There's or There are

Is it correct to say "there's" instead of "there are"? Everyone seems to say "there's".

eg "There's a lot of people in there" instead of "There are a lot of people in there"

I would only use "there are" for emphasis, as in "There /are/ a lot of people in there" (note that the word "are" is specifically emphasized here); normally I'd just use "there's" (and not "there is" as separate words, in speech).

"there's" is "there is" and technically correct grammar is "there are" in the example you have given but somehow everyone uses (including myself) "there's" and it has become acceptable.

When 'a lot' means 'many' instead of, well, a 'lot,' then 'a lot' is usually plural in American English. Thus: I have a lot of toes.

But: There is a lot of merchandise in the warehouse, and two lots are in transit.

I disagree that 'there's a lot of people in the room' is correct grammar,
by the way. I would only use it if I was imitating someone who speaks a certain way.

I sometimes say, or at least have seen written: there're. But I do say "there's" sometimes when I mean "there are". Usually, though, I think, because I start speaking before I finish my thought and I'm not sure how many things I'm going to be talking about... :-/

<<I disagree that 'there's a lot of people in the room' is correct grammar,
by the way. I would only use it if I was imitating someone who speaks a certain way.>>

Actually, "there's a lot of people" is perfectly valid according to modern spoken English in many dialects (including mine), and insisting that everyone say "there are" over "there's" in plural contexts is prescriptivist nonsense. Remember, by definition, if native speakers use a form, it cannot be "incorrect" (even if your particular dialect of that language doesn't have that feature)--only nonnative speakers of a language can make errors.

Personally, I vary between the two but "there's" seems very natural for both a singular and plural sense.

Isn't "is" singular and "are" plural?

Richard, formally yes, but in practice, many things which some may think are "singular" or "plural" are often in individual cases treated in a way contrary to what one may formally think they "should" be; this is especially the case when the subject is a placeholder like "there" which has no clearly defined number, unlike the placeholders "it" or "they", which clearly have a defined number.

I'll just have to take language evolution (or deterioration), and smile at it then, won't I?

I myself wouldn't call it "deterioration", which is a most un-linguist-ish way of looking at things.

<<I myself wouldn't call it "deterioration", which is a most un-linguist-ish way of looking at things.>>

I agree. Language doesn't deteriorate at all. If it did then we would be speaking in grunts right now. Since humans have been around awhile, if language deteriorated or got "worse," languages would be pretty bad or useless systems by this point. All living languages are constantly in a state of change but never have they stopped expressing what speakers meant to get across--certain grammatical distinctions may be lost (and often, gained) over time, but languages naturally avoid constructions that are inherently vague. No one is confused by the meaning behind an utterance such as "there's 4 apples on the table" as compared to "there are 4 apples on the table."

It <i>could</i> be called evolution, but by evolution, I think of it as becoming greater, or more complex. Older languages, I believe, were more complex than English today. I'm not saying English isn't a great language, because it is (except I think it needs a spelling reform), but I see that the older languages like Latin, when used correctly, were more complex than English today. And I wonder what the predecessor of Latin must have been like, if Latin is a vulgar form of the previous language.

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.

It's not that they were more or less complex than, say, English, but when one compares English with, say, Old English, what has happened is that the complexity has been shifted from inflectional constructions to analytic constructions; it's not that one is overall more or less complex, but rather that they're complex in different matters. And another thing you must remember is that just because something is more or less complex doesn't make it "better" or "worse" in any particular fashion inherently. Anyways, one shouldn't use the term "evolution" here, simply because trying to compare language change with biological evolution is a false analogy, and is of little use here.

But anyways, one must remember that, likewise, biological evolution doesn't in any fashion necessarily make things "greater" or "more complex", but rather is on the population level, things like sexual selection aside, just optimization for whatever environment and like that population faces. "Greater" is just a subjective judgement which has no place in this kind of matter.

Right, thank you.

Like music, all that the languages are doing is molding and changing. Bach's music always had a form, and it was beautiful. Stravinsky's more noticed works have little form, and they are beautiful.

It makes sense.