Quite a few linguists state that, even among educated people, usage such as "There's lots of museums" is more common that the grammatically correct "There are lots of museums". How did that come about? Why is the ungrammtical form more popular, even among educated people?
There's + plural noun
Who knows? It's probably because it's faster to say "there's" and "there's" is almost thought of as if it were a single word rather than a combination of "there is", so people don't think of it as odd that "is" is being used for a plural subject. Most people wouldn't say "There is a lot of museums.", for example.
My impression is that the phrase "There's a lot of..." is extremely common in the United States (and probably Canada as well).
Possibly this is because of the following singular indefinite article 'a' that comes after "There's", despite the fact that it is actually a singular noun that follows it.
Possibly this is because of the following singular indefinite article 'a' that comes after "There's", despite the fact that it is actually a singular noun that follows it.
I tend to be a careful speaker when it comes to grammar... not a careful speaker in other respects, unfortunately, because my speech and writing are often both unnecessarily verbose. Anyway, I still end up saying "there's + plural" a lot. How this construction originally arose is a bit of a mystery, but there's nothing mysterious about why it persists: it's convenient, and people tend to imitate other people's speech. Once a grammatical construct catches on, it's difficult to get rid of it, even if it's illogical and doesn't fit the standard grammar.
I like Guest's explanation, though... it's almost as if "there's" is a single word, an existential verb, despite its origins. Although "there is" contracts naturally into "there's", "there are" simply doesn't contract naturally to "there're", so it's not too surprising to see "there's" take over for the role. (However, "there are" *can* contract into simply "there", eliding the "are" completely. But this looks wrong in writing, and writing it as "there're" just looks weird, so it's usually heard only in speech. I don't know how common it is, but I say it sometimes. It could just be me for all I know, but I don't get funny looks for saying it that way.)
- Kef
I like Guest's explanation, though... it's almost as if "there's" is a single word, an existential verb, despite its origins. Although "there is" contracts naturally into "there's", "there are" simply doesn't contract naturally to "there're", so it's not too surprising to see "there's" take over for the role. (However, "there are" *can* contract into simply "there", eliding the "are" completely. But this looks wrong in writing, and writing it as "there're" just looks weird, so it's usually heard only in speech. I don't know how common it is, but I say it sometimes. It could just be me for all I know, but I don't get funny looks for saying it that way.)
- Kef
<< My impression is that the phrase "There's a lot of..." is extremely common in the United States (and probably Canada as well). >>
And yes, that's true, it's an extremely common expression.
And yes, that's true, it's an extremely common expression.
<<Most people wouldn't say "There is a lot of museums.", for example. >>>
That's true. Would you find people saying "there're a lot of museums"?
That's true. Would you find people saying "there're a lot of museums"?
<<Most people wouldn't say "There is a lot of museums.", for example. >>>
That's true. Would you find people saying "there're a lot of museums"?
That's true. Would you find people saying "there're a lot of museums"?
I am not surprised to see that Furrkey is promoting the use of such a grave vulgarity. What standard says that one can use "there's" if the subject is singular?
<I am not surprised to see that Furrkey is promoting the use of such a grave vulgarity. What standard says that one can use "there's" if the subject is singular?>
That is not my post.
This is Pos. Why is there another person imitating me? Note that I've never written "Furrykey".
That is not my post.
This is Pos. Why is there another person imitating me? Note that I've never written "Furrykey".
Oh, but haven't you?
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t7383-0.htm
Pos: "I sometimes wonder if Furrykey is weel read or just a nonnative speaker pretending to be a native:
More:
"Isobel, by her own admission a woman of too much brain and too little beauty, is a spinster devoted to keeping her wayward family out of trouble. To Nathan, however, she is beauty, hope, and salvation in one tempestuous package, and he is not above blackmail to coerce her into his world."
http://www.amazon.com/Entwined-Emma-Jensen/dp/0345416597"
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t7383-0.htm
Pos: "I sometimes wonder if Furrykey is weel read or just a nonnative speaker pretending to be a native:
More:
"Isobel, by her own admission a woman of too much brain and too little beauty, is a spinster devoted to keeping her wayward family out of trouble. To Nathan, however, she is beauty, hope, and salvation in one tempestuous package, and he is not above blackmail to coerce her into his world."
http://www.amazon.com/Entwined-Emma-Jensen/dp/0345416597"
<Oh, but haven't you? >
Got you! That answered my question. Now i know that it is you, Guest, who imitated me. Why did you do that?
Got you! That answered my question. Now i know that it is you, Guest, who imitated me. Why did you do that?
It wasn't me. I just typed "furrykey" into the search bar. Your post shows up as the only result.
And, by the way, in case you haven't figured it out yet, there is far more than one guest. It is the default name that appears when no name is entered, so it is used by many anonymous posters.
<<And, by the way, in case you haven't figured it out yet, there is far more than one guest. It is the default name that appears when no name is entered, so it is used by many anonymous posters.>>
You're right about that.
You're right about that.
<<However, "there are" *can* contract into simply "there", eliding the "are" completely. But this looks wrong in writing, and writing it as "there're" just looks weird, so it's usually heard only in speech. I don't know how common it is, but I say it sometimes.>>
I have this too. It has to do with the fact that syllabic "r" after an [r\] sound tends to get elided in my speech, which leads to such pronunciations as "mirror" - [mI_rr\], "terror" - [tE_rr\] which leads to "there are" being pronounced [DE_rr\] sounding as though the "are" has disappeared completely.
I have this too. It has to do with the fact that syllabic "r" after an [r\] sound tends to get elided in my speech, which leads to such pronunciations as "mirror" - [mI_rr\], "terror" - [tE_rr\] which leads to "there are" being pronounced [DE_rr\] sounding as though the "are" has disappeared completely.