Can “few” be used as a subject? If so, what is the rule? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowHow can I point to the one shoe of my father's shoes?Indefinite interviewers and mostly definite childrenStruggle to be sure about the subject of this sentenceCan “either” be used for more than two items?When is 'what' used for living beings?Can “quintuple,” “sextuple,” etc. be used as determiners?Can all be used with a singular nounCan “the” be used once for a list of things instead of for each of them?Why the writer is not using “a few” in place of “few” in the following sentence?Can 'singer' be used as an uncount noun?

Go Pregnant or Go Home

How to get regions to plot as graphics

India just shot down a satellite from the ground. At what altitude range is the resulting debris field?

Robert Sheckley short story about vacation spots being overwhelmed

Implement the Thanos sorting algorithm

Science fiction (dystopian) short story set after WWIII

Whats the best way to handle refactoring a big file?

What does "Its cash flow is deeply negative" mean?

Why did we only see the N-1 starfighters in one film?

Visit to the USA with ESTA approved before trip to Iran

Term for the "extreme-extension" version of a straw man fallacy?

Why do remote companies require working in the US?

How do we know the LHC results are robust?

How to write the block matrix in LaTex?

How to safely derail a train during transit?

Unreliable Magic - Is it worth it?

Too much space between section and text in a twocolumn document

How to Reset Passwords on Multiple Websites Easily?

What do "high sea" and "carry" mean in this sentence?

What makes a siege story/plot interesting?

How can I quit an app using Terminal?

Why do professional authors make "consistency" mistakes? And how to avoid them?

Should I tutor a student who I know has cheated on their homework?

How to be diplomatic in refusing to write code that breaches the privacy of our users



Can “few” be used as a subject? If so, what is the rule?



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowHow can I point to the one shoe of my father's shoes?Indefinite interviewers and mostly definite childrenStruggle to be sure about the subject of this sentenceCan “either” be used for more than two items?When is 'what' used for living beings?Can “quintuple,” “sextuple,” etc. be used as determiners?Can all be used with a singular nounCan “the” be used once for a list of things instead of for each of them?Why the writer is not using “a few” in place of “few” in the following sentence?Can 'singer' be used as an uncount noun?










9















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?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?

    – Apollys
    Mar 18 at 22:28
















9















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?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?

    – Apollys
    Mar 18 at 22:28














9












9








9


1






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?










share|improve this question
















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 18 at 16:43









Jasper

19.2k43771




19.2k43771










asked Mar 18 at 7:29









BrainDefenestrationBrainDefenestration

584




584







  • 1





    Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?

    – Apollys
    Mar 18 at 22:28













  • 1





    Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?

    – Apollys
    Mar 18 at 22:28








1




1





Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?

– Apollys
Mar 18 at 22:28






Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?

– Apollys
Mar 18 at 22:28











4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















30














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.






share|improve this answer

























  • Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.

    – Borgh
    Mar 19 at 11:23











  • But it changes the meaning

    – Kshitij Singh
    Mar 19 at 11:37











  • Exactly the point.

    – Borgh
    Mar 19 at 14:22


















7














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.






share|improve this answer























  • "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
    Mar 18 at 8:04







  • 14





    @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
    Mar 18 at 9:29






  • 9





    @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
    Mar 18 at 11:58






  • 7





    @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
    Mar 18 at 12:29






  • 5





    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
    Mar 18 at 13:11


















1















____ 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.



Edit: For those not familiar with the term 'fusion', as used to describe "few" and "little", it means that a determiner and the noun it determines (the 'head') are combined, or fused, into a single word. For example, "few" is a determinative combining the functions of determiner and head, hence the term 'fused determiner-head'.






share|improve this answer

























  • so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?

    – WendyG
    Mar 19 at 10:29











  • @WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.

    – BillJ
    Mar 19 at 10:37


















0














Groups of people have often been described as "The Few" or "The Many":



  • "We happy few..." (Play title, Henry V)

  • "The Many" (dictionary definition)

Casting these as definite nouns, is used to emphasise their commonality as a group (the few as a group, or the many as a group). As such, they are also in principle a countable number, although in practice that often isn't done or expected.



But in your situation, you want a comparative ("not a lot") and not a countable specific small number. For that, little is the correct word.






share|improve this answer























    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
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    30














    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.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.

      – Borgh
      Mar 19 at 11:23











    • But it changes the meaning

      – Kshitij Singh
      Mar 19 at 11:37











    • Exactly the point.

      – Borgh
      Mar 19 at 14:22















    30














    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.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.

      – Borgh
      Mar 19 at 11:23











    • But it changes the meaning

      – Kshitij Singh
      Mar 19 at 11:37











    • Exactly the point.

