Hello again,

Is "few" correct here?

To me,
"The number [of people] is few."
seems wrong.

~~~
[She's a killer]

The number of people who could deliver a kick to the balls with Aomame’s mastery must have been few indeed. She had studied kick patterns with great diligence and never missed her daily practice. In kicking the balls, the most important thing was never to hesitate.

1Q84 by Haruki Murakami, translation: Jay Rubin
~~~

Thanks again.
--
Marius Hancu

Le 15/02/2024 à 07:58, Marius_Hancu a écrit :
> Hello again,
>
> Is "few" correct here?
>
> To me,
> "The number [of people] is few."
> seems wrong.
>
> ~~~
> [She's a killer]
>
> The number of people who could deliver a kick to the balls with Aomame’s
> mastery must have been few indeed. She had studied kick patterns with
> great diligence and never missed her daily practice. In kicking the
> balls, the most important thing was never to hesitate.
> 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami, translation: Jay Rubin
> ~~~

It seems fine to me.

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+number+is+few%2Cthe+number+is+small&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>

<https://www.google.com/search?q="the+number+is+few"&tbm=bks>

Le 15/02/2024 à 08:14, Hibou a écrit :
> Le 15/02/2024 à 07:58, Marius_Hancu a écrit :
>> Hello again,
>>
>> Is "few" correct here?
>>
>> To me,
>> "The number [of people] is few."
>> seems wrong.
>>
>> ~~~
>> [She's a killer]
>>
>> The number of people who could deliver a kick to the balls with
>> Aomame’s mastery must have been few indeed. She had studied kick
>> patterns with great diligence and never missed her daily practice. In
>> kicking the balls, the most important thing was never to hesitate.
>> 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami, translation: Jay Rubin
>> ~~~
>
> It seems fine to me.
>
> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+number+is+few%2Cthe+number+is+small&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
>
> <https://www.google.com/search?q="the+number+is+few"&tbm=bks>
>

The second link breaks. Try <http://tinyurl.com/thenumisfew>

Hibou wrote:

>> Is "few" correct here?
>>
>> To me,
>> "The number [of people] is few."
>> seems wrong.
>>
>> ~~~
>> [She's a killer]
>>
>> The number of people who could deliver a kick to the balls with Aomame’s
>> mastery must have been few indeed. She had studied kick patterns with
>> great diligence and never missed her daily practice. In kicking the
>> balls, the most important thing was never to hesitate.
>> 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami, translation: Jay Rubin
>> ~~~
>
> It seems fine to me.

Not to me. A number can be small, but there can be only one number of
people here.

The number of people who could deliver a kick to the balls with
Aomame’s mastery must have been small indeed.

The people who could deliver a kick to the balls with
Aomame’s mastery must have been few indeed.

--
Bertel, Denmark

Le 15/02/2024 à 08:48, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
> Hibou wrote:
> [...]
>>> Is "few" correct here?
>>>
>>> To me,
>>> "The number [of people] is few."
>>> seems wrong.
>>>
>>> ~~~
>>> [She's a killer]
>>>
>>> The number of people who could deliver a kick to the balls with Aomame’s
>>> mastery must have been few indeed. She had studied kick patterns with
>>> great diligence and never missed her daily practice. In kicking the
>>> balls, the most important thing was never to hesitate.
>>> 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami, translation: Jay Rubin
>>> ~~~
>>
>> It seems fine to me.
>
> Not to me. A number can be small, but there can be only one number of
> people here.
>
> The number of people who could deliver a kick to the balls with
> Aomame’s mastery must have been small indeed.
>
> The people who could deliver a kick to the balls with
> Aomame’s mastery must have been few indeed.

No, a number can be few. OED 'few' sense 3.: "Of a company or number:
small."

"A few nombre of houndes" - Elyot, 1531.

"Their number assuredly has not been few" - Wordsworth, 1828.

"As their number was few..." - 'American Wool & Cotton Reporter', 1904.

If English was good enough for Jesus... - sorry; went astray there - if
a number can be few for Darwin and Wordsworth....

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...."

Hibou wrote:

>> Not to me. A number can be small, but there can be only one number of
>> people here.

> No, a number can be few. OED 'few' sense 3.: "Of a company or number:
> small."

Okay, but that doesn't change my oppinion. I promise not to shoot anyone
disagreeing, though.

> "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...."

That sentence is okay.

--
Bertel, Denmark

Le 15/02/2024 à 11:06, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
> Hibou wrote:
> [...]
>>> Not to me. A number can be small, but there can be only one number of
>>> people here.
>>
>> No, a number can be few. OED 'few' sense 3.: "Of a company or number:
>> small."
>
> Okay, but that doesn't change my oppinion. I promise not to shoot anyone
> disagreeing, though.

Well, that's kind of you.

It's idiomatic, and I don't think there's a logical problem. A number
can have various values - 1, 2, 3..., even 'legion' - so why not 'few'?

"Their number is legion" - many examples chez Google Books.

>> "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...."
>
> That sentence is okay.

(Though not actually pertinent to the point at issue. I was drifting again.)

I'm sure the author would be relieved to learn that you're not going to
harry him about it.