Definitions

Sorry, no definitions found. Check out and contribute to the discussion of this word!

Etymologies

Sorry, no etymologies found.

Examples

    Sorry, no example sentences found.

Comments

Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.

  • I hear "vast majority" so often that I think it's time we develop a societal consensus on how large a majority needs to be before it can be considered "vast." (Hint: 51 percent is not "vast.")

    I would like to start the negotiations by suggesting something like 88 percent. Thoughts?

    July 7, 2008

  • I once said in a grad school paper that 80 percent was a majority but not an overwhelming one--here substitute "vast" for overwhelming--and my professor took issue with me and said it certainly was overwhelming. So perhaps it has to be something like 80 percent?

    To me, "overwhelming majority" certainly would be something like 85 percent or more.

    July 7, 2008

  • I vote for "vast" in the 75-85 % range and "overwhelming" in the 86-99 % range.

    I think the vast, but not the overwhelming majority of Wordies will agree with me.

    July 8, 2008

  • Would a "significant majority" then be, say, 66% to 75%? And where does "substantial" fit in?

    Of course, one could always give the number.

    July 8, 2008

  • It's vast if I say it's vast. That's all there is to it.

    July 8, 2008

  • These ideas defy numerical representation. That would reduce the fluidity of language, and we wouldn't want that ;)

    July 8, 2008

  • The vast majority of me agrees overwhelmingly with a significant majority of you.

    July 9, 2008

  • No fair, reesetee! You're using adverbs!

    July 9, 2008

  • Oh. Sorry.

    The vast majority of me is in overwhelming agreement with a significant majority of you.

    July 10, 2008

  • Once you've worked this out, can y'all get on to the more gnarly problem of how many measures constitute a raft of measures. The government announced a raft of measures the other day and I don't know what we're in for.

    July 10, 2008