Can “few” be used as a subject? If so, what is the rule?
I took a test with the following question:
__________has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
a. Little
b. Some
c. Few.
Now, I know that the correct answer is little, but why specifically can't I use few here? What is the rule for this?
Also, it seems to me that we could make a sentence like
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
So, could someone kindly explain why we can't use few in the example?
determiners
add a comment |
I took a test with the following question:
__________has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
a. Little
b. Some
c. Few.
Now, I know that the correct answer is little, but why specifically can't I use few here? What is the rule for this?
Also, it seems to me that we could make a sentence like
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
So, could someone kindly explain why we can't use few in the example?
determiners
Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?
– Apollys
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I took a test with the following question:
__________has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
a. Little
b. Some
c. Few.
Now, I know that the correct answer is little, but why specifically can't I use few here? What is the rule for this?
Also, it seems to me that we could make a sentence like
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
So, could someone kindly explain why we can't use few in the example?
determiners
I took a test with the following question:
__________has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
a. Little
b. Some
c. Few.
Now, I know that the correct answer is little, but why specifically can't I use few here? What is the rule for this?
Also, it seems to me that we could make a sentence like
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
So, could someone kindly explain why we can't use few in the example?
determiners
determiners
edited 7 hours ago
Jasper
18.7k43771
18.7k43771
asked 16 hours ago
BrainDefenestrationBrainDefenestration
534
534
Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?
– Apollys
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?
– Apollys
1 hour ago
Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?
– Apollys
1 hour ago
Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?
– Apollys
1 hour ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
We use "little" for uncountable nouns and "few" for countable nouns.
In your sentence
Little has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The general situation has changed a bit. And "general situation" is an uncountable noun, therefore "little" is correct.
In your second sentence
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
"Few have survived" implies few people have survived, and you can count people.
add a comment |
This sentence would work:
Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The difference is that few requires a plural verb form. Few has is ungrammatical, but few have is fine.
Note the subtle difference in meaning based on the words that could be implied to exist but that have been left out:
Little [of anything] has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Versus:
Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The subject goes from something general to something more specific.
However, the multiple choice question didn't use have as its second word; it used has. With has, few isn't an option.
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
16 hours ago
12
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
8
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
12 hours ago
6
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
11 hours ago
4
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
10 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
____ has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Both "few" and "little" occur as fused determiner-heads, but the former only occurs with personal plural nouns, as in Few would disagree with the decision, where we understand "few people".
By contrast, paucal "little" occurs with non-personal nouns, as in your example.
2
Do you think this OP knows what a "fused determiner-head" and "paucal" mean? I don't see the point....
– Lambie
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Your example sentence is perfectly fine.
The more-common problem is people misusing "less" when they should be using "fewer."
"I like leaving early because there are less cars on the road."
WRONG. There are fewer cars on the road. Saying "less cars" is as wrong as saying "I'd like fewer syrup on my pancakes, please."
The most-frequently-encountered misuse of "less" is probably at the grocery store's express lane: "15 items or less." There's a video of Weird Al online somewhere, showing him bringing a replacement sign to the store and putting it over the incorrect one.
New contributor
This doesn't answer the question, which is about using "few" as the subject of the sentence, not whether to use "fewer" or "less".
– ColleenV♦
3 hours ago
How does it not answer the question? The first thing I said is, "Your example sentence is perfectly fine." That's a direct answer to the question. What's your problem?
– Oscar
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f201072%2fcan-few-be-used-as-a-subject-if-so-what-is-the-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
We use "little" for uncountable nouns and "few" for countable nouns.
In your sentence
Little has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The general situation has changed a bit. And "general situation" is an uncountable noun, therefore "little" is correct.
In your second sentence
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
"Few have survived" implies few people have survived, and you can count people.
add a comment |
We use "little" for uncountable nouns and "few" for countable nouns.
In your sentence
Little has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The general situation has changed a bit. And "general situation" is an uncountable noun, therefore "little" is correct.
In your second sentence
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
"Few have survived" implies few people have survived, and you can count people.
add a comment |
We use "little" for uncountable nouns and "few" for countable nouns.
In your sentence
Little has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The general situation has changed a bit. And "general situation" is an uncountable noun, therefore "little" is correct.
