why do otherwise intelligent, articulate people keep making the mistake of saying “there’s” when they are using the plural?
Doesn’t everybody know that “Is” is the singular, and “Are” is the plural form of the verb “to be”?
Take an example–(from our very own moderator TubaDiva):
the sticky announcement on this forum reminds us to be careful not to post sensitive info because “as long as there’s search engines, stuff on this board will never die”
Come on now-admit it.That sentence sounds better to you if you write “as long as there are search engines,…”
You’re talking about a plural subject (engines), so you have to use a plural verb.
I suppose it is easier to pronounce “there’s” than “there are”. But it’s just plain WRONG!!!
You won’t see many Dopers saying “we is discussing…” instead of “we are discussing…”. Matching singular and plural forms of speech is fundamental to the English language.It’s not a minor issue( like, say, slang, or American vs. British terminolgy). It’s a critical aspect of holding an intelligent conversation.
So let’s all start acting intelligently, okay?
Please.
[/rant]
It’s just as valid as “we’re” . You could say “we are going to work…”, but it’s easier to say “we’re going to work…”.
And nobody says “we’s going to work…”
Grammatists will tell you it’s wrong and you shouldn’t say it. Linguists will look at it and note that it’s easier to say, and the brain–being lazy and often too much in a rush to focus on proper grammar–will go for the popular contraction rather than the correct form. YMMV.
I love contractions… especially those that combine three words though, like couldn’t’ve even though I’m sure I’d get some of the grammar nazis, like vivalostwages, marking my posts all in red (or purple) for using them.
I’m not in high school though and it’s perfectly intelligible so I say nyah. Or something.
Reminds me of when a friend busted on me for saying “I’ve finally seen that movie.” One of the problems with that sentence is that when it’s spoken, it sounds remarkably similar to “I finally seen”, which is much more incorrect than the intended sentence.
My parents, whose education level is fairly high (father has two BAs and a BS, mother has two BAs and is working on her master’s), taught me “there’s” for almost everything, and I think without having plural subjects in mind. I try to catch myself saying it but after 20-odd years it’s just so damn difficult. I will catch it in writing I edit, though.
Language isn’t designed, it just kind of happens as a mean of our individual actions. There is some truth in the idea that logical rules that clarify how to express what we mean help us understand each other. But it is also true that the rules certainly have to follow what we tend to do in language, not the other way around.
Except the word “nukular”, which is plain old stupid when the President says it. And there’s the truth, in a tidy little nukulus.
One of my danish relatives pointed out that speech habit of mine a couple years back-- because he only ever heard North Americans using it. I chalk it up to a regional, not terribly horrible dialectical differerence.
Actually, I noticed that people used only the “there’s” construction in speech over 35 years ago. And, just as the French phrase noted above, that can be plural or singular by context, Spanish uses hay to indicate both plural and singular. (I have no idea whether the Brits or antipodeans say “there’re” instead of “there’s,” but I cannot recall ever having heard anyone from North America use “there’re” in normal speech.)
I suspect that the “there is” or “there are” construction (as evidenced in three languages, here) fullfills a particular need that is more usefully rendered in a single expression, regardless of number. In fact, I rarely hear “there is” or “there are”; it seems that (in North America, at least) “there’s” has become the default expression for nearly all uses, much as hay is the only way to express that thought in Spanish. Given its prevalence, I will also note that I have never heard a purist grammarian rail against it, so I suspect that most grammarians have already accepted it as a legitimate spoken construction. I think this thread is the only objection I have ever seen lodged against “there’s”.