I can’t find the post (I held on to the quote below when I found it but stupidly did not save a link), but Capella wrote the following a while back:
I will never see the train people again and therefore will not have to participate in endless debates about whether “a couple hours” is or is not much less than four, the obvious answer being that “a couple” is “two”, and that if you are going to tell someone you will call them and not do so you should be prepared for towering rage.
A “couple” for me actually isn’t two. I mean, I realize that’s the definition, but I consider it an approximation wherein it is more than one, but could be more. In fact, I used to think that couple, except when specifically referencing a male-female paring, did explicitly allow for three. Here are some other definitions I tend to go by:
Couple = 2 or 3 (maybe four)
Few = 3 to 5 (maybe six)
Handful = 4 to 6
Bunch = 6-15 (maybe more, depending on the scope of the reference)
Several = 7 to 9
Ten = 10
Dozen = 11 to 13
What do you guys think when you hear someone make a reference to these quantities?
About the Author
3 Responses to Vague Quantitative Definitions
Leave a Reply
please enter your email address on this page.
For the most part I agree. The one difference is that I’d limit “couple” to two people or things, with “a few” taking over at the count of three.
Also, on a different note, I never think of “handful” as being applied to people. It’s pretty much reserved for inanimate things.
Yeah, “handful” is limited in application. I wouldn’t say “a handful of hours” for instance. I might say “handful of people”, but it’s more likely I’d use one of the other options.
“Also, on a different note, I never think of “handful” as being applied to people. It’s pretty much reserved for inanimate things.”
Family Guy reference: “Handful of Peter.”