many more fish

[keannu]

This "many" seems to be treated as same as "much, still, even, far, a lot" that emphasize comparatives. doesn't it? I think "way" also can be one of them.

gip101)In the 16th century, fishermen in Peru noticed something unusual. They realized that the water of the Pacific Ocean was often warmer in December. This meant they could catch many more fish than usual...

 

[Raymott]

This "many" seems to be treated as same as "much, still, even, far, a lot" that emphasize comparatives. doesn't it? I think "way" also can be one of them.

gip101)In the 16th century, fishermen in Peru noticed something unusual. They realized that the water of the Pacific Ocean was often warmer in December. This meant they could catch many more fish than usual...

You could substitute "much, far, a lot", but not "still, even". The last two don't have the same quantifying function. "Way" is very informal and regional.

 

[keannu]

You mean "many" has the same function as the ones?
What do you mean by "still, even" don't have the same meaning? "still" and "even" are quite common in that usage, which I have seen in so numerous cases.

 

[emsr2d2]

You mean "many" has the same function as the ones?
What do you mean by "still, even" don't have the same meaning? "still" and "even" are quite common in that usage, which I have seen in so numerous cases.

This meant they could catch many more fish than usual...

In this context, you can say

- "they could catch far more fish"
- "they could catch a lot more fish"
- "they could catch even more fish"

In this context, it would not mean the same to say:

- "they could catch still more fish"

It's possible to say:

- "they could catch much more fish" but it's not generally used in the context of quantities of fish.

 

[JarekSteliga]

This meant they could catch many more fish than usual...

In this context, you can say

- "they could catch far more fish"
- "they could catch a lot more fish"
- "they could catch even more fish"

In this context, it would not mean the same to say:

- "they could catch still more fish"

It's possible to say:

- "they could catch much more fish" but it's not generally used in the context of quantities of fish.

NOT A TEACHER

Are really "stil"l and "even" not in the same class, so to speak?


- "they could catch far more fish" /we do not know how many they could catch before/
- "they could catch a lot more fish" /we do not know how many they could catch before/

and then with a distinctly different meaning

- "they could catch even more fish" /we know that they could catch a lot before though not as many/
- "they could catch still more fish" /we know that they could catch a lot before though not as many/

 

[emsr2d2]

"Still/even more" would mean more than a more that had been previously stated!

Six months ago, they could catch 100 fish a day. Today, they can catch 200 fish a day. It's possible that they will be able to catch still/even more fish than that in the future.

 

[JarekSteliga]

"Still/even more" would mean more than a more that had been previously stated!

Six months ago, they could catch 100 fish a day. Today, they can catch 200 fish a day. It's possible that they will be able to catch still/even more fish than that in the future.

That is how I understand this. "Still more" and "even more" mean the same thing.

What I did not understand was why you separated the two as if they meant two different things in your post #4.

 

[keannu]

In this context, it would not mean the same to say:

- "they could catch still more fish" - Is it because "still" has the nuance of "not yet"? Then when is "still" to be allowed?

It's possible to say:

- "they could catch much more fish" but it's not generally used in the context of quantities of fish. -Is "many" used not only for fish but also for any quantity-based nouns?

 

[Raymott]

In this context, it would not mean the same to say:

- "they could catch still more fish" - Is it because "still" has the nuance of "not yet"? Then when is "still" to be allowed?

It's possible to say:

- "they could catch much more fish" but it's not generally used in the context of quantities of fish. -Is "many" used not only for fish but also for any quantity-based nouns?

No, look it's simple. In winter they can catch, say, 1000 fish. In summer, they can catch 1050 fish. That is "even more" or "still more" than 1000, but it's not "much more". If you want to say "many/much more", say 2000, you have to use the other terms.

 

[keannu]

I learned from my highschool English teacher that "much, a lot, far, still, far" can be used to emphasize comparatives, and have seen such a usage in many examples like doubling or tripling the orginal number.

But some of you say the last two(still, far) don't have such a meaning, which frustrates me. I probably have misinterepted such an exceptional usage so far.

 

[Raymott]

I learned from my highschool English teacher that "much, a lot, far, still, far" can be used to emphasize comparatives, and have seen such a usage in many examples like doubling or tripling the orginal number.

Yes, but your original question was about substituting these words for "many". Have you forgotten that?
You can say, "A has ten million dollars; B has even more - twenty million dollars." This is an emphasis, and even though 20 is indeed "much more" than 10, that is not an assertion made by the sentence. Yes, you might have been misinterpreting it.

 

[5jj]

I learned from my highschool English teacher that "much, a lot, far, still, far" can be used to emphasize comparatives, and have seen such a usage in many examples like doubling or tripling the orginal number.

But some of you say the last two(still, far) don't have such a meaning, which frustrates me. I probably have misinterepted such an exceptional usage so far.

Keannu, a lot of what teachers and books (both good and bad) tell us is general advice. There are almost no absolutes in language. I think that some of your frustration with English stems from the fact that you seem to want a watertight answer for everything; one seldom exists. Although I occasionally break my own rule, I strive not to use the words 'never' and 'always' when talking about English.

Words and the way they are put together are not science. I would guess that 99% of spoken utterances are made without planning, and many, many things are written without real thought. Grammarians and lexicographers simply try to see some form of order in what native speakers produce.

I would suggest that you try to take a slightly more relaxed approach to the language. General rules are (generally) helpful. It's not the end of the world if not everything can be neatly slotted into a precise position in some artificial grid.