# We are five. There are five of us.



## skinny

As a freelance, ESL teacher and consultant dealing exclusively with Spanish speakers and having little or no contact with other native English speakers, I sometimes wonder whether my corrections and advice are always accurate. 

I also worry about the possibility, having heard the same mistakes hundreds of times and having become bilingual myself, of my becoming insensitive to or adopting some of the typical mistakes that Spanish speakers make.

The reason for all this is that I have always used expressions like these:

How many are there in your party?

There are five of us.

My students, on the other hand, always want to say:

How many are you?

We are five.

It’s very hard for them to understand “There are five of us” and many times I wonder if I’m wasting my time even explaining it to them.

My questions: 
Is the expression “We are five” correct? 
Is it commonly used? 
Is the expression “There are five of us” commonly used?


----------



## sweetpotatoboy

skinny said:


> My questions:
> Is the expression *“We are five”* correct?
> Is it commonly used?
> Is the expression *“There are five of us”* commonly used?


 
Both are correct and possible, but the latter is (as you say) by far the most common. (And it would almost always be "We're five." rather than "We are five.")

It may be that "We're five" isn't used that much because it could also mean "we are five years old", although context would always prevent that from being a problem. (Reminds me of the AA Milne book "Now We Are Six".)

But it wouldn't be incorrect to say "We're five" in the example you give.


----------



## panjandrum

*How many are you?*
*We are five*.

Both question and answer sound a bit unusual (but OK).
When I phone the restaurant in a few minutes to book a table for tomorrow evening, the dialogue will be:
I would like to book a table for dinner tomorow evening.
.
.
For how many?
For seven.

How many are there in your party? 
... isn't that a bit long-winded?
How many are in your party?
... sounds better.

(The conversation wasn't like that at all they're fully booked with Christmas parties  )


----------



## e42mercury

Thanks for your question, skinny. I am also an ESL teacher and completely sympathize. Despite hearing "we are five" hundreds of times, I insist it's wrong (but don't always explain it!). sweetpotatoboy and panjandrum are right: the phrase is often omitted, and you can get away with "we're five" depending on the context.

At a restaurant you might also hear:
_
Can I get a table *for five*?
How many are in your party? *five*.
_
But if you need to clarify, you have to use the longer (more awkward) version: _"This table is too small. *There are five of us.*" 
_(In this context, "_we are five_" would sound odd, perhaps as in "_we are all five years old_".)


----------



## TonyLouis

skinny said:


> As a freelance, ESL teacher and consultant dealing exclusively with Spanish speakers and having little or no contact with other native English speakers, I sometimes wonder whether my corrections and advice are always accurate.
> 
> I also worry about the possibility, having heard the same mistakes hundreds of times and having become bilingual myself, of my becoming insensitive to or adopting some of the typical mistakes that Spanish speakers make.
> 
> The reason for all this is that I have always used expressions like these:
> 
> *How many are there in your party?
> 
> There are five of us.*
> 
> My students, on the other hand, always want to say:
> 
> *How many are you?
> 
> We are five*.
> 
> It’s very hard for them to understand *“There are five of us”* and many times I wonder if I’m wasting my time even explaining it to them.
> 
> My questions:
> Is the expression *“We are five”* correct?
> Is it commonly used?
> Is the expression *“There are five of us”* commonly used?




It is more common in American English to hear the expression "There are five of us" but the phrase "we are five" is also used.  Look at the title of this article in the New Yorker Magazine, one of the leading literary magazines in the USA:  _Now We Are Five: A big family, at the beach _
Source: David Sedaris’s  “Now We Are Five”


----------



## RM1(SS)

I'd say that's a play on the title of the Milne book referred to in post 2 (in which "we are six" does refer to age).


----------



## TonyLouis

Milne may have been referring to age, but the article in the New Yorker by David Sedaris is about the shrinking size of his family.  He was one of six siblings, but his sister committed suicide and so he wrote "now we are five," meaning the group of siblings had shrunk from six to five after his sister's death.


----------



## duvija

Do you find _'there is five of us'_ totally impossible? I find it normal at a restaurant, for example.


----------



## JamesM

"There's five of us" as a contraction works for me as casual speech but if you don't use the contraction I think "There are five of us" sounds much better than "There is five of us".

As for "we are five", I actually grew up in a family where this was not unusual to hear from the adults regarding how many were in a dinner party.  I think it's very rare to hear these days.