      – Borgh
      Mar 19 at 14:22













    30












    30








    30







    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.






    share|improve this answer















    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.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Mar 18 at 16:40









    Jasper

    19.2k43771




    19.2k43771










    answered Mar 18 at 7:32









    Kshitij SinghKshitij Singh

    1,387218




    1,387218












    • Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.

      – Borgh
      Mar 19 at 11:23











    • But it changes the meaning

      – Kshitij Singh
      Mar 19 at 11:37











    • Exactly the point.

      – Borgh
      Mar 19 at 14:22

















    • Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.

      – Borgh
      Mar 19 at 11:23











    • But it changes the meaning

      – Kshitij Singh
      Mar 19 at 11:37











    • Exactly the point.

      – Borgh
      Mar 19 at 14:22
















    Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.

    – Borgh
    Mar 19 at 11:23





    Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.

    – Borgh
    Mar 19 at 11:23













    But it changes the meaning

    – Kshitij Singh
    Mar 19 at 11:37





    But it changes the meaning

    – Kshitij Singh
    Mar 19 at 11:37













    Exactly the point.

    – Borgh
    Mar 19 at 14:22





    Exactly the point.

    – Borgh
    Mar 19 at 14:22













    7














    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • "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
      Mar 18 at 8:04







    • 14





      @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
      Mar 18 at 9:29






    • 9





      @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
      Mar 18 at 11:58






    • 7





      @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
      Mar 18 at 12:29






    • 5





      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
      Mar 18 at 13:11















    7














    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • "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
      Mar 18 at 8:04







    • 14





      @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
      Mar 18 at 9:29






    • 9





      @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
      Mar 18 at 11:58






    • 7





      @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
      Mar 18 at 12:29






    • 5





      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
      Mar 18 at 13:11













    7












    7








    7







    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.






    share|improve this answer













    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.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Mar 18 at 7:55









    Jason BassfordJason Bassford

    16.8k22238




    16.8k22238












    • "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
      Mar 18 at 8:04







    • 14





      @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
      Mar 18 at 9:29






    • 9





      @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
      Mar 18 at 11:58






    • 7





      @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
      Mar 18 at 12:29






    • 5





      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
      Mar 18 at 13:11

















    • "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
      Mar 18 at 8:04







    • 14





      @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
      Mar 18 at 9:29






    • 9





      @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
      Mar 18 at 11:58






    • 7





      @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
      Mar 18 at 12:29






    • 5





      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
      Mar 18 at 13:11
















    "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
    Mar 18 at 8:04






    "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
    Mar 18 at 8:04





    14




    14





    @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
    Mar 18 at 9:29





    @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
    Mar 18 at 9:29




    9




    9





    @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
    Mar 18 at 11:58





    @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
    Mar 18 at 11:58




    7




    7





    @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
    Mar 18 at 12:29





    @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
    Mar 18 at 12:29




    5




    5





    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
    Mar 18 at 13:11





    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
    Mar 18 at 13:11











    1















    ____ 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.



    Edit: For those not familiar with the term 'fusion', as used to describe "few" and "little", it means that a determiner and the noun it determines (the 'head') are combined, or fused, into a single word. For example, "few" is a determinative combining the functions of determiner and head, hence the term 'fused determiner-head'.






    share|improve this answer

























    • so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?

      – WendyG
      Mar 19 at 10:29











    • @WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.

      – BillJ
      Mar 19 at 10:37















    1















    ____ 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.



    Edit: For those not familiar with the term 'fusion', as used to describe "few" and "little", it means that a determiner and the noun it determines (the 'head') are combined, or fused, into a single word. For example, "few" is a determinative combining the functions of determiner and head, hence the term 'fused determiner-head'.






    share|improve this answer

























    • so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?

      – WendyG
      Mar 19 at 10:29











    • @WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.

      – BillJ
      Mar 19 at 10:37













    1












    1








    1








    ____ 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.



    Edit: For those not familiar with the term 'fusion', as used to describe "few" and "little", it means that a determiner and the noun it determines (the 'head') are combined, or fused, into a single word. For example, "few" is a determinative combining the functions of determiner and head, hence the term 'fused determiner-head'.






    share|improve this answer
















    ____ 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.



    Edit: For those not familiar with the term 'fusion', as used to describe "few" and "little", it means that a determiner and the noun it determines (the 'head') are combined, or fused, into a single word. For example, "few" is a determinative combining the functions of determiner and head, hence the term 'fused determiner-head'.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Mar 19 at 9:23

























    answered Mar 18 at 16:26









    BillJBillJ

    6,7511819




    6,7511819












    • so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?

      – WendyG
      Mar 19 at 10:29











    • @WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.

