings for the group and a few against
> >>> it. [...]
> >> Totally deviating from the original thread, epaeei's statement
> >> above reminded me of a bit of trivia that has often bemused me:
> >> Which is the greater number, "several" or "few"?
> >
> > That's a lot like asking which is greater, "much" or "many"?
>
> I hope Ian Staples is grateful for your answer.

You screeched on and on about the 1996 project, so now 1998 is bad, too?

> Do you think he found it worth waiting for a quarter of a century?

"Almost" a quarter of a century.

On 20 Jul 2022 at 07:31:37, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> On 20/07/2022 03:58, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 20/07/22 01:57, bruce bowser wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 7, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Ian Staples wrote:
>>>> epa...@epa.ericsson.se wrote:
>>
>>>>> Its now been several weeks since I posted the original RFD. Since
>>>>> then, we've had several postings for the group and a few against
>>>>> it. [...]
>>>> Totally deviating from the original thread, epaeei's statement
>>>> above reminded me of a bit of trivia that has often bemused me:
>>>> Which is the greater number, "several" or "few"?
>>>
>>> That's a lot like asking which is greater, "much" or "many"?
>>
>> I hope Ian Staples is grateful for your answer. Do you think he found it
>> worth waiting for a quarter of a century?
>>
>
> That's a much more interesting question that many of us have been
> asking. But there is a fundamental question of ordering of non-numeric
> terms:
>
> [one], a couple, few, several, dozens, tens, many, loads (or lots),
> oodles, shit-loads, thousands, millions, zillions, gazillions...

Patricia Cornwell confused me with "only several".
Is that normal US usage?

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:47:16 AM UTC-4, Bob Martin wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2022 at 07:31:37, occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> > On 20/07/2022 03:58, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 20/07/22 01:57, bruce bowser wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 7, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Ian Staples wrote:
> >>>> epa...@epa.ericsson.se wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Its now been several weeks since I posted the original RFD. Since
> >>>>> then, we've had several postings for the group and a few against
> >>>>> it. [...]
> >>>> Totally deviating from the original thread, epaeei's statement
> >>>> above reminded me of a bit of trivia that has often bemused me:
> >>>> Which is the greater number, "several" or "few"?
> >>>
> >>> That's a lot like asking which is greater, "much" or "many"?
> >>
> >> I hope Ian Staples is grateful for your answer. Do you think he found it
> >> worth waiting for a quarter of a century?
> >>
> >
> > That's a much more interesting question that many of us have been
> > asking. But there is a fundamental question of ordering of non-numeric
> > terms:
> >
> > [one], a couple, few, several, dozens, tens, many, loads (or lots),
> > oodles, shit-loads, thousands, millions, zillions, gazillions...
> Patricia Cornwell confused me with "only several".
> Is that normal US usage?

No.

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 12:47:16 AM UTC-6, Bob Martin wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2022 at 07:31:37, occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> > On 20/07/2022 03:58, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 20/07/22 01:57, bruce bowser wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 7, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Ian Staples wrote:
> >>>> epa...@epa.ericsson.se wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Its now been several weeks since I posted the original RFD. Since
> >>>>> then, we've had several postings for the group and a few against
> >>>>> it. [...]
> >>>> Totally deviating from the original thread, epaeei's statement
> >>>> above reminded me of a bit of trivia that has often bemused me:
> >>>> Which is the greater number, "several" or "few"?
> >>>
> >>> That's a lot like asking which is greater, "much" or "many"?
> >>
> >> I hope Ian Staples is grateful for your answer. Do you think he found it
> >> worth waiting for a quarter of a century?
> >>
> >
> > That's a much more interesting question that many of us have been
> > asking. But there is a fundamental question of ordering of non-numeric
> > terms:
> >
> > [one], a couple, few, several, dozens, tens, many, loads (or lots),
> > oodles, shit-loads, thousands, millions, zillions, gazillions...

> Patricia Cornwell confused me with "only several".
> Is that normal US usage?

It's pretty rare.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=only+a+couple%2Conly+a+few%2Conly+several&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=28&smoothing=3

https://tinyurl.com/2p9hy42e

Some of those aren't strange at all.

"...at the time of the Whitechapel murders, records show that Cream was
not only several thousand miles away but behind bars..."

Nick Rennison, /Sherlock Holmes: The Unauthorized Biography/

However, Cornwell's seem strange to me.

"'And though the condition of her body suggests she has been dead
only several days, her electrolytes don't fit her physical findings..."

/The Body Farm/

https://books.google.com/books?id=Uv2zDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22

"Death by asphyxiation takes only several minutes. That's a very long time
when every cell in your body is screaming for air."