In your second sentence
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
"Few have survived" implies few people have survived, and you can count people.
We use "little" for uncountable nouns and "few" for countable nouns.
In your sentence
Little has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The general situation has changed a bit. And "general situation" is an uncountable noun, therefore "little" is correct.
In your second sentence
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
"Few have survived" implies few people have survived, and you can count people.
edited 7 hours ago
Jasper
18.7k43771
18.7k43771
answered 16 hours ago
Kshitij SinghKshitij Singh
625112
625112
add a comment |
add a comment |
This sentence would work:
Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The difference is that few requires a plural verb form. Few has is ungrammatical, but few have is fine.
Note the subtle difference in meaning based on the words that could be implied to exist but that have been left out:
Little [of anything] has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Versus:
Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The subject goes from something general to something more specific.
However, the multiple choice question didn't use have as its second word; it used has. With has, few isn't an option.
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
16 hours ago
12
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
8
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
12 hours ago
6
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
11 hours ago
4
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
10 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
This sentence would work:
Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The difference is that few requires a plural verb form. Few has is ungrammatical, but few have is fine.
Note the subtle difference in meaning based on the words that could be implied to exist but that have been left out:
Little [of anything] has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Versus:
Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The subject goes from something general to something more specific.
However, the multiple choice question didn't use have as its second word; it used has. With has, few isn't an option.
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
16 hours ago
12
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
8
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
12 hours ago
6
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
11 hours ago
4
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
10 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
This sentence would work:
Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The difference is that few requires a plural verb form. Few has is ungrammatical, but few have is fine.
Note the subtle difference in meaning based on the words that could be implied to exist but that have been left out:
Little [of anything] has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Versus:
Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The subject goes from something general to something more specific.
However, the multiple choice question didn't use have as its second word; it used has. With has, few isn't an option.
This sentence would work:
Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The difference is that few requires a plural verb form. Few has is ungrammatical, but few have is fine.
Note the subtle difference in meaning based on the words that could be implied to exist but that have been left out:
Little [of anything] has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Versus:
Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The subject goes from something general to something more specific.
However, the multiple choice question didn't use have as its second word; it used has. With has, few isn't an option.
answered 16 hours ago
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
16.3k22238
16.3k22238
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
16 hours ago
12
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
8
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
12 hours ago
6
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
11 hours ago
4
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
10 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
16 hours ago
12
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
8
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
12 hours ago
6
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
11 hours ago
4
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
10 hours ago
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
16 hours ago
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
16 hours ago
12
12
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
14 hours ago
8
8
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
12 hours ago
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
12 hours ago
6
6
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
11 hours ago
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
11 hours ago
4
4
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
10 hours ago
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
10 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
____ has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Both "few" and "little" occur as fused determiner-heads, but the former only occurs with personal plural nouns, as in Few would disagree with the decision, where we understand "few people".
By contrast, paucal "little" occurs with non-personal nouns, as in your example.
2
Do you think this OP knows what a "fused determiner-head" and "paucal" mean? I don't see the point....
– Lambie
6 hours ago
add a comment |
____ has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Both "few" and "little" occur as fused determiner-heads, but the former only occurs with personal plural nouns, as in Few would disagree with the decision, where we understand "few people".
By contrast, paucal "little" occurs with non-personal nouns, as in your example.
2
Do you think this OP knows what a "fused determiner-head" and "paucal" mean? I don't see the point....
– Lambie
6 hours ago
add a comment |
____ has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Both "few" and "little" occur as fused determiner-heads, but the former only occurs with personal plural nouns, as in Few would disagree with the decision, where we understand "few people".
By contrast, paucal "little" occurs with non-personal nouns, as in your example.
____ has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Both "few" and "little" occur as fused determiner-heads, but the former only occurs with personal plural nouns, as in Few would disagree with the decision, where we understand "few people".
By contrast, paucal "little" occurs with non-personal nouns, as in your example.
answered 7 hours ago
BillJBillJ
6,6231719
6,6231719
2
Do you think this OP knows what a "fused determiner-head" and "paucal" mean? I don't see the point....
– Lambie
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Do you think this OP knows what a "fused determiner-head" and "paucal" mean? I don't see the point....
