G.I. Guarantee Watch: Dr. Word discusses the many meanings of “many”

by David Safier

I already posted about a letter I received from Starlee Rhoades, Vice President of External Affairs at the Goldwater Institute. It was in response to my insisting Matthew Ladner made an error when he wrote Arizona school districts have "an almost 1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio."

The letter stated Ladner used the term "bureaucrat" correctly:

"We believe the term bureaucrat accurately describes many of the employees in question and is a fair use of the term."

That started me thinking. What does "many of the employees" mean? So I asked Dr. Word.

"You promised not to drag me into this labyrinth, damn you!" Dr. Word answered. "Even thinking about that 1-to-1 statement makes me want to bang my head against the wall to make the pain stop. But since you asked," he closed his eyes and rubbed his temples, "'many of the employees' doesn't mean a hell of a lot."

He went on to explain that "many" is sometimes called a "quantifier," part of the few-many-most group, but the quantity it alludes to is vague.

As an example, Dr. Word gave me this sentence: "Many trees lose all their leaves by October." He asked me to picture the trees in question. I closed my eyes and saw about 25% leafless.

"See?" he said, "You might see 25%, someone else might see 60%. 'Many' is a relative term, but in most cases, it doesn't mean the vast majority. As a matter of fact, sometimes it is only a small percentage of the whole.

"Let's suppose," he continued (I could see he was growing more interested), "that on an average day, about 5% of the employees of the Goldwater Institute call in sick. Then, in the middle of swine flu season, the number goes up, and someone says, 'Wow, many people called in sick today.' That could be as few as 15%, yet 'many' is still the proper term, since it's 3 times normal.

"Now, what if we changed the sentence to, 'Wow, most people called in sick today'?' That is more than 50%, correct?"

I agreed. I pictured 60% or 70% of the G.I. employees home sick (I smiled to myself, not because of the discomfort people were experiencing, but because of the thought G.I. wouldn't do much harm that day).

"So you're telling me," I said, "that the phrase in Starlee Rhoades' letter, 'many of the employees in question' could mean the term 'bureaucrat' fits as few a 25% of the people who are not teachers?"

"Yes, grasshopper — ouch!" he said, wincing, when he realized he referred to me using a term from one of Ladner's emails, "It — ow, my head! — it took you awhile, but I think you've finally caught on. Now leave me in peace. It feels like someone is playing the 1812 Overture on my forehead with two ball peen hammers."

Unfortunately, I made the mistake of sending a letter to Rhoades asking her about the meaning of "many" before I consulted Dr. Word, so I didn't include all the neat stuff he taught me. But I managed to ask her the right question:

For clarification, when you write, “many of the employees in
question,” do you mean something in the area of 51% can be described a
bureaucrats? 75%? 95%?

Are bus drives included in the "many" who can be referred to as bureaucrats? What about employees like maintenance workers and food service workers?

I sent the letter Monday, so I'll have to wait a few days for a reply, which is just as well. I'll probably need Dr. Word's sage counsel once again, and right now he's plowing through Finnegans Wake while simultaneously working on a month's worth of New York Times crosswords. It's what he always does to clear his mind. That should keep him out of commission for a few days.