numerous abuses of "numerous" or "a number" to mean 2
One interesting Romneycampaign tic is to use “numerous” to mean two. Examples of this abuse of “numerous” follow.
1. “After extensive hearings the bipartisan [Massachusetts] Ballot Law Commission came to the same conclusion as numerous independent fact checkers in finding that Mitt Romney ended his active employment with Bain Capital in 1999.”
The numerous fact checkers are Glenn Kessler (who has since changed his mind to a least neutral) and someone at Annenberg Fact Check.
2 is indeed a number. So are 1 and 0. In this case the correct formulation is “we cite economists other than ourselves and find ZERO “empirical studies” which document “the negative effect of the administration’s ‘stimulus’ policies”
But in any case, calling two “a number” is cheating.
3. Is the title of this post another example ?
Please deal with logical paradoxes in comments.
In my world numerous implies more than two. In the same vein a “couple” can never be more than two. Now to say a “couple of studies have shown” trivializes the studies but to say “numerous studies have shown” adds authority. Defending numerous as only two would be hard to do with a straight face. However since it’s an election year I’m expecting entertainment not accuracy.
Numerous means many, and 2 is not enough. However, I think “a number of studies” could include 2 (but not 0 or 1 – “studies” is plural) – “a number of” here doesn’t tell you anything. Similarly, people sometimes write “X is a fraction of Y” to imply that X is small relative to Y, but 99/100 is a fraction, so I take the phrase to just mean X is less than Y (even though 11/10 is also a fraction).
Improperly speaking, a fraction 100/99 is also a fraction, and there are a number of those too numerous to count easily.
Where is Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert when proper analysis involves laughing and crying?
Well Dan at least there are numerous TV personalities who can respond appropriately when the proper analysis requires laughing and crying.
Numerous implies too many to easily count. So using numerous to mean “two” is probably about right considering how arithmetically challenged the Right’s tax plans are.
Maybe they meant “numinous.”