| |
Main
Date: 10 Aug 2006 17:53:12
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: I'm puzzled
|
In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in describing
the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
order):
a few
several
many
lots
some
Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
qualify for each term?
This has troubled me for years.
--
Martin R. Howell
"The Astro Post"
www.theastropost.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 19:00:30
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
"Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com > wrote in message
news:1xo6r7sxpdyy9.1htzqbrzyivu7.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in
> describing
> the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
> order):
>
> a few
> several
> many
> lots
> some
>
> Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
> denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
> qualify for each term?
>
> This has troubled me for years.
>
>
> --
> Martin R. Howell
>
> "The Astro Post"
> www.theastropost.com
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
You forgot to mention "a shitload" which has been determined to mean 'more
than eight'...
--
Jan Owen
To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2006 01:41:07
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:53:12 -0700, "Martin R. Howell"
<martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com > wrote:
>In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in describing
>the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
>order):
>
>a few
>several
>many
>lots
>some
>
>Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
>denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
>qualify for each term?
Context is everything.
A FEW tumors is a LOT (too MANY), but a FEW pennies isn't much at all
(you need MANY to do much with them).
When a lion shows you a FEW teeth, it's time to worry. When a hillbilly
shows a FEW, you have to try not to laugh.
>This has troubled me for years.
We should all have such troubles. <g >
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 21:13:39
From: John Steinberg
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
Martin R. Howell wrote:
> In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in describing
> the absolute quantity to which they refer.
> They are (in no particular
> order):
> a few
More than two.
> several
Zsa Zsa Gabor's or Liz Taylor's spousal inventory. IOW, between 5-8.
> many
Very context sensitive. However, many stars in a FOV would likely
exceed 11, though.
Here's a little experiment you can try on the home audience:
Ask a group to recall a sequence of 10 random single digit numbers.
Score their performance. Next, increase it to 11 random single digits
numbers and score that. What will you find, based upon a random
sampling?
A very steep drop off in recollection for the 11 number sequence. But
don't just believe me, try it out and see for yourself.
> lots
Less than many, more than several.
> some
Over three, less than five.
> This has troubled me for years.
Lots or just some?
--
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2006 01:18:34
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
Martin R. Howell wrote:
> In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in describing
> the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
> order):
>
> a few
> several
> many
> lots
> some
>
> Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
> denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
> qualify for each term?
>
> This has troubled me for years.
>
You will soon be even more puzzled, Martin ;)
Phil
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2006 01:46:35
From: T.T.
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
"Phil Wheeler" <wt6uh-ng7@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:KVQCg.12123$Ta6.1491@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Martin R. Howell wrote:
>> In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in
>> describing
>> the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
>> order):
>>
>> a few
>> several
>> many lots
>> some
>>
>> Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
>> denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
>> qualify for each term?
>>
>> This has troubled me for years.
>>
>
> You will soon be even more puzzled, Martin ;)
>
> Phil
How mant tads in a smidgeon?
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2006 12:18:47
From: Ed T
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
"T.T." <tonyt92@yahoo.com > wrote in message
> How mant tads in a smidgeon?
Just a skosh.
Ed T.
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 18:09:17
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
> a few = A few, as in like the handle of the big dipper which is made up
> of a few stars.
> several = several stars have been found to have planets around them. No
> number, it can be a big number or a small number.
> many = Like in the one above no "Number" is used, as like Many of the
> stars seen from earth are many many lightyears from earth.
> lots = Again no number is asigned, It can be used like this "We have found
> that there are lots of planets out in deep space.
> some = Of all the Stars of the Milkyway, some of them are found to be so
> dim and small as to almost not be counted as full stars.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com > wrote in message
news:1xo6r7sxpdyy9.1htzqbrzyivu7.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in
> describing
> the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
> order):
>
> a few
> several
> many
> lots
> some
>
> Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
> denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
> qualify for each term?
>
> This has troubled me for years.
>
>
> --
> Martin R. Howell
>
> "The Astro Post"
> www.theastropost.com
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 21:08:16
From: reconair
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
"some" is more than a "few", but less than "many" which is less than
"several". "Lots" on the otherhand, is relative and can mean any of the
terms by whoever interprets the number. "Lots" could even be a perception
which is like opinions, and you know everyone has one of those, including
me.
Cheers,
Scott
"Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com > wrote in message
news:1xo6r7sxpdyy9.1htzqbrzyivu7.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in
> describing
> the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
> order):
>
> a few
> several
> many
> lots
> some
>
> Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
> denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
> qualify for each term?
>
> This has troubled me for years.
>
>
> --
> Martin R. Howell
>
> "The Astro Post"
> www.theastropost.com
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 21:12:54
From: reconair
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
Let me rephase that, I misspoke:
"some" is more than a "few", but less than "many" which is more than
"several". "Lots" on the otherhand, is relative and can mean any of the
terms by whoever interprets the number. "Lots" could even be a perception
which is like opinions, and you know everyone has one of those, including
me.
