# only a few...weren't there? [tag question]



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

I'd like to know whether a positive or negative tag should be used in a sentence with "only a few":

There were only a few tourists there, were / weren't there?

Note that I'm talking about oridnary tags, not same-way tags.

I'd appreciate your help.


----------



## lingobingo

A standard tag question (asking for confirmation of your own understanding of something) is a statement followed by a tag expressed the other way:

There were, weren’t there? / There weren’t, were there?​
But your suggestion works to mean “So is it true that…?”.

There were only a few tourists, then, were there? Is that what you’re saying?​


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

The question is whether "only a few" should be negative or positive, and the choice of which tag to use depends on it.


----------



## lingobingo

It depends what you’re asking, as explained in #2.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

If "There were only a few tourists, were there?" and "There were only a few tourists, weren't there?" are both correct, what is the difference?

I'd use "were there" because I was taught that "only a few" is negative.


----------



## lingobingo

I’ve already explained that.

*Only a few* means [no more than] a small number. But that’s irrelevant to the question tag, which is the opposite (or in some cases the same!) as the *verb* in the statement.


----------



## entangledbank

'Only' causes inversion like a negative when it's pre-posed ('Only once have I seen it'), but apparently it doesn't behave like other negatives in tag questions. (This is surprising to me, as it's not the explanation I began typing!)

There was no-one there, was there? = There wasn't anyone there, was there?
You have never been there, have you?
You have only once been there, haven't you?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

lingobingo said:


> I’ve already explained that.
> 
> *Only a few* means [no more than] a small number. But that’s irrelevant to the question tag, which is the opposite (or in some cases the same!) as the *verb* in the statement.



"The opposute as the verb in the statement"? I am not sure if that's the right generalization.
Consider "There are no people in the house, are there / aren't there?" I reckon we'd use "are there" as the ordinary tag although the opposite of the verb "are" is "aren't."

The qualification "or in some cases the same" actually renders the theory vacuous, unless it can be made explicit what those cases are.


----------



## lingobingo

Let’s try again…


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> If "There were only a few tourists, were there?" and "There were only a few tourists, weren't there?" are both correct, what is the difference?
> 
> I'd use "were there" because I was taught that "only a few" is negative.


They mean different things, as I thought I’d explained in #2. 

The standard tag question format serves the purpose of seeking confirmation of your own belief, be it expressed positively or negatively: 

There *were* only a few tourists, *weren’t* there? That was certainly my impression.​There *weren’t* many tourists, *were* there? That was certainly my impression.​​Using a question tag that echoes the form of the main statement serves the purpose of challenging that statement. It’s not about what you think. but about what they think:
​There *were* only a few tourists, *were* there? Seriously? I was told there were hundreds of them!​


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

lingobingo said:


> Let’s try again…
> 
> They mean different things, as I thought I’d explained in #2.
> 
> The standard tag question format serves the purpose of seeking confirmation of your own belief, be it expressed positively or negatively:
> 
> There *were* only a few tourists, *weren’t* there? That was certainly my impression.​There *weren’t* many tourists, *were* there? That was certainly my impression.​


​​​Do "only a few" and "(very) few" have more or less the same meaning? Which (ordinary) tag would you use in the following?​​There were *few *tourists on the beach, *weren’t* /*were *there?​​Also recall the thread is about ordinary tag questions (which means the following kind you mentioned, i.e., a same-way tag question, is outside its scope).​​​​


lingobingo said:


> ​Using a question tag that *echoes the form of the main statement* serves the purpose of challenging that statement. It’s not about what you think. but about what they think:
> ​There *were* only a few tourists, *were* there? Seriously? I was told there were hundreds of them!​


----------



## lingobingo

Perhaps you’d like to check out what Wikipedia says on this subject (Tag question - Wikipedia). I seem to be wasting my breath (so to not speak).


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Wikipedia is not an authority on English usage, compared with _Practical English Usage_ by British grammarian Michael Swan. Here are two extracts from the book:





These sections concern ordinary tags. Broadly negative elements also factor into ordinary tag question formation. "Few," little," (but not "a few" or "a little") are such elements. If you agree, as many people do, that "only a few" and "(very) few" have more or less the same meaning, it logically follows that sentences with "only a few" should behave in the same way and take positive tags. But then, things do not always work out logically, and that's why I opened this thread.


