1 member's'

[kadioguy]

I know usingenglish.com is popular with English learners, but sometimes it's possible that just only one member online. ;-)

 

[emsr2d2]

It could be improved by making it say "member(s)". The same goes for "user(s)" and "guest(s)".

There was no need to use both "just" and "only" in your opening sentence.

 

[kadioguy]

There was no need to use both "just" and "only" in your opening sentence.

Could you tell why? I meant to place emphasis on one member.

 

[emsr2d2]

Using both of them is unnecessary. Use one or the other for the emphasis you are aiming for.

 

[GoesStation]

Using both of them is unnecessary. Use one or the other for the emphasis you are aiming for.

It's not just unnecessary to use both. It's wrong.

 

[kadioguy]

Because 'just' here also means 'only'. Am l right?

 

[Raymott]

I'm not too fussed about the two together, as long as you reverse the order. It's not common as you've used it.
"There's only just enough food for us."
"I've only just arrived."
"There's only just three people here." (Contentious, I suppose. But definitely not "just only".)

 

[Roman55]

"There's only just three people here." (Contentious, I suppose. But definitely not "just only".)

Doubly so, I would say. There's also the question of there's.

 

[Raymott]

Really? I thought "There's three people here" was generally acceptable. This only applies to "there's", not "there is". It's normal in AusE.

 

[Tarheel]

Really? I thought "There's three people here" was generally acceptable. This only applies to "there's", not "there is". It's normal in AusE.

In American English it seems to be a fad that has, thankfully, gone away.

 

[bubbha]

The "1 members" problem can be fixed with a simple "if" statement in the code.

 

[GoesStation]

In American English it seems to be a fad that has, thankfully, gone away.

There's followed by a plural is normal in American speech, as far as I can tell. Write there are in formal contexts though.

 

[jutfrank]

There's followed by a plural is normal in American speech, as far as I can tell. Write there are in formal contexts though.

In British English, too.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Really? I thought "There's three people here" was generally acceptable. This only applies to "there's", not "there is". It's normal in AusE.

It's normal, common, and natural but not grammatical. "There are" is normal, common, natural, and grammatical.

So take your pick!

PS -

Does everyone speak English in Austria?

 

[Raymott]

Also acceptable in this context is "here's". "Here's a few people coming now." Yes, it's colloquial.

 

[emsr2d2]

Does everyone speak English in Austria?

For the benefit of learners who might have missed the joke, AusE actually means "Australian English". ;-)

 

[kadioguy]

For the benefit of learners who might have missed the joke, AusE actually means "Australian English". ;-)

Why is this a joke? :shock:

 

[emsr2d2]

Because Charlie Bernstein asked if everyone in Austria speaks English, not Australia. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that he was being funny!

 

[Raymott]

It went over my head. I was wondering if it was a typo.

If Australia was meant, no, many older people speak only Arabic or Chinese, etc. and there are still some outback Aborigines who don't get far with English because they don't need to.
If it was a joke based on not knowing that 'AusE' is a quite routine abbreviation for Australian English in the linguistic subfield of World English, then that's probably why I missed it.