----------



## RM1(SS)

TonyLouis said:


> Milne may have been referring to age, but the article in the New Yorker by David Sedaris is about the shrinking size of his family.  He was one of six siblings, but his sister committed suicide and so he wrote "now we are five," meaning the group of siblings had shrunk from six to five after his sister's death.


Yes.  I read the article.  Hence my previous comment.


----------



## Hildy1

As the posters above have said, it is more common to say "There are five of us." "We are five" sounds a little old-fashioned.

There is a well-known poem by William Wordsworth called "We Are Seven". It's about a family in which there are seven children, if you count the two who have died. One of the children says "We are seven": “Two of us in the church-yard lie, / My sister and my brother."
For the poem, see http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/183927

It is possible that Sedaris had that poem in mind, or had a vague memory of it, though he counts differently from the child in the poem. Sedaris says that there are now five siblings, not counting the one who died.


----------



## Rallino

Sorry to revive this thread;

Is it possible to say _*we are five of us brothers and sisters*_ ?


----------



## velisarius

Please don't apologise; it isn't a long thread .

I don't think it is possible to say it like that, because it could mean "Five of us are brothers and sisters (and the other four of us are cousins, or not related at all)". 

I would simply say, 
_
We are, all five of us, brothers and sisters.
We are five brothers and sisters_. or _There are five of us brothers and sisters.
We are five, we brothers and sisters - _is also possible. 

Is there any special context for the sentence? If we knew the previous sentence it might make a difference.

Personally I would prefer something like this: "There are five of us - two brothers and three sisters".


----------



## Hermione Golightly

I agree with veli's post and joi in her request for more textual context.
Generally speaking, "There are/were five of us - two brothers and three sisters-" sounds really good to me. 
'Siblings', meaning 'brothers and siblings', can sometimes be useful in this context.


----------



## Rallino

Thanks veli and Hermione. 

I actually don't have a context. I knew that we one could say _there are five of us_, but I felt like googling _we are 5 of us _and it gave 200,000 results. So I thought I'd ask.


----------



## velisarius

It's a good question.

It's fine in informal speech*, as it sounds more immediate than "There are five of us". "We" suggests emotional ties.

_There are five of us stuck here, waiting for a bus that doesn't seem to be coming. _(They are strangers at a bus stop.)

_We are five of us in here, trapped in the car, and we're slowly sinking.
_
_*_Not fine after all. See posts below.


----------



## Rallino

Oh wow that's pretty interesting. I'd never have thought about that!

Thank you very much


----------



## elroy

velisarius said:


> _We are five of us in here, trapped in the car, and we're slowly sinking._


 I don't think I would ever use "we are five of us."   It sounds utterly bizarre to me.


----------



## Dale Texas

elroy said:


> I don't think I would ever use "we are five of us."   It sounds utterly bizarre to me.



To me too.


----------



## velisarius

You're probably right, elroy. It would certainly be non-standard.
Edit: Some examples can be found though:

_But because *we're five of us*, we can sort of push it. If it was one person it would take three years, we'll do it in three months. _
Shoreditch Originals: Le Gun

_Because we're a small company, *we're five of us in here*._
'Not Sorry' about Bieber vid

_It's a family business.* We're five of us working*, sometimes five or six, seven part time, so it makes just a small family business._
Fisheries, Issue 10, Evidence - May 29, 2014 - Afternoon


----------



## pimlicodude

I found this thread because I just thought of the way foreign learners of English say "we are five".
I have to disagree with what many are saying in this thread and state that this is not correct in English. The only correct form is "there are five of us".
*"We are five", if it means anything, means "we are all five years old".*
I think "we are five" is just a translation of the Spanish < -- >, and is just a mistake. I like idiomatic English only.

< Spanish removed. Cagey, moderator >


----------



## dojibear

I agree.

Note that the restaurant employee is *not *asking "How many people are standing here?" (which they can see). They are asking "How many people plan to sit and have a meal together?", which is like asking "How big a table do you need?"

So they ask "How many are there in your group/party?", not "How many are you?" 

The reply is "Six" or "There are six in our party/group.", not "We are six."


----------



## pimlicodude

< Quotation of deleted post removed. Cagey, moderator >

The question in English is: * how many of you are there?*


----------



## Le Gallois bilingue

pimlicodude said:


> The question in English is: * how many of you are there?*


Thank you for pointing this out.