----------



## heypresto

There were few tourists on the beach, weren’t there?  I'm not sure about this one.

There were *a* few tourists on the beach, weren’t there?   
There were *very *few tourists on the beach, weren’t there? 
There were* only a* few tourists on the beach, weren’t there?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> There were few tourists on the beach, weren’t there?  I'm not sure about this one.
> 
> There were *a* few tourists on the beach, weren’t there?
> There were *very *few tourists on the beach, weren’t there?
> There were* only a* few tourists on the beach, weren’t there?



Your second example, "There were *very few *tourists on the beach, *weren’t *there?" is interesting in that it follows a different pattern than Michael Swan's "He has *few *reasons for staying, *has *he?" His example uses a positive tag, whereas yours, which contains "very few," takes a negative tag.


----------



## heypresto

I'm confused. I thought you were asking about negative tags when you said " . . . a same-way tag question, is outside its scope."

We could also say:

There were a few tourists on the beach, were there?
There were very few tourists on the beach, were there? 
There were only a few tourists on the beach, were there? 

But I didn't think you were interested in these.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> I'm confused. I thought you were asking about negative tags when you said " . . . a same-way tag question, is outside its scope."



I am asking about ordinary tag questions, which can be negative or positive, depending on the polarity of the main clause.
Senteces with broadly negative elements, such as "few," "little," "seldom," and "scarcely," are considered negative for *ordinary *tag quesion formation (see the Swan extracts).

My question is essentailly whether "only a few" is considered a broadly negative element.




heypresto said:


> We could also say:
> 
> There were a few tourists on the beach, were there?
> There were very few tourists on the beach, were there?
> There were only a few tourists on the beach, were there?
> 
> But I didn't think you were interested in these.



Note that I'm asking about ordinary tag questions. I suppose the first should have been "There were *a few *tourists on the beach, *weren't *there? (as opposd to "few," "a few" is a positive element.)

The second one is normal for ordinary tag question formation. (It is not a same-way tag, although the verb form in the main clause is the same as the form at the end. The main clause of a same-way tag question has the same verb form as the form at the end, but sameness of polarity does not guarantee a sentence is a same-way tag question.)

If "only a few" is a negative element, then your third one is expected as an ordinary tag question.


----------



## heypresto

I'm sorry, this is all becoming way too complicated for me to follow. 

Let's just say that all these are possible, and correct:

There were a few tourists on the beach, weren't there?
There were very few tourists on the beach, weren't there?
There were only a few tourists on the beach, weren't there? 

There were a few tourists on the beach, were there?
There were very few tourists on the beach, were there?
There were only a few tourists on the beach, were there?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I suspect there's an important gap between what current ESL/EFL material says and what native speakers understand in this regard. Consider the following. Do you agree with the interpretations?

a. There are only a few customers today, *are *there? ( The speaker is questioning the truth of the statement or showing anger, surprise, etc.)
b. There are only a few customers today, *aren't *there? (The speaker is making an assumption or guess, and asking for confirmation.)

c. He seldom comes here, *does *he? ( The speaker is questioning the truth of the statement or showing anger, surprise, etc.)
d. He seldom comes here, *doesn't *he? (The speaker is making an assumption or guess, and asking for confirmation.)


----------



## heypresto

Yes. I believe that's what lingobingo said above.

But whatever, it appears that you have got it now.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Do you think what Swan says about the shaded examples is correct?


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, of course it’s correct. But he fails to mention that it’s not only the rare “negative ‘same-way’ tags” that can “sound aggressive”. Positively expressed ones are often used aggressively too (the intonation would show that), or at least challengingly, as I explained in #9.

A typical example, of someone picking a fight:

Oh, so you think you’re hard, do you? We’ll see about that!​


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

But look back at this example:

b. There are only a few customers today, *aren't *there? (The speaker is *making an assumption or guess, and asking for confirmation*.)

Disregarding "only a few," this is a *positive-negative* tag question.

But consider Swan's example and his explanation:

Your mother's at home, is she?

This is a *positive-positve* tag question. Yet he says of such examples, ". . . we use the main sentence to* make a guess*, and then *ask (in the tag) if this was correct*."

Presumably, "make a guess" is the same as "make an assumption or guess," and "ask (in the tag) if this was correct" is the same as "ask for confirmation."

