was few

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was few" is not correct in standard written English.
It is typically used incorrectly when referring to a small number of items or people; the correct form would be "were few." Example: "There were few options available at the store."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

54 human-written examples

The number of Western soldiers was few.

The New York Times

As it was, few wanted to stay.

The New York Times

In certain ways, Turkey's stance is becoming more principled than it was few years ago.

The Economist

The trouble was, few others were able to grasp what that was.

The New York Times

"He had some sexual partners, but it was few and far between.

The Guardian - Film

"I got called down here … because there was few people down here who listen to me," Colion said.

The Guardian

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

6 human-written examples

But they are few.

The New York Times

There were few chances.

The New York Times - Sports

There were few disappointments.

The New York Times - Arts

There are few jobs.

The New York Times

There were few newcomers.

The Economist

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Always ensure subject-verb agreement. Use "were" with plural subjects, as in "There were few options available".

Common error

Avoid using "was" with plural subjects. "Was" is singular; the correct form for plural subjects is "were".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was few" functions incorrectly as a verb phrase intended to indicate a small quantity. Ludwig AI marks it as grammatically incorrect due to the mismatch between the singular verb "was" and the plural descriptor "few".

Expression frequency: Missing

Frequent in

Science

0%

News & Media

0%

Formal & Business

0%

Less common in

Science

0%

News & Media

0%

Formal & Business

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was few" is grammatically incorrect due to a subject-verb agreement issue; "was" is singular, while "few" implies a plural subject. As Ludwig AI confirms, it is best to use "were few" or rephrase to "there were few", "there was a small number of", or "there were not many" to maintain grammatical correctness. This ensures clear and accurate communication, regardless of the context.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

were few

Replaces "was" with "were" to correct subject-verb agreement for plural subjects.

there were few

Adds "there" to form a proper existential clause with correct subject-verb agreement.

there was a small number of

Rephrases to use "small number" which is grammatically correct.

there were not many

Uses "not many" as a more common and grammatically sound alternative.

there were only a few

Adds "only" for emphasis while maintaining correct grammar.

few existed

Uses a more direct construction to indicate scarcity.

only a handful existed

Emphasizes the limited quantity using the idiom "handful".

a limited number existed

Emphasizes the limitation in quantity.

scarce

Expresses scarcity using a single adjective.

in short supply

Uses an idiomatic expression to convey scarcity.

FAQs

What is the correct way to say "was few"?

The correct phrase is "were few". The word "was" is singular, so it cannot be used with the plural word "few".

How can I rewrite a sentence that incorrectly uses "was few"?

You can replace "was few" with alternatives like "there were few", "there was a small number of", or "there were not many".

What's the difference between "was few" and "were few"?

"Was few" is grammatically incorrect because "was" is a singular verb form and "few" implies a plural subject. The correct form is "were few", which uses the plural verb form "were".

Is "was few" ever grammatically correct?

No, "was few" is generally considered grammatically incorrect in standard English. The correct form to use when indicating a small number of something is "were few".