[Vocabulary] too much / far too much

[milan2003_07]

Hello,

There is far too much staff here in this room

There is too much staff here in this room

What's the difference between "too much" and "far too much"?

Thanks

 

[Richard1]

Hi,

First of all the word is 'many' not 'much' and the verb person is 'are' not 'is'

Then the difference is merely one of degree or emphasis. '...far too many' expresses a stronger point that just '...too many'.

Regards

 

[milan2003_07]

Hi,

First of all the word is 'many' not 'much' and the verb person is 'are' not 'is'

Then the difference is merely one of degree or emphasis. '...far too many' expresses a stronger point that just '...too many'.

Regards

I agree with "are", but I don't think "much" is wrong because "staff" can be used as an uncount noun.

Do "too much/many" and "far too much/many" both mean there are more people than necessary or the room holds? "Far too much" only adds emphasis, doesn't it, and doesn't add anything to the total amount/number of people present?

 

[Richard1]

Hi

Don't get too hung up on fringe areas of English like counted/uncounted nouns. I see reference to them on the internet but I can honestly say that I've never consciously ever considered them in all my 60+ years. Just believe me one would never say too much staff, it's just wrong.

The phrases don't offer any comment on what is 'necessary' or how many the room should hold. They are just making the implied point that it's uncomfortable having so many staff, and yes 'far too many' just adds emphasis.

Regards

 

[milan2003_07]

Just believe me one would never say too much staff, it's just wrong.

Please take a look at much staff -

http://www.google.ru/search?hl=ru&newwindow=1&q=many+staff&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Both seem to be used.

 

[Verona_82]

Oxford and Longman say both sg and pl verbs are possible
The entire staff has done an outstanding job this year.

But Swan insists on regarding "staff" as a plural noun that takes a plural verb.
(It's extremely difficult to learn a language when grammars and grammarians themselves cannot reach agreement)

Perhaps in Milan's example it's more reasonable to view 'staf' as a collection of individuals rather than a sigle unit, therefore 'many' and 'are' may seem more appropriate there.

There are far too many staff members here in the room

 

[5jj]

How can we learn a language if grammars and grammarians themselves cannot reach agreement? (a rhe[STRIKE]u[/STRIKE]torical question )

If everybody agreed, we self-appointed experts would be out of a job:-(.

I am not normally in favour of the 'take my word for it' approach, but I have to agree with Richard, (wholeheartedly with regard to the sentences in milan's first post): "Just believe me one would never say too much staff, it's just wrong." At least, in BrE.

I liked Verona's suggestion: There are far too many staff members here in the room.

 

[milan2003_07]

If everybody agreed, we self-appointed experts would be out of a job:-(.

I am not normally in favour of the 'take my word for it' approach, but I have to agree with Richard, (wholeheartedly with regard to the sentences in milan's first post): "Just believe me one would never say too much staff, it's just wrong." At least, in BrE.

I liked Verona's suggestion: There are far too many staff members here in the room.

OK, but what do you think about those links that I've provided in my message above?

 

[5jj]

OK, but what do you think about those links that I've provided in my message above?

I prefer not to think about them;-).

Sorry, it's past my bed time. I'll have a good look at them later.

 

[Richard1]

OK, but what do you think about those links that I've provided in my message above?

The link took me to a page where there was much mention of 'many staff' but I could see no mention of 'much staff' and nothing to support your suggestion that such a phrase is in use.

Please clarify your point.

Rgds

 

[milan2003_07]

I prefer not to think about them;-).

Sorry, it's past my bed time. I'll have a good look at them later.

Looking forward to your comments on them.

 

[5jj]

Please take a look at much staff - many staff -

I've looked at your links, and at other places, too.

While 'staff' is commonly used as non-count, especially in AmE, it is comparatively rare in combination with 'much.' or 'little'. Even in one of your links, in which the title of the article was 'How much staff should a doctor have?', that was the only use of 'much staff'. In the article itself, the writer used 'How many staffers'.

From my admittedly superficial reading, it appears that people prefer the plural form when they are fairly clearly thinking of a number of members of staff. So, in #1 below, many speakers of BrE might use 'are', but most would find 'is' acceptable.

1. The staff [seen as a whole body] is behind you on this.

However, as soon as we introduce the idea of plural people (as implied by the underlined words in #2], 'is' sounds less acceptable:

2. All/Most/Some/ of the staff are behind you on this.

In the original sentence, "There is far too much staff here in this room", there is a clear idea of a lot of people. Richard's "one would never say too much staff, it's just wrong" is, on reflection, too harsh. Rewrite it as , "almost no speaker of BrE would ever say too much staff, it just sounds wrong", and I agree. Wholeheartedly.