What is the opposite of numerous? I expected the answer to be innumerous, but that seems to mean too many to count. There must be a negative to numerous that isn't simply few.

closed as general reference by user2683, TimLymington, FumbleFingers, Brendon, Kit Z. Fox Jan 19 '12 at 13:12

This question is too basic; it can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Is there something wrong with not many? If so, please clarify; if not, this is general reference. – TimLymington Jan 19 '12 at 11:46
  • not many doesn't have the same force as numerous in the opposite direction. There may not be a strong enough antonym, though. – Kris Jan 19 '12 at 11:57
  • 1
    thesaurus.com/browse/few – RegDwigнt Jan 19 '12 at 11:57

In many contexts, one antonym is scarce or scant (2b : lacking in amplitude or quantity)


In the singular, you could use 'modicum' or 'trifle'/'trifling amount'.


In grammatical terminology, the word paucal is commonly used, but it's not common in other situations.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.