There's or There are

Deborah   Monday, May 30, 2005, 05:53 GMT
<< Stravinsky's more noticed works have little form >>

?????
Richard   Monday, May 30, 2005, 06:21 GMT
Have you ever listened to the beginning of Igor Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? It's chaotic! Yet, it's music changing, as languages do. If you haven't, listen to the dinosaur song on the original Fantasia by Disney.
Kirk   Monday, May 30, 2005, 06:46 GMT
<<And to Kirk, the meaning is still there, but didn't Latin have the ability to express the same thing in so many more ways than English? By deterioration, I mean that languages are becoming simpler, but they have to reach a bottom before they become uncomprehensible, and that is something I don't think can happen.>>

What's interesting is that languages go thru processes of (what could be somewhat incorrectly called) "simplification" in certain areas while other areas actually could be said to get more "complicated." For example, languages can go thru processes where before they had no grammatical gender or some other type of classificational distinctions, but over time actually begin to classifiy words in certain categories where before that had not been done.

The possibilities are nearly endless for grammatical constructions that languages can pick up in their historical development. For example, let's look at a little feature of Spanish. Compare:

"Veo a la mujer" (I see the woman)

--not *Veo la mujer

"Veo al gato" (I see the cat)

--not *Veo el gato

But:

"Veo la flor" (I see the flower)

"Veo la jirafa" (I see the giraffe)

"Veo el juguete del gato" (I see the cat's toy)

Somewhere over time, Spanish decided that animate, personal entities such as people or domesticated animals require preceding "a" in direct object position (except before "tener" ['have'] or "hay" ['there is']). However, other entities or even animals for which no personal affection is felt do not receive preceding direct object "a."

This is not a feature that existed in Romance, and other Romance languages like French, Italian, and even Portuguese don't have this feature. At this point in Spanish, usage of personal direct-object "a" is restricted to the semantic cases listed above, but it's not inconceivable that over time this rule could become reanalyzed as simply a direct object marker and be generalized and widened in scope, applying to all direct objects. If this happened, Spanish would have in effect acquired a new direct object case marker.

Whether or not this actually does come to pass in Spanish, such developments are very common in the development of languages--I'd argue even this small grammatical feature is an example of "complication" in language--where there once was no grammatical distinction, one has arisen. This kind of thing is constantly happening in languages. I could go on and on with examples of cliticization in modern English, etc, but that could get way lengthier than what I said about humble Spanish "a."
Deborah   Monday, May 30, 2005, 08:14 GMT
Richard, what do you mean by form? I'm guessing that you do not have a background in music studies.
Richard   Monday, May 30, 2005, 16:34 GMT
Deborah

Ah nevermind. I think maybe I was meaning that his music is more dissonant than Mozart would have written. It also doesn't follow the patterns considered beautiful at his time.

I'm just trying to say that music changes just like language does. I don't hear very baroque sounding rock music.
Lazar   Monday, May 30, 2005, 16:48 GMT
<<Somewhere over time, Spanish decided that animate, personal entities such as people or domesticated animals require preceding "a" in direct object position (except before "tener" ['have'] or "hay" ['there is']). However, other entities or even animals for which no personal affection is felt do not receive preceding direct object "a.">>

I guess the use/non-use of "a" for animals parallels the English distinction between "he/she" (person-like) animals and "it" (non-person-like) animals.
Jacyra   Monday, May 30, 2005, 16:54 GMT
There's many nice things to do (American English)

Tem muita coisa legal pra fazer (Brazilian Portuguese)
andre in usa   Monday, May 30, 2005, 17:17 GMT
Keep in mind there are a lot of linguists on this forum, and since linguists generally think prescriptive grammar is silly, expect them to say that "There's a lot of people in there" is suitable usage.

I myself would refrain from using this construction, though it is very common in conversational English. Use it if you wish, but also understand that it is considered to be incorrect.
Adam   Monday, May 30, 2005, 19:24 GMT
"A lot" is ALWAYS singular, both in American English and British English.

When you have a lot of something, there is only ONE lot of something that you have.

It's just the same for " a couple." "A couple" is always singular, even though it means "two things."
Adam   Monday, May 30, 2005, 19:26 GMT
"A lot" is not plural.

That's like saying "a couple" is plural or something else similar.

In English, we say "There IS a lot" simply because "lot" is singular.
Viana   Monday, May 30, 2005, 19:51 GMT
there's many things or
there are many things?
Gabe   Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 17:39 GMT
What about "do" in English. "I threw the ball" vs. "I threw not the ball" sounds archaic to me, as I would actually say "I DID NOT throw the ball". Is that an example of English complicating itself? Just a thought... The more I think about it, the less logical sense "I did not throw" makes.