/Postmortem/

https://books.google.com/books?id=nAQhEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA14

That "only" seems really weird. I'd need a "but" or "though" or
something between the two sentences.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 2022-07-21 17:07:42 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:

>>>
>>> [ … ]

>>> Some of those aren't strange at all.
>
> "...at the time of the Whitechapel murders, records show that Cream was
> not only several thousand miles away but behind bars..."
>
> Nick Rennison, /Sherlock Holmes: The Unauthorized Biography/
>
> However, Cornwell's seem strange to me.
>
> "'And though the condition of her body suggests she has been dead
> only several days, her electrolytes don't fit her physical findings..."
>
> /The Body Farm/
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=Uv2zDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22
>
> "Death by asphyxiation takes only several minutes. That's a very long time
> when every cell in your body is screaming for air."
>
> /Postmortem/
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=nAQhEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA14
>
> That "only" seems really weird.

Not to me. I find "only" works just fine in all these examples. They
might, however, read more smoothly with modification of the word order:
"Death by asphyxiation only takes several minutes," etc. In all of them
it seems obvious that "only" is not to be taken as qualifying "several".

> I'd need a "but" or "though" or
> something between the two sentences.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 11:17:45 AM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-07-21 17:07:42 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:
>
> >>>
> >>> [ … ]
> >>> Some of those aren't strange at all.
> >
> > "...at the time of the Whitechapel murders, records show that Cream was
> > not only several thousand miles away but behind bars..."
> >
> > Nick Rennison, /Sherlock Holmes: The Unauthorized Biography/
> >
> > However, Cornwell's seem strange to me.
> >
> > "'And though the condition of her body suggests she has been dead
> > only several days, her electrolytes don't fit her physical findings..."
> >
> > /The Body Farm/
> >
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=Uv2zDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22
> >
> > "Death by asphyxiation takes only several minutes. That's a very long time
> > when every cell in your body is screaming for air."
> >
> > /Postmortem/
> >
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=nAQhEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA14
> >
> > That "only" seems really weird.

> Not to me. I find "only" works just fine in all these examples. They
> might, however, read more smoothly with modification of the word order:
> "Death by asphyxiation only takes several minutes," etc. In all of them
> it seems obvious that "only" is not to be taken as qualifying "several".
....

What are you saying "only" modifies in the two sentences from Cornwell?
"Asphyxiation" in the second one? I can't even guess for the first one,
from /The Body Farm/.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 21-Jul-22 18:17, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-07-21 17:07:42 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:
>
>>>>
>>>> [ … ]
>
>>>> Some of those aren't strange at all.
>>
>> "...at the time of the Whitechapel murders, records show that Cream was
>> not only several thousand miles away but behind bars..."
>>
>> Nick Rennison, /Sherlock Holmes: The Unauthorized Biography/
>>
>> However, Cornwell's seem strange to me.
>>
>> "'And though the condition of her body suggests she has been dead
>> only several days, her electrolytes don't fit her physical findings..."
>>
>> /The Body Farm/
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=Uv2zDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22
>>
>> "Death by asphyxiation takes only several minutes. That's a very long
>> time
>> when every cell in your body is screaming for air."
>>
>> /Postmortem/
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=nAQhEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA14
>>
>> That "only" seems really weird.
>
> Not to me. I find "only" works just fine in all these examples. They
> might, however, read more smoothly with modification of the word order:
> "Death by asphyxiation only takes several minutes," etc. In all of them
> it seems obvious that "only" is not to be taken as qualifying "several".

Re: "Death by asphyxiation only takes several minutes,"

That would seem quite reasonable to me - if it cropped up in the form:

X takes three or four hours, whilst Y takes only several minutes.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:08:47 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 21-Jul-22 18:17, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2022-07-21 17:07:42 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:

> >>>> Some of those aren't strange at all.
> >> "...at the time of the Whitechapel murders, records show that Cream was
> >> not only several thousand miles away but behind bars..."
> >> Nick Rennison, /Sherlock Holmes: The Unauthorized Biography/
> >> However, Cornwell's seem strange to me.
> >> "'And though the condition of her body suggests she has been dead
> >> only several days, her electrolytes don't fit her physical findings..."
> >> /The Body Farm/
> >> https://books.google.com/books?id=Uv2zDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22
> >> "Death by asphyxiation takes only several minutes. That's a very long
> >> time
> >> when every cell in your body is screaming for air."
> >> /Postmortem/
> >> https://books.google.com/books?id=nAQhEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA14
> >> That "only" seems really weird.
> > Not to me. I find "only" works just fine in all these examples. They
> > might, however, read more smoothly with modification of the word order:
> > "Death by asphyxiation only takes several minutes," etc. In all of them
> > it seems obvious that "only" is not to be taken as qualifying "several".
>
> Re: "Death by asphyxiation only takes several minutes,"
>
> That would seem quite reasonable to me - if it cropped up in the form:
>
> X takes three or four hours, whilst Y takes only several minutes.

True. But

All the examples with "several" would be better with "a few."

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the difference between "few"
and "a few" is one of the hardest things for foreign-speakers to master.