      – BillJ
      Mar 19 at 10:37

















    • so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?

      – WendyG
      Mar 19 at 10:29











    • @WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.

      – BillJ
      Mar 19 at 10:37
















    so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?

    – WendyG
    Mar 19 at 10:29





    so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?

    – WendyG
    Mar 19 at 10:29













    @WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.

    – BillJ
    Mar 19 at 10:37





    @WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.

    – BillJ
    Mar 19 at 10:37











    0














    Groups of people have often been described as "The Few" or "The Many":



    • "We happy few..." (Play title, Henry V)

    • "The Many" (dictionary definition)

    Casting these as definite nouns, is used to emphasise their commonality as a group (the few as a group, or the many as a group). As such, they are also in principle a countable number, although in practice that often isn't done or expected.



    But in your situation, you want a comparative ("not a lot") and not a countable specific small number. For that, little is the correct word.






    share|improve this answer



























      0














      Groups of people have often been described as "The Few" or "The Many":



      • "We happy few..." (Play title, Henry V)

      • "The Many" (dictionary definition)

      Casting these as definite nouns, is used to emphasise their commonality as a group (the few as a group, or the many as a group). As such, they are also in principle a countable number, although in practice that often isn't done or expected.



      But in your situation, you want a comparative ("not a lot") and not a countable specific small number. For that, little is the correct word.






      share|improve this answer

























        0












        0








        0







        Groups of people have often been described as "The Few" or "The Many":



        • "We happy few..." (Play title, Henry V)

        • "The Many" (dictionary definition)

        Casting these as definite nouns, is used to emphasise their commonality as a group (the few as a group, or the many as a group). As such, they are also in principle a countable number, although in practice that often isn't done or expected.



        But in your situation, you want a comparative ("not a lot") and not a countable specific small number. For that, little is the correct word.






        share|improve this answer













        Groups of people have often been described as "The Few" or "The Many":



        • "We happy few..." (Play title, Henry V)

        • "The Many" (dictionary definition)

        Casting these as definite nouns, is used to emphasise their commonality as a group (the few as a group, or the many as a group). As such, they are also in principle a countable number, although in practice that often isn't done or expected.



        But in your situation, you want a comparative ("not a lot") and not a countable specific small number. For that, little is the correct word.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Mar 19 at 7:00









        StilezStilez

        22514




        22514



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Masuk log Menu navigasi

            Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

            Старые Смолеговицы Содержание История | География | Демография | Достопримечательности | Примечания | НавигацияHGЯOLHGЯOL41 206 832 01641 606 406 141Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области«Переписная оброчная книга Водской пятины 1500 года», С. 793«Карта Ингерманландии: Ивангорода, Яма, Копорья, Нотеборга», по материалам 1676 г.«Генеральная карта провинции Ингерманландии» Э. Белинга и А. Андерсина, 1704 г., составлена по материалам 1678 г.«Географический чертёж над Ижорскою землей со своими городами» Адриана Шонбека 1705 г.Новая и достоверная всей Ингерманландии ланткарта. Грав. А. Ростовцев. СПб., 1727 г.Топографическая карта Санкт-Петербургской губернии. 5-и верстка. Шуберт. 1834 г.Описание Санкт-Петербургской губернии по уездам и станамСпецкарта западной части России Ф. Ф. Шуберта. 1844 г.Алфавитный список селений по уездам и станам С.-Петербургской губернииСписки населённых мест Российской Империи, составленные и издаваемые центральным статистическим комитетом министерства внутренних дел. XXXVII. Санкт-Петербургская губерния. По состоянию на 1862 год. СПб. 1864. С. 203Материалы по статистике народного хозяйства в С.-Петербургской губернии. Вып. IX. Частновладельческое хозяйство в Ямбургском уезде. СПб, 1888, С. 146, С. 2, 7, 54Положение о гербе муниципального образования Курское сельское поселениеСправочник истории административно-территориального деления Ленинградской области.Топографическая карта Ленинградской области, квадрат О-35-23-В (Хотыницы), 1930 г.АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1933, С. 27, 198АрхивированоАдминистративно-экономический справочник по Ленинградской области. — Л., 1936, с. 219АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1966, с. 175АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1973, С. 180АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1990, ISBN 5-289-00612-5, С. 38АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб., 2007, с. 60АрхивированоКоряков Юрий База данных «Этно-языковой состав населённых пунктов России». Ленинградская область.Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб, 1997, ISBN 5-86153-055-6, С. 41АрхивированоКультовый комплекс Старые Смолеговицы // Электронная энциклопедия ЭрмитажаПроблемы выявления, изучения и сохранения культовых комплексов с каменными крестами: по материалам работ 2016-2017 гг. в Ленинградской области