count with/on fingers?

Gray Rose · Nov 27, 2007

What should I use:

[FONT=&quot]I could count them with the fingers of a single hand.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I could count them on the fingers of a single hand.

Thanks!
[/FONT]

blacbird · Nov 27, 2007

Either works, but both are kind of cliched.

caw

pdr · Nov 28, 2007

Apologies...

blacbird, but isn't the expression about physically counting so it is 'on the fingers'?

blacbird · Nov 28, 2007

I dunno. Back when I was learning this we used sticks and rocks.

caw

IceCreamEmpress · Nov 28, 2007

"Count on the fingers..." is more generally used and sounds more idiomatic, but "count with the fingers..." isn't wrong.

I think it's overused at the moment, though. I'd probably avoid it myself unless I meant it literally, as in a portrayal of very young children playing counting games.

girlyswot · Nov 28, 2007

I often say 'you could count them on the fingers of less than one hand'. Which makes the point quite nicely.

Maryn · Nov 28, 2007

I think the more common colloquialism is that someone could count them on the fingers of a single hand.

When one counts with the fingers, I read into that a need for keeping track of the tally with the fingers, or difficulty in counting at all. Little kids might count with their fingers--and toes.

Although blacbird makes a valid point. Caw indeed!

Maryn, who does a respectable crow imitation

pdr · Nov 28, 2007

Yes!

That's the distinction.

'counting with' is serious tallying up.
'counting on' in the expression I know is derisive: 'You could count them on the fingers of one hand.'

blacbird · Nov 28, 2007

girlyswot said:
I often say 'you could count them on the fingers of less than one hand'. Which makes the point quite nicely.

"Three or four" would work equally well.

casw

poetinahat · Nov 28, 2007

girlyswot said:
I often say 'you could count them on the fingers of less than one hand'. Which makes the point quite nicely.

That makes me think of, oh, 0.6 hands. Messy!

job · Nov 29, 2007

I get a shade of difference in meaning here.

If I were going to count the marbles with my fingers, I'd expect to be blindfolded and picking through a jar of them.

Or possibly I would be keeping a tally with my fingers, my hands on my thighs, ticking people off as they came through the door --- ' ... eight nine forty, one, two three, four, five ...' and on to the other hand, 'six, seven, eight, nine, fifty, one ..."

Not so much using the fingers to count, as counting a running total in my head and using the fingers to keep my place.

If I count on my fingers I'm specifically moving the fingers and using them to reckon.

If I wanted to use the cliche -- "His virtues could be counted up on my fingers.' I think I'd use 'on' rather than 'with' because 'on' more firmly supplies the 'less than ten' connotation..

oneblindmouse · Nov 29, 2007

girlyswot said:
I often say 'you could count them on the fingers of less than one hand'. Which makes the point quite nicely.

'Less than one hand' sounds very clumsy to me, and I've never heard it before.

girlyswot · Nov 29, 2007

oneblindmouse said:
'Less than one hand' sounds very clumsy to me, and I've never heard it before.

It's a joke.

Gray Rose · Nov 29, 2007

Thanks for your responses, everyone!
OK, what if I do not want to give a definite number - is there another idiomatic expression I could use that is less cliche?

benbradley · Nov 29, 2007

Gray Rose said:
Thanks for your responses, everyone!
OK, what if I do not want to give a definite number - is there another idiomatic expression I could use that is less cliche?

Idiomatic? I can only think of "straightforward:"

They numbered fewer than five.

or

They numbered five or fewer.

I might try again tomorrow after a cup of coffee, but maybe that's idiomatic of straightforward speakers/writers.

And be sure it's "fewer" unless it's a "Five Items or Less" express checkout lane in a supermarket, then your character can bemoan the state of English in everyday usage.

poetinahat · Nov 29, 2007

"Even a lobster could count them on the fingers of one hand."

Gray Rose · Nov 30, 2007

The heroine is talking about her love affairs. She does not want to give the exact number (too few for the society she lives in!), and she mentions all of them immediately after this sentence.
So "fewer than five" will be clumsy. Maybe I should try lobsters, mmm.

FennelGiraffe · Nov 30, 2007

Gray Rose said:
The heroine is talking about her love affairs. She does not want to give the exact number (too few for the society she lives in!), and she mentions all of them immediately after this sentence.
So "fewer than five" will be clumsy. Maybe I should try lobsters, mmm.

"the fingers of one hand with room/some left over"
"the fingers of one hand--not counting the thumb"
"one for every day of the week...end"

maestrowork · Nov 30, 2007

Never thought about this, but I use "count on" most of the time. Just feels more natural.

count with/on fingers?

Gray Rose

Beware of the Thorns!

blacbird

pdr

blacbird

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago

girlyswot

Maryn

I Tried

pdr

blacbird

poetinahat

Numbers are beautiful

job

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

oneblindmouse

The new me

girlyswot

Gray Rose

Beware of the Thorns!

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world

poetinahat

Numbers are beautiful

Gray Rose

Beware of the Thorns!

FennelGiraffe

It's green they say

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray