Today will see the announcement by the BBC of who will replace David Tennant in the role of Doctor Who. This, while not exactly the lead story, has made the national news on all the channels. I'm moderately interested but what caught my attention particularly was this comment on the BBC news.
"David Tennant is the tenth of several actors to play the Doctor."
There seems to be something odd about it to me. I can't quite put my finger on it but the phrase "tenth of several" seems wrong. Ten seems too many to be part of several, especially as the phrasing (tenth rather than last or most recent) seems to imply that there were more after him so that the number he is part of is even bigger.
Any opinions.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
Originally posted by arnie: He is of course the tenth of eleven actors to play the Doctor as the latest (to be announced) has already recorded at least one episode.
Perish the thought that I should be pedantic but even without the new guy I make it at least eleven and possibly twelve or thirteen depending what you are willing to count. But definitely eleven.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
According to MW, several is more than two but not many. If you are going to compare "ten" to another quantity, that quantity should be part of the equation and not some abstract term like "several".
Originally posted by Proofreader: According to MW, several is more than two but not many. If you are going to compare "ten" to another quantity, that quantity should be part of the equation and not some abstract term like "several".
I checked MW and others and they all have variations on "more than two (very specific) but less than many (very vague)".
It does seem from the replies that people generally find the sentence a bit odd though for various reasons.
I still can't quite put my finger on my objection. "One of several", "Two of several", "Three of several" all sound OK to me but "Ninety of Several", "Twenty of several" and "|Ten of several" don't.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
I wondered how many is many, too, when I read this thread. I found it curious, for example, that without specifically defining many, MW defines several in terms of many, which isn't explicitly defined. I suppose because of the "sev" in several, I had always been told that several was about 7.
In looking up many on Onelook and the OED, I was surprised at how large a number many is supposed to indicate. There were definitions such as numerous, indefinite, a great or considerable number or consisting of a great number.
I thought we had "many" over for Thanksgiving, and we only had 15...not an indefinite number!
Shu and I had a discussion about "several" tonight, and I guess my view of the word is not in synch with the dictionary's (nice way of not saying I'm wrong, right?). I think of several as being at least 7 or more. I don't know where I got 7, but I think I learned it in school. The dictionaries say it's more than 2 - one says it's more than 1. If I said I had several children, people would never think I only had 3.
I'm also puzzled by "myriad." When one says "...myriad something or other," it suggests to me a meatphorical usage, but when, as is now common, one says, "a myriad of something or other," I assume the author means exactly ten thousand. I suppose it depends on which part of speech one considers it to be.