----------



## london calling

< Response to deleted post removed. Cagey, moderator >

That said, 'We are five' is not incorrect, simply massively old-fashioned.


----------



## elroy

To me, “We are five” sounds incorrect.  I think I’ve only ever heard non-natives say it.


----------



## london calling

elroy said:


> To me, “We are five” sounds incorrect.  I think I’ve only ever heard non-natives say it.


I've come across it in BE but only in stuff which dated back a long way.


----------



## pimlicodude

london calling said:


> I've come across it in BE but only in stuff which dated back a long way.


It is incorrect in British English - or any English.


----------



## london calling

pimlicodude said:


> It is incorrect in British English - or any English.


Not in the past.


----------



## pimlicodude

london calling said:


> Not in the past.


It has never been correct English. Don't forget that at one time people were trying to Latinise English, coming up with things like "it is I" instead of the correct "it's me".


----------



## london calling

pimlicodude said:


> It has never been correct English. Don't forget that at one time people were trying to Latinise English, coming up with things like "it is I" instead of the correct "it's me".


Sure about that? I would avoid such sweeping statements, if I were you. 


panjandrum said:


> *How many are you?*
> *We are five*.
> 
> Both question and answer sound a bit unusual (but OK).
> When I phone the restaurant in a few minutes to book a table for tomorrow evening, the dialogue will be:
> I would like to book a table for dinner tomorow evening.
> .
> .
> For how many?
> For seven.
> 
> How many are there in your party?
> ... isn't that a bit long-winded?
> How many are in your party?
> ... sounds better.
> 
> (The conversation wasn't like that at all they're fully booked with Christmas parties  )


----------



## Uncle Jack

Quite honestly, I might say "We are five" when, for example, booking a table in a pub, or confirming the number of people. Yes, certainly there are more common ways of saying this, but I like the variety of expression available in English, and it would never occur to me not to use this form. To say that it is incorrect English is absurd.


----------



## pimlicodude

london calling said:


> Sure about that? I would avoid such sweeping statements, if I were you.


Yes, I'm sure about that. Idiom trumps everything - including attempts to compare English grammar to the grammar of a language in another language family....


----------



## london calling

pimlicodude said:


> Yes, I'm sure about that. Idiom trumps everything - including attempts to compare English grammar to the grammar of a language in another language family....


OK, please yourself.


----------



## pimlicodude

Uncle Jack said:


> Quite honestly, I might say "We are five" when, for example, booking a table in a pub, or confirming the number of people. Yes, certainly there are more common ways of saying this, but I like the variety of expression available in English, and it would never occur to me not to use this form. To say that it is incorrect English is absurd.


I find that people do not normally accurately monitor their own English and cannot always say what they would say. To say that "we are five" is correct English is absurd.


----------



## duvija

And please don't forget we are talking about colloquial Eng. The waiter would likely ask : "How many?" without using too many verbs... Is this an upscale restaurant? Then, maybe...


----------



## elroy

For me, it doesn’t matter if it’s colloquial or not.  I would not use “We are / We’re five” in any register.


----------



## london calling

elroy said:


> For me, it doesn’t matter if it’s colloquial or not.  I would not use “We are / We’re five” in any register.


Neither would I. That's not the point. It was used in BE in the past.


----------



## elroy

I was responding to @duvija’s post, and I was (obviously) taking about American English only, and specifically my personal usage.  I’m obviously not gonna comment on current or past British English.


----------



## Andygc

pimlicodude said:


> To say that "we are five" is correct English is absurd.


I wonder. Describing something that some English speakers find to be correct as "absurd" strikes me as being pretty offensive, apart from being wrong. It may not be the usual way of making a table booking these days, but it is certainly something I have heard. I don't see any connection with Latin (which I did study at school) - my English master never told me that I should say "We are five" because a Roman might have said the equivalent. Not that the syllabuses for O level Latin and English grammar included booking tables in restaurants.


----------



## london calling

Prescriptive grammarians are bound to say that. I have little time for them. Usage is key.


----------



## velisarius

If we move away from the specific context of talking to the waiter (and in the present tense) I think you'll find plenty of instances of "we were (number)", where the number doesn't refer to our age. Some will find it more succinct, but dated.

_We were four in the car when it crashed. Three got out alive. Four _stands for "four people".

