"Little" - "small - singular/plural?
Bertel Lund Hansen
In the Danish language group we are discussing a funny thing.
Adjectives have the same form in definite singular and in plural:
det grønne hus (the green house)
de grønne huse (the green houses)
with *one* exception, and that concerns the adjective "lille"
(little)
det lille hus
de små huse
We can say neither
*det små hus*
nor
*de lille huse*
Now my perception of "little" and "small" corresponds somewhat to
that, but another Dane with a solid knowledge of English says
that the two words have nothing to do with numbers.
Is that true?
I am aware that one can say
a small house
but is
seven little houses
correct?
--
Bertel
http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO: http://fiduso.dk/
James Hogg
Yes. They seven little boxes all look the same. Both adjectives can be
used in both singular and plural. Your friend is right.
--
James
Peter Moylan
refers to a dunny.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Stan Brown
> I am aware that one can say
>
> a small house
>
> but is
>
> seven little houses
>
> correct?
Yes, it is, but so is "seven small houses", and it sounds slightly
better to me.
We don't have the singular/plural distinction of "little" and
"small". Nevertheless the two are not interchangeable.
"Pour the cognac in the small glasses" or "in the small glass" --
both correct. If instead you said "little glass" or "little
glasses", it wouldn't be wrong exactly, but it would sound just a
little bit odd. ("A small bit" is definitely unidiomatic: "a little
bit" is the only possible choice.)
I don't know how to describe the rule of when to use only "little",
when to use only "small", when you could use either but one is
better, and when it makes no difference. AHD4 simply says they are
synonyms, but I don't think that's quite true.
"This little book contains all you need to know." -- "small" isn't
idiomatic.
"I prefer driving a small car" -- "little" isn't idiomatic.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I don't know how to describe the rule of when to use only "little",
> when to use only "small", when you could use either but one is
> better, and when it makes no difference. AHD4 simply says they are
> synonyms, but I don't think that's quite true.
Would it be fair to say that "small" tends to be more physical,
while "little" has connotations of cute or cosy? A fairy tale
would never be about a small girl or a small house or a small
wood, would it?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> said:
> Hi all
>
> In the Danish language group we are discussing a funny thing.
> Adjectives have the same form in definite singular and in plural:
>
> det grønne hus (the green house)
> de grønne huse (the green houses)
>
> with *one* exception, and that concerns the adjective "lille"
> (little)
>
> det lille hus
> de små huse
>
> We can say neither
>
> *det små hus*
>
> nor
>
> *de lille huse*
>
> Now my perception of "little" and "small" corresponds somewhat to
> that, but another Dane with a solid knowledge of English says
> that the two words have nothing to do with numbers.
>
> Is that true?
Yes. Many of your questions seemed to be based on the preconception
that English can be understood as a variant of Danish. It can't. Danish
has had minimal impact on the evolution of English since the 11th
Century. The changes in English since then have been huge, to the
extent that modern readers can make almost no sense of 11th Century
English.
>
> I am aware that one can say
>
> a small house
>
> but is
>
> seven little houses
>
> correct?
Yes
--
athel
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Yes. Many of your questions seemed to be based on the preconception
> that English can be understood as a variant of Danish.
Well, I'm sorry about that because that is not my understanding.
If it seems so, it is probably because I constantly try to
find/examine common features in the two languages - just like I
do in the German language group with German. I am often amazed at
the similarities in the modern versions of the Germanic languages
- not only those the languages were born with, but also the
present day trends. With many of the new developments in one
language a similar one can be found in the others.
Of course my Danish feeling sometimes plays tricks on me. That is
one of the reasons that I follow this group which gives me a
daily dose of correct English. And it is the precise reason that
I ask about "little/small" - to exclude the Danish influence from
my perception.
James Hogg
The distinction between singular "lille/liden/liten" and plural "små" is
shared by Norwegian and Swedish but not by Icelandic, so it's not Common
Scandinavian, much less Common Germanic. It's something that happened
relatively recently. ODS has examples of singular "små":
"et Slags smaa vild Spurv"
"Ros det Skib, som er smaat"
--
James
Bertel Lund Hansen
> The distinction between singular "lille/liden/liten" and plural "små" is
> shared by Norwegian and Swedish but not by Icelandic, so it's not Common
> Scandinavian, much less Common Germanic. It's something that happened
> relatively recently. ODS has examples of singular "små":
> "et Slags smaa vild Spurv"
> "Ros det Skib, som er smaat"
Have you considered joining the Danish language group? I'm not
trying to gather participants, but it just seems to me that you
might enjoy it with your extensive knowledge of Danish. You
needn't write in Danish.
James Hogg
> James Hogg skrev:
>
>> The distinction between singular "lille/liden/liten" and plural "små" is
>> shared by Norwegian and Swedish but not by Icelandic, so it's not Common
>> Scandinavian, much less Common Germanic. It's something that happened
>> relatively recently. ODS has examples of singular "små":
>
>> "et Slags smaa vild Spurv"
>> "Ros det Skib, som er smaat"
>
> Have you considered joining the Danish language group? I'm not
> trying to gather participants, but it just seems to me that you
> might enjoy it with your extensive knowledge of Danish. You
> needn't write in Danish.
I have looked in there occasionally, but not recently.
Had we but world enough, and time...
By the way, whatever happened to Jens Brix Christiansen, the other Dane
who used to contribute here regularly? And that Englishman in Denmark,
Noel (Ildhund)?
--
James
Bertel Lund Hansen
> By the way, whatever happened to Jens Brix Christiansen, the other Dane
> who used to contribute here regularly?
Jens is alive and kicking. He is still active in dk.kultur.sprog.
I don't know why he does not write here at present, but sometimes
he also disappears from the Danish group for a period.
