0
MarvinTheMartian Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
"there are many of us" vs. "we are many"
Hi,
A friend of mine, who isn't a native speaker, often confuses me with his unusual syntax. For instance, where I would say: "there are many of us", "how many of you are there?" and "I'm from a family of three", he says: "we are many", "how many are you?" and "we're three in my family". I don't know what to make of this. His sentences seem perfectly grammatical, yet, they sound very strange to my ears. I can't explain why... After all, some of his sentence structures work if I substitute "numerous" for "many" (i.e. "we are numerous".) Can someone help me sort this out?
A friend of mine, who isn't a native speaker, often confuses me with his unusual syntax. For instance, where I would say: "there are many of us", "how many of you are there?" and "I'm from a family of three", he says: "we are many", "how many are you?" and "we're three in my family". I don't know what to make of this. His sentences seem perfectly grammatical, yet, they sound very strange to my ears. I can't explain why... After all, some of his sentence structures work if I substitute "numerous" for "many" (i.e. "we are numerous".) Can someone help me sort this out?
Top answer
Side-note: Granted, there is nothing wrong with the sentence "how many are you" per se, but the way he used it was weird. If only I could remember the exact context in which he said it...
- Side-note: Granted, there is nothing wrong with the sentence "how many are you" per se, but the way he used it was weird.
- If only I could remember the exact context in which he said it...
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
17 Answers
0
Side-note: Granted, there is nothing wrong with the sentence "how many are you" per se, but the way he used it was weird. If only I could remember the exact context in which he said it...
00
Hi,
His sentences seem perfectly grammatical, yet, they sound very strange to my ears.
You're right. They are simply not idiomatic in terms of ordinary everyday English. That's alI.
Best wishes, Clive
His sentences seem perfectly grammatical, yet, they sound very strange to my ears.
You're right. They are simply not idiomatic in terms of ordinary everyday English. That's alI.
Best wishes, Clive
00
Hi Marvin,
It sounds to me as if you've already successfully sorted it out. As a weird person who enjoys using the strange forms you mention, I can only offer my condolence.
Perhaps your friend is a time traveller, like me. What is his native tongue? (Venutian?) Just kidding!
Best wishes, - A.
It sounds to me as if you've already successfully sorted it out. As a weird person who enjoys using the strange forms you mention, I can only offer my condolence.
Perhaps your friend is a time traveller, like me. What is his native tongue? (Venutian?) Just kidding!
Best wishes, - A.
00
Thanks, Clive. You took the words right out of mouth. One thing still puzzles me, though: if "we are many" is unidiomatic, then why is it acceptable to use constructions like "we are numerous" and "we are more numerous than them"? Aren't "many" and "numerous" supposed to be synonyms?
P.S.: To answer Avangi's question, my friend actually has two native tongues. His mother is Lebane
P.S.: To answer Avangi's question, my friend actually has two native tongues. His mother is Lebane
00
I'd say, "We outnumber them." I don't find "We are numerous" that common in "unprepared" speech.
BTW, I agree completely with Clive's assessment of "we are many" as unidiomatic.
BTW, I agree completely with Clive's assessment of "we are many" as unidiomatic.
00
I agree. I would also probably say "we outnumber them" rather than "we are more numerous than them". Nevertheless, you have to admit that this usage is not uncommon in statements like "in most ecosystems, herbivores are more numerous than predators." By that logic, I don't see why you couldn't say "we are more numerous." Both "we" and "herbivores" are used as subjects here. As far as I can tell,
00
Yes, I do see your point. But the thing is, we're talking about strangeness, which is a matter of not being idiomatic, which has nothing to do with logic - as you clearly indicated in your OP.
There are many (numerous) examples of usages which work with nouns and not with pronouns. I remember the issue coming up recently in a couple of threads (don't make me find them.)
But
There are many (numerous) examples of usages which work with nouns and not with pronouns. I remember the issue coming up recently in a couple of threads (don't make me find them.)
But
00
Strangely, I don't think I would ever say "we're three" unless it were followed by one or several words (ex: "we're three people from different backgrounds.") Now that you mention it, I'm not sure why exactly...
00
MarvinTheMartianHis mother is Lebanese and his father is a Frenchman.We are many is perfect idiomatic French, Italian, and Spanish. I don't know if the Lebanese connection has any influence over your friend's use of this unidiomatic expression, but I'm sure the French is interfering. Conversely, translating There are many of us literally into
00
Thanks CalifJim. This is very enlightening. Would you say it's the same with constructions like "we're two", "we're three", etc.? (see my previous comment on page 1)
0
Related Questions