*table *
2a such a slab or board on which food is served
_we were six at table_
Table definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary


----------



## Chasint

It may indeed be the case that, back in the day, people would say "We are five" in reply to "How many are you?"

My experience as someone who has lived in Britain for much of the twentieth century and since the beginning of the 21st, is that
(a) I have never used either "How many are you?" or "We are <number>" and
(b) I have only ever heard non-native speakers use these expressions.

Conclusion

In my opinion, it is best to continue correcting learners and getting them to say, "How many of you are there?" and "There are <number> of us." In other words, teach them modern, idiomatic English.


----------



## Andygc

Sharon from Swansea, TripAdvisor Dec 2016. Appears not to be a non-native speaker


> My only disappointment was the prebooked meal in the Arts centre cafe We were six at table and the main course was poorly cooked Five meals of bacon egg and sausage had burnt sausage and bacon with half cooked hard chips


Of course you can find pretty well anything by an internet search, but there's a 21st century example for you, found in a matter of seconds. No doubt we could find many more.


----------



## lingobingo

pimlicodude said:


> I found this thread because I just thought of the way foreign learners of English say "we are five".
> I have to disagree with what many are saying in this thread and state that this is not correct in English. The only correct form is "there are five of us".
> *"We are five", if it means anything, means "we are all five years old".*
> I think "we are five" is just a translation of the Spanish somos cinco, and is just a mistake. I like idiomatic English only.


I disagree. Admittedly “we are five” sounds very old-fashioned and/or weirdly formal, but it’s nothing to do with Spanish, surely? It’s a contraction of “we are *five in number*”.


----------



## london calling

Chasint said:


> It may indeed be the case that, back in the day, people would say "We are five" in reply to "How many are you?"


We Are Seven by William Wordsworth | Poetry Foundation

Wordsworth. "We are Seven".

“How many are you, then,” said I,
“If they two are in heaven?”
Quick was the little Maid’s reply,
“O Master! we are seven.”

I don't use it myself, but to say it's incorrect (as was said above) is nonsense. It's just archaic usage.


----------



## pimlicodude

london calling said:


> We Are Seven by William Wordsworth | Poetry Foundation
> 
> Wordsworth. "We are Seven".
> 
> “How many are you, then,” said I,
> “If they two are in heaven?”
> Quick was the little Maid’s reply,
> “O Master! we are seven.”
> 
> I don't use it myself, but to say it's incorrect (as was said above) is nonsense. It's just archaic usage.


You have given no evidence that it is archaic usage. Simply asserting something doesn't make it so. I stated above that there was a time when grammarians tried to align English grammar with Latin grammar or Romance languages ( sigh... as london calling looks for "evidence" of "it is I" as claimed "archaic" usage). < Off-topic comment removed. Cagey, moderator >


----------



## elroy

@pimlicodude, you have also produced no evidence for your assertions.  You have just continued to dogmatically assert that it is not and has never been correct in English, despite the fact that several seasoned and linguistically well-attuned native speakers have said that they find it correct (but archaic).  You say that some native speakers’ metalinguistic conclusions are unreliable, and while this is true, it equally applies to you, and, more importantly, a judgment given by several native speakers whose responses here are almost always impeccably accurate is very unlikely to be (entirely) invalid. 

< Response to now-deleted comment removed. Cagey, moderator >


----------



## pimlicodude

elroy said:


> @pimlicodude, you have also produced no evidence for your assertions.  You have just continued to dogmatically assert that it is not and has never been correct in English, despite the fact that several seasoned and linguistically well-attuned native speakers have said that they find it correct (but archaic).  You say that some native speakers’ metalinguistic conclusions are unreliable, and while this is true, it equally applies to you, and, more importantly, a judgment given by several native speakers whose responses here are almost always impeccably accurate is very unlikely to be (entirely) invalid.
> 
> < ---- >


Elroy, I find your judgements in numerous threads to be impeccably accurate. I have consistently found that. 
< Response to now-deleted comment removed. Cagey, moderator >


----------



## neal41

Uncle Jack said:


> Quite honestly, I might say "We are five" when, for example, booking a table in a pub, or confirming the number of people. Yes, certainly there are more common ways of saying this, but I like the variety of expression available in English, and it would never occur to me not to use this form. To say that it is incorrect English is absurd.


As a speaker of American English, I fully agree.  I'm sure that I say, "We are #" from time to time, although probably not often.


----------