> And that Englishman in Denmark, Noel (Ildhund)?
I do not know.
Donna Richoux
> Stan Brown skrev:
>
> > I don't know how to describe the rule of when to use only "little",
> > when to use only "small", when you could use either but one is
> > better, and when it makes no difference. AHD4 simply says they are
> > synonyms, but I don't think that's quite true.
>
> Would it be fair to say that "small" tends to be more physical,
> while "little" has connotations of cute or cosy? A fairy tale
> would never be about a small girl or a small house or a small
> wood, would it?
No, I'm afraid your examples aren't right. We say "little girl" a
zillion times more often than we say "small girl" just because it is the
customary phrase, regardless of coziness or cuteness. But if you invert
the order, the Google estimates even out:
"my children were small" 2.3 million
"my children were little" 2.4 million
and together they happen to equal another common variant:
"my children were young" 4.3 million
I could very easily imagine a house in a fairy tale described as small.
In fact, by searching on "once upon a time" as well as "small house," I
quickly turned up examples such as:
Once upon a time there was a boy named Jack. He lived with his
mother in a small house in a village. Jack and his mother were really
poor. ...
Once upon a time there lived a wee small girl with long golden hair.
She lived in a small house atop a hill overlooking a large blue bay ...
Once upon a time, a very poor husband and his wife lived in a small
house next to a rich family. The poor family rarely ate in the
morning...
[Grimm] ... they finally reached a small house, where he quietly
lay the princess, who had fallen asleep, onto a soft bed.
The MW Unabridged tries to distinguish between "small" and "little" but
I don't think they succeed. Nonetheless some of it agrees with your
proposal:
SMALL and LITTLE are often interchangeable, but SMALL
more frequently applies to things whose magnitude is
formulated in terms of number, size, capacity, value,
or significance <a small audience> <a small child> <
a small car> <small bills> <a small effect upon one's
life> <a small reputation> or modifies words like
quantity, amount, size, or capacity <a small quantity
of flour> <rooms of a small size> or limits
intangible or generally immeasurable things <a small
mind> <a small personality> <a small prospect of
succeeding> LITTLE is usually more absolute in
implication, often carrying the idea of petiteness,
pettiness, or insignificance in literal or figurative
size, amount, quantity, or extent <a little woman> <
our little ambitions> <a little mind> <a little man
in all qualities of character> <little hope of a cure>
LITTLE also often signifies a small amount, a small
quantity, or a small extent of (something) <a little
meat> <a small house and a little land> or carries a
note of pathos, tenderness, or affection <a little
heart-rending smile> <a little adorable child>
By the way, "smal" in Dutch means narrow, nothing else. "Klein" is the
all-purpose word for small/little.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Bertel Lund Hansen
> By the way, "smal" in Dutch means narrow, nothing else. "Klein" is the
> all-purpose word for small/little.
"Smal" is also a Danish word meaning "narrow" and nothing else.
"Klejn" is actually also known although not much used. "Lille" is
the all-purpose word.
Our inflected form of "little", "små", is derived from "smal(l)".
Mark Brader
> With the definite article, though, "the little house" almost always
> refers to a dunny.
Not familiar to me. (We have indoor plumbing here.)
--
Mark Brader | "This is a moral that runs at large;
Toronto | Take it. -- You're welcome. -- No extra charge."
m...@vex.net | -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Peter Moylan
> and together they happen to equal another common variant:
>
> "my children were young" 4.3 million
I never know what to make of this sort of example. My own children were
different ages at different times. I would have expected other people's
children to follow much the same development history.
Peter Moylan
>
> Had we but world enough, and time...
>
never been. Some other lines have the power to stick in our minds forever.
Marvell was not the only person to have had a problem with his mistress.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Donna Richoux wrote:
>
>> and together they happen to equal another common variant:
>>
>> "my children were young" 4.3 million
>
> I never know what to make of this sort of example. My own children were
> different ages at different times. I would have expected other people's
> children to follow much the same development history.
"my children were young" 4.3 million
"when my children were young" 3 million
"while my children were young" 500,000
and various other ways of saying "when", "while", "if", "since", "at
the time", etc.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for the female genitals that it is
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of
|modern English without inadvertently
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them.
(650)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett
Stan Brown
>
> Stan Brown skrev:
>
> > I don't know how to describe the rule of when to use only "little",
> > when to use only "small", when you could use either but one is
> > better, and when it makes no difference. AHD4 simply says they are
> > synonyms, but I don't think that's quite true.
>
> Would it be fair to say that "small" tends to be more physical,
> while "little" has connotations of cute or cosy? A fairy tale
> would never be about a small girl or a small house or a small
> wood, would it?
I think you're right -- "little" does often have connotations of
hyggelig in it.
But it can also be condescending, when used of something that is not
actually small: "Go ahead and throw your little party, but I don't
think anyone will want to come."
And "a little bit" is a synonym for "to a small degree": "I'm a
little but unsure of myself here."
Stan Brown
> On 2010-08-11 23:09:15 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
> <splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> said:
>
> > that, but another Dane with a solid knowledge of English says
> > that the two words have nothing to do with numbers.
> >
> > Is that true?
>
> Yes. Many of your questions seemed to be based on the preconception
> that English can be understood as a variant of Danish.
I didn't get that sense at all. I understood this question to be of
the variety of "I've noticed this interesting phenomenon in Language
X; I wonder whether there's something similar in English."
It is natural that someone whose native language isn't English would
*compare* English to his native language, but I don't see any
indication that he thinks of English as some sort of bastard variety
of Danish.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> It is natural that someone whose native language isn't English would
> *compare* English to his native language, but I don't see any
> indication that he thinks of English as some sort of bastard variety
> of Danish.
Thanks.