Language desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 11[edit]

The numbers[edit]

Joe Bloggs is working behind the scenes to challenge Boris Johnson for the leadership, but does not yet have the numbers.

I'm interested in why we say "the numbers" in cases like this, when what Bloggs is lacking is "the number" of MPs who would vote for him. There is only one number of any interest, viz. whatever 50% +1 of the parliamentary party is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably parallel to "Strength in numbers". AnonMoos (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that there are at least two relevant numbers: those for him and those not for him. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he's only interested in maximising those for him. The bigger one number, the smaller the other: two sides of the same coin. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to know both numbers to see if you should place your bet on Mr. Briggs – unless you know the size of the relevant parliamentary fraction, which is then also a second number, next to that of those in favour of ousting the current PM. If the MPs can abstain in the leadership election, you really need the number of those against. --Lambiam 01:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks you're overthinking this. Nobody knows in advance whether anyone's going to abstain, and if so, how many, so let's just assume there will be no abstentions. If the group of people who collectively decide who the leader of the party is consists of 650 people, then Mr Bloggs (not Briggs) needs at least 326 to vote for him to be confident in mounting a challenge. That's the only number of any real interest to him. If he knows he has 310 and only 310, then "he doesn't have the numbers". That concept could just as easily, and more accurately, be expressed as "he doesn't have the number". Yet we usually prefer to use the plural form of the word. My query is, why. I guess idiom covers it, but is that the whole answer? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks you're the one who's overthinking. But hey, maybe someone can cite a source that addresses the question. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The journo reporting such a statement needs to combine (and therefore know) at least two numbers – in the example 310 and 650 – and do a little calculation with them to see that 310 ≯ 650 − 310. In more general cases, like an election, to assess a candidate's odds may require one to look at lots of numbers – different polls in different districts among different demographics – and to have does not need to mean to possess; it can also mean to get as a reading, measurement, or result (as in "the patient had 40 mL of drainage"). --Lambiam 14:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being too literal in interpretation. It doesn't mean "we need to know the number of supporters and the number of opponents, so we can know if we can win". It means "we don't have a large enough number of supporters". See definition 2.3 here. Iapetus (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure to whom you're responding, but that is exactly the point. "A large enough number" is one single number, not many numbers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a reply to the anon. who had said "I suggest that there are at least two relevant numbers: those for him and those not for him." Iapetus (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]