It seems, then, that both positive-positive (or rather all same-way) and positive-negative (and possibly negative-positive as well) tag questions can be used to make a guess and ask for confirmation.


----------



## lingobingo

I really don’t know what your problem is with all this. “Your mother's at home, is she?” (while not being a very common construction) is perfectly OK to ask someone, especially a child, whether or not their mother is at home – on the assumption that she is.

But that’s not to say that the same construction can’t be used aggressively.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Let's set aside the aggressive use of tags, which is not my concern.

I just want to make sure that same-way tags *can also have the same meaning *as regular negative-positive or positive-negative tags. If so, this is something no ESL/EFL books have ever claimed.


----------



## lingobingo

Can you give an example of that?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

What kind of example are you looking for?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Your mother*'s* at home, *is *she? (a positive main clause, with a positive tag)

There *are *only a few customers today, *aren't *there? (a positive main clause, with a negative tag)

Yet both can be used to make a guess or assumption, and ask for confirmation, according to your reply in #21 (which says Swan's explanation of "Your mother's at home, is she" is correct) and heypresto's reply in #19.


----------



## sitifan

*I have* little money, *don't* I?
*I don't have* much money, *do* I?
[Grammar] I have little money, do /don't I?


----------



## lingobingo

I have little money, do I?  
(Sounds like you’re asking _yourself_ whether you have little money!)

But it could be used as a probably angry-ish response to someone else implying that you had little money:

I have little money, do I? You think I’m poor? Well, let me tell you…… ​
See the end of post #9 above.


----------



## nightowl666

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Your second example, "There were *very few *tourists on the beach, *weren’t *there?" is interesting in that it follows a different pattern than Michael Swan's "He has *few *reasons for staying, *has *he?" His example uses a positive tag, whereas yours, which contains "very few," takes a negative tag.


”Only a few" has no negative meaning. But "Few" has. So your sentence should use " weren't they?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

nightowl666 said:


> ”Only a few" has no negative meaning. But "Few" has. So your sentence should use " weren't they?



Some say "only a few" is negative in meaning:

Yankee
Sep '08

Hi Sitifan
Using the word “only” with “a few” adds a negative sense that “a few” otherwise wouldn’t have. That makes “only a few” more similar to “few”.

Usage of "only (a) few"


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Also consider what British grammarian Michael Swan says in his _Practical English Usage_:

_Little _and _few _(with no article) are rather formal. In an informal style (e.g. ordinary conversation), we generally prefer _not much/many_, or _*only a little/few*_.

_Come on! We haven’t got much time!
Only a few people remembered my birthday._

In other words, he implies that "only a little/few" is negative in meaning, just like "little" and "few."


----------



## nightowl666

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Also consider what British grammarian Michael Swan says in his _Practical English Usage_:
> 
> _Little _and _few _(with no article) are rather formal. In an informal style (e.g. ordinary conversation), we generally prefer _not much/many_, or _*only a little/few*_.
> 
> _Come on! We haven’t got much time!
> Only a few people remembered my birthday._
> 
> In other words, he implies that "only a little/few" is negative in meaning, just like "little" and "few."


" Only a few " of course has a negative sense compared with" a few". But "only a few"itself is not a phrase serving the purpose of negation. But we cannot rule out the possibility of using a negative tag on some informal occasions. In your sentence, " there were only a few tourists there, *weren't there*?" or: there were* few* tourists there, *were there*?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

nightowl666 said:


> " Only a few " of course has a negative sense compared with" a few". But "only a few"itself is not a phrase serving the purpose of negation. But we cannot rule out the possibility of using a negative tag on some informal occasions. In your sentence, " there were only a few tourists there, *weren't there*?" or: there were* few* tourists there, *were there*?



What do you mean by "a phrase serving the purpose of negation"?


----------



## nightowl666

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> What do you mean by "a phrase serving the purpose of negation"?


I mean: " only a few", unlike "seldom" is not intended to convey a totally clear meaning. If with "seldom", that's the opposite. For instance, There were seldom only a few tourists there, were there?


----------



## Loob

The difficulty for me in this thread is that I can't imagine using "few" with an 'ordinary' tag question. Tag questions are, by definition, conversational; but as you said in post 32:





raymondaliasapollyon said:


> _Little _and _few _(with no article) are rather formal.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Loob said:


> The difficulty for me in this thread is that I can't imagine using "few" with an 'ordinary' tag question. Tag questions are, by definition, conversational; but as you said in post 32:



Michael Swan recognizes the use of tags in formal speech:

E.g. They promised to repay us within six months, did they not?


