The book I'm reading is talking about quantification being a method to convert open sentences into statements. From what I can see this method boils down to making a statement about the solution set of an open sentence P (x) over a domain S? Other than "for every x which is an element of S, P(x)" or "there exists atleast one x in S, such that P(x)", I could quantify it in many other ways like "there are atleast 2 distinct x in S, such that P(x)" or "There are less than 24 unique x in S such that P(x)" right?
Maybe those statements are less interesting than the universal and existential quantifier, but aren't they equally valid?
On a side note let P(x) be the condition required to be in a set P, and let S be some universal set which P is a subset of. Then would the statement "there exists an x in S such that P(x)" be equivalent to stating P is nonempty, and the statement "for every x in S, P(x)" be equivalent to stating P=S?
What André Nicolas said in his comment is correct. For example, you can say "at least $2$ objects satisfy $P$" by "$\exists x,y\ ( x \ne y \land P(x) \land P(y) )$". Similarly you can say "at most $3$ objects satisfy $P$" by "$\exists x,y,z\ ( \forall w\ ( P(w) \to w=x \lor w=y \lor w=z ) )$". Note however that you cannot say "finitely many objects satisfy $P$" in first-order logic, and by "cannot" I mean that this fact of impossibility can be proven.