"reconair" <reconair@staffnet.com > wrote in message
news:12dnm41dkm0o088@corp.supernews.com...
> "some" is more than a "few", but less than "many" which is less than
> "several". "Lots" on the otherhand, is relative and can mean any of the
> terms by whoever interprets the number. "Lots" could even be a perception
> which is like opinions, and you know everyone has one of those, including
> me.
>
> Cheers,
> Scott
> "Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com> wrote in message
> news:1xo6r7sxpdyy9.1htzqbrzyivu7.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>> In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in
>> describing
>> the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
>> order):
>>
>> a few
>> several
>> many
>> lots
>> some
>>
>> Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
>> denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
>> qualify for each term?
>>
>> This has troubled me for years.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin R. Howell
>>
>> "The Astro Post"
>> www.theastropost.com
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2006 21:15:06
From: Al
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
Reminds me of a cartoon (or do I mean comic strip?) that I saw. The cartoon
was a single frame of two auto mechanics leaning into the open bonnet (some
might say the open hood) of a car, and the first is saying "how many thou's
in an inch?" and the other replies "dunno - must be hundreds..."
Sorry
Al
"Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com > wrote in message
news:1xo6r7sxpdyy9.1htzqbrzyivu7.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in
> describing
> the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
> order):
>
> a few
> several
> many
> lots
> some
>
> Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
> denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
> qualify for each term?
>
> This has troubled me for years.
>
>
> --
> Martin R. Howell
>
> "The Astro Post"
> www.theastropost.com
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2006 03:29:05
From: What Group!?
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
"Martin R. Howell" wrote:
> In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in describing
> the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
> order):
>
> a few
> several
> many
> lots
> some
>
> Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
> denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
> qualify for each term?
>
> This has troubled me for years.
>
> --
> Martin R. Howell
Also troubled about crop circles and the new Wendy's Melt?
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2006 12:50:49
From: Joe S.
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
"Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com > wrote in message
news:1xo6r7sxpdyy9.1htzqbrzyivu7.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in
> describing
> the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
> order):
>
> a few
> several
> many
> lots
> some
>
> Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
> denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
> qualify for each term?
>
> This has troubled me for years.
>
>
> --
> Martin R. Howell
>
> "The Astro Post"
> www.theastropost.com
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
You forgot:
-- smidgen
-- tad
-- little bit
-- whole bunch
-- mess (usually applied only to vegetables, e.g. "Sweet Thing cooked up a
mess of fresh collard greens this morning and I et 'em till I was about to
bust!!")
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2006 13:12:55
From: David G. Nagel
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
Joe S. wrote:
> "Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com> wrote in message
> news:1xo6r7sxpdyy9.1htzqbrzyivu7.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>>In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in
>>describing
>>the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
>>order):
>>
>>a few
>>several
>>many
>>lots
>>some
>>
>>Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
>>denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
>>qualify for each term?
>>
>>This has troubled me for years.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Martin R. Howell
>>
>>"The Astro Post"
>>www.theastropost.com
>>
>>--
>>Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>
>
>
> You forgot:
> -- smidgen
> -- tad
> -- little bit
> -- whole bunch
> -- mess (usually applied only to vegetables, e.g. "Sweet Thing cooked up a
> mess of fresh collard greens this morning and I et 'em till I was about to
> bust!!")
>
>
Don't forget the ultimate engineering measurement that can't be
mentioned in a family setting.... :^)...
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2006 19:20:50
From: T.T.
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
"David G. Nagel" <nagel@core.com > wrote in message
news:12dpi5b924n4199@corp.supernews.com...
> Joe S. wrote:
>
>> "Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:1xo6r7sxpdyy9.1htzqbrzyivu7.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>>>In the English language we seem to have terms which are vague in
>>>describing
>>>the absolute quantity to which they refer. They are (in no particular
>>>order):
>>>
>>>a few
>>>several
>>>many
>>>lots
>>>some
>>>
>>>Would somebody be so kind as to rank these in order of the quantity they
>>>denote? What is the least number of stars in a field of view that would
>>>qualify for each term?
>>>
>>>This has troubled me for years.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Martin R. Howell
>>>
>>>"The Astro Post"
>>>www.theastropost.com
>>>
>>>--
>>>Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> You forgot:
>> -- smidgen
>> -- tad
>> -- little bit
>> -- whole bunch
>> -- mess (usually applied only to vegetables, e.g. "Sweet Thing cooked up
>> a mess of fresh collard greens this morning and I et 'em till I was about
>> to bust!!")
>
> Don't forget the ultimate engineering measurement that can't be mentioned
> in a family setting.... :^)...
I've been trying to think how to mention it. I believe it is universal and
known in every language.
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2006 00:18:05
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: I'm puzzled
|
A few = more than one star.
Some = more than one star.
Several = more than two stars.
Many = more stars than can be easily counted.
Lots = more stars than can be easily counted.
These terms are often used when the exact number of stars cannot be
easily discerned, such as when some of the stars fade in and out of
view over various time spans; or when there are too many stars to
easily count.
Willie R. Meghar
|
|