----------



## sitifan

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Michael Swan recognizes the use of tags in formal speech:
> 
> E.g. They promised to repay us within six months, did they not?


Negatives are usually contracted. Full forms are possible in formal speech.
_(Practical English Usage_, Third Edition, section 487.1, page 470.)


----------



## nightowl666

A more formal, or literary, form, little used in spoken English, uses an uncontracted negative:
For example：You can play the piano, can you not? Appendix:English tag questions - Wiktionary


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

nightowl666 said:


> I mean: " only a few", unlike "seldom" is not intended to convey a totally clear meaning. If with "seldom", that's the opposite. For instance, There were seldom only a few tourists there, were there?



So you think "only a few" is not negative enough for positive question tag formation, whereas words like "seldom" are.

However, look at the sentence in post #28 by Sitifan, and lingobingo's reply in post #29:

I have little money, don't I?

Here, "little" behaves like "only a few" in that it also takes a negative tag.

Do you think "little" is also not negative enough?


----------



## nightowl666

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> So you think "only a few" is not negative enough for positive question tag formation, whereas words like "seldom" are.
> 
> However, look at the sentence in post #28 by Sitifan, and lingobingo's reply in post #29:
> 
> I have little money, don't I?
> 
> Here, "little" behaves like "only a few" in that it also takes a negative tag.


That's different. "Only a few" is used here to give an explanation of "little".


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Do you think "little" is also not negative enough?


Little=few, which means negative.  I think you should know this: "A few have come, *haven't they*?" "Only a few" means "a few only"


----------



## lingobingo

Just to confuse matters still further…

only a few = not many

But:
Only a few have come, haven’t they?
Not many have come, have they?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

nightowl666 said:


> That's different. "Only a few" is used here to give an explanation of "little".



I doubt most participants in this thread understand what that means. Care to explain?



nightowl666 said:


> Little=few, which means negative.  I think you should know this: "A few have come, *haven't they*?" "Only a few" means "a few only"



We all know ESL books say "little" is negative in force. But look at Sitifan's example, which uses "little" and shows it behaves differently from what ESL books say. In case you have not looked at the sentence closely enough, it is repeated as follows:

I have little money, don't I?

Note that it is "little" that is used, not "a little."


----------



## nightowl666

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I doubt most participants in this thread understand what that means. Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> We all know ESL books say "little" is negative in force. But look at Sitifan's example, which uses "little" and shows it behaves differently from what ESL books say. In case you have not looked the sentence closely enough, it is repeated as follows:
> 
> I have little money, don't I?
> 
> Note that it is "little" that is used, not "a little."


You have little money, do you? This is correct.


----------



## nightowl666

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "Only a few" is used here to give an explanation of "little".
> I doubt most participants in this thread understand what that means. Care to explain


I mean"little" means "only very few"， but "little" has a negative meaning even though "little" in fact does not mean nothingness or nil and nought. Anyway, your original question is:There were only a few tourists there, were / weren't there? I have explained that it should be: *weren't *there.
Simply put, "only" has nothing to with the way you use a tag question.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

nightowl666 said:


> You have little money, do you? This is correct.



That's not correct as far as ordinary question tag formation is concerned.
See lingobingo's reply in post #29, repeated as follows:

I have little money, do I? 
(Sounds like you’re asking yourself whether you have little money!)

It'd be correct as a same-way tag, though.


----------



## nightowl666

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> That's not correct as far as ordinary question tag formation is concerned.
> See lingobingo's reply in post #29, repeated as follows:
> 
> I have little money, do I?
> (Sounds like you’re asking yourself whether you have little money!)
> 
> It'd be correct as a same-way tag, though.


"*You *have little money, do *you*?" is a correct sentence. Post#29 is correct, too. In a very particular context, you can you the first person "I". You'd better consult grammar books before seeking help in the forum.


----------



## DonnyB

The original question which was asked has been answered to the best of members' ability.  However, the multiplicity of different examples being introduced subsequently has resulted in a confusing discussion which now lacks a clear focus.  Consequently, I'm now closing this thread: thanks to everyone who has participated for their contributions.  DonnyB - moderator.


----------