– Lambie
6 hours ago
2
2
Do you think this OP knows what a "fused determiner-head" and "paucal" mean? I don't see the point....
– Lambie
6 hours ago
Do you think this OP knows what a "fused determiner-head" and "paucal" mean? I don't see the point....
– Lambie
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Your example sentence is perfectly fine.
The more-common problem is people misusing "less" when they should be using "fewer."
"I like leaving early because there are less cars on the road."
WRONG. There are fewer cars on the road. Saying "less cars" is as wrong as saying "I'd like fewer syrup on my pancakes, please."
The most-frequently-encountered misuse of "less" is probably at the grocery store's express lane: "15 items or less." There's a video of Weird Al online somewhere, showing him bringing a replacement sign to the store and putting it over the incorrect one.
New contributor
This doesn't answer the question, which is about using "few" as the subject of the sentence, not whether to use "fewer" or "less".
– ColleenV♦
3 hours ago
How does it not answer the question? The first thing I said is, "Your example sentence is perfectly fine." That's a direct answer to the question. What's your problem?
– Oscar
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your example sentence is perfectly fine.
The more-common problem is people misusing "less" when they should be using "fewer."
"I like leaving early because there are less cars on the road."
WRONG. There are fewer cars on the road. Saying "less cars" is as wrong as saying "I'd like fewer syrup on my pancakes, please."
The most-frequently-encountered misuse of "less" is probably at the grocery store's express lane: "15 items or less." There's a video of Weird Al online somewhere, showing him bringing a replacement sign to the store and putting it over the incorrect one.
New contributor
This doesn't answer the question, which is about using "few" as the subject of the sentence, not whether to use "fewer" or "less".
– ColleenV♦
3 hours ago
How does it not answer the question? The first thing I said is, "Your example sentence is perfectly fine." That's a direct answer to the question. What's your problem?
– Oscar
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your example sentence is perfectly fine.
The more-common problem is people misusing "less" when they should be using "fewer."
"I like leaving early because there are less cars on the road."
WRONG. There are fewer cars on the road. Saying "less cars" is as wrong as saying "I'd like fewer syrup on my pancakes, please."
The most-frequently-encountered misuse of "less" is probably at the grocery store's express lane: "15 items or less." There's a video of Weird Al online somewhere, showing him bringing a replacement sign to the store and putting it over the incorrect one.
New contributor
Your example sentence is perfectly fine.
The more-common problem is people misusing "less" when they should be using "fewer."
"I like leaving early because there are less cars on the road."
WRONG. There are fewer cars on the road. Saying "less cars" is as wrong as saying "I'd like fewer syrup on my pancakes, please."
The most-frequently-encountered misuse of "less" is probably at the grocery store's express lane: "15 items or less." There's a video of Weird Al online somewhere, showing him bringing a replacement sign to the store and putting it over the incorrect one.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 3 hours ago
OscarOscar
97
97
New contributor
New contributor
This doesn't answer the question, which is about using "few" as the subject of the sentence, not whether to use "fewer" or "less".
– ColleenV♦
3 hours ago
How does it not answer the question? The first thing I said is, "Your example sentence is perfectly fine." That's a direct answer to the question. What's your problem?
– Oscar
1 hour ago
add a comment |
This doesn't answer the question, which is about using "few" as the subject of the sentence, not whether to use "fewer" or "less".
– ColleenV♦
3 hours ago
How does it not answer the question? The first thing I said is, "Your example sentence is perfectly fine." That's a direct answer to the question. What's your problem?
– Oscar
1 hour ago
This doesn't answer the question, which is about using "few" as the subject of the sentence, not whether to use "fewer" or "less".
– ColleenV♦
3 hours ago
This doesn't answer the question, which is about using "few" as the subject of the sentence, not whether to use "fewer" or "less".
– ColleenV♦
3 hours ago
How does it not answer the question? The first thing I said is, "Your example sentence is perfectly fine." That's a direct answer to the question. What's your problem?
– Oscar
1 hour ago
How does it not answer the question? The first thing I said is, "Your example sentence is perfectly fine." That's a direct answer to the question. What's your problem?
– Oscar
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f201072%2fcan-few-be-used-as-a-subject-if-so-what-is-the-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?
– Apollys
1 hour ago