"There's" followed by plural
John Perkins
It's not only perfectly acceptable but even the norm at all levels in
the USA to use expressions like "There's two ways this can be done",
at least in the rhotic regions.
On the other hand, you will never hear anyone say "There is two ways
this can be done". (I suppose I shouldn't say "never".)
What's wrong with "there're"?
John Perkins.
Gwen Lenker
Mimi Kahn <njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com> wrote in article
<33de57fd...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
> I say "There are." To me, "there's" sounds wrong (and is), and
> "there're" is a contraction I don't think I've ever heard *anyone*
> say.
Then either you haven't seen that Welch's Concentrate commercial, or it
didn't sound the same to you as it did to me. The obnoxious kid says
something like, "There're no other drink better than Welch's." (Yes,
"drink", singular.)
Thank goodness, at least the Quilted Northern (toilet paper) quilters have
traded in their knitting needles for sewing needles.
Peter Hullah
John Perkins wrote:
> What's wrong with "there're"?
I've never heard anyone say "there're" but I used to have a
colleague who'd say "I aren't" whereas another would say "I amn't".
Both sound strange to me - I'd always say "I'm not".
Pete
Éamonn McManus
joh...@bigbird.bvc.frco.com (John Perkins) writes:
> It's not only perfectly acceptable but even the norm at all levels in
> the USA to use expressions like "There's two ways this can be done",
> at least in the rhotic regions.
> On the other hand, you will never hear anyone say "There is two ways
> this can be done". (I suppose I shouldn't say "never".)
What's wrong with "there're" is that it is hard to say. I often say
"there's two ways" or the like, even though I feel it is less correct
than "there are two ways", just because it fits more easily under the
tongue.
Incidentally there's an almost completely analogous situation in
French with "c'est" being used instead of "ce sont" again presumably
because of euphony:
C'est les mêmes gens qu'hier
instead of
Ce sont les mêmes gens qu'hier.
,
Eamonn http://www.gr.opengroup.org/~emcmanus
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora" -- Occam
Neil Coffey
In article <ces...@kaa.gr.osf.org>, Éamonn McManus
<mailto:emcm...@gr.opengroup.org> wrote:
> Incidentally there's an almost completely analogous situation in
> French with "c'est" being used instead of "ce sont" again presumably
> because of euphony:
I wonder if the situation is quite analogous. In French, when a plural
follows c'est/ce sont, the two are pretty much interchangeable in
most cases. There is certainly no rule in French that states that
'ce sont' must precede a plural noun; indeed, there are cases where
'ce sont' is not possible (or at the very least extremely rare):
qu'est-ce que les finances?
*que sont-ce que les finances?
qu'est-ce que c'est que les finances?
*qu'est-ce que ce sont que les finances?
The idea of c'est + singular and ce sont + plural is a myth put
about by French teachers; when you look at actual usage, it's hard
to back this up with any evidence.
--
Neil Coffey | e-mail: neil....@st-annes.ox.ac.uk
St Anne's College | UNIX talk: sann...@sable.ox.ac.uk
Oxford | World Wide Web: http://ox.compsoc.org.uk/~neil/
OX2 6HS | (See my French-English dictionary)
Keith C. Ivey
Neil Coffey <neil....@st-annes.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>The idea of c'est + singular and ce sont + plural is a myth put
>about by French teachers; when you look at actual usage, it's hard
>to back this up with any evidence.
And what evidence (other than that put about by English
teachers) is there that "there's" + plural is incorrect in
English? It's certainly used by a great many native speakers.
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Untangling the Web <http://www.eeicom.com/eye/utw/>
John M. Lawler
John Perkins writes:
> What's wrong with "there're"?
Nothing's wrong with it.
It's the accepted canonical abbreviation for "there are".
But "there are" itself is somewhat pedantic and rather uncommon usage in
practice -- maintaining as it does an unnecessary and redundant
Verb-Subject number agreement marker, against the normal English order of
Subject-Verb agreement -- and such fussiness is more common in writing,
and more apt to resort there to the full "there are" than to the
abbreviated "there're". So it's pretty rare in written practice.
In spoken practice, such pedantry is much less common than in writing, and
even when it is attempted, there's another practical problem. How does
one pronounce "there're"? The usual solution is /dhEr@r/, or more likely
in a lightly stressed grammatical word that serves only to introduce the
existential construction, /dhErr/, with a long final /rr/, like the long
final /ss/ that distinguishes "sixths" from "six" in normal spoken
English.
But long final consonants are very rare in English, and tend to get
swallowed in pronunciation or missed in perception, with the result that
"there're", as normally pronounced, is virtually indistinguishable from
"there", producing something that sounds very substandard to those who
rank language standards vertically. That is, instead of the polished and
superstandard:
There're a few things you need to do.
what has a tendency to come out is the rough and apparently substandard:
There a few things you need to do.
Too much trouble and confusion, apparently, all to avoid the Heartbreak of
Poor Grammar, which seems to be a painless affliction for most of those
whom others call sufferers. American English speakers are more likely to
say, instead, the audibly copulative:
There's a few things you need to do.
On the whole, the /-z/ of "there's" seems to be preferable in speech,
because it's usually audible and maintains the presence of the copula,
even if it isn't the "proper" copula. But such white-glove propriety has
gone the way of virginal marriage, in the US, at least.
The moral of the story is that it is better, apparently, to copulate
improperly than not to copulate at all.
-John Lawler http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/ U Michigan Linguistics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." Language (1921)
Éamonn McManus
Neil Coffey <neil....@st-annes.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> Éamonn McManus <emcm...@gr.opengroup.org> wrote:
> > Incidentally there's an almost completely analogous situation in
> > French with "c'est" being used instead of "ce sont" again presumably
> > because of euphony:
> I wonder if the situation is quite analogous. In French, when a plural
> follows c'est/ce sont, the two are pretty much interchangeable in
> most cases.
That's a good point. I think many English speakers resist "there's"
or especially "there is" with a plural complement, whereas only the
most pedantic French speakers insist on "ce sont". And the historical
precedent is much less clear for French.
> There is certainly no rule in French that states that
> 'ce sont' must precede a plural noun; indeed, there are cases where
> 'ce sont' is not possible (or at the very least extremely rare):
> qu'est-ce que les finances?
> *que sont-ce que les finances?
> qu'est-ce que c'est que les finances?
> *qu'est-ce que ce sont que les finances?
These examples are not very good because the complement of "est" is
"que", which is necessarily singular. Colin, in the _Dictionnaire des
Difficultés du français_ gives better examples. Here's what he says,
somewhat abbreviated:
Quand l'attribut de _ce_ est au pluriel, le verbe _être_ s'accorde
de façon très variable. Il reste le plus souvent au singulier
dans la langue courante. La séquence _c'est_ a tendance à se
figer. [example omitted] Mais le pluriel n'est pas rare.
[example] On notera qu'en phrases négatives, l'emploi du verbe au
singulier semble plus naturel :
Et les malheurs de la France, pour toi, ce n'était que des
récits de veillée (Anouilh).
Non, ce n'était pas les livres qui l'intéressaient (Mauriac).
[...]
On ne peut mettre le verbe au pluriel quand l'attribut est _nous_
ou _vous_ : _Ce n'est pas nous, ce sont nos capitaines_ (Hugo).
À la troisième personne, _c'est eux_ est beacoup plus fréquent que
_ce sont eux_, tour littéraire.
Peter Hullah
John M. Lawler wrote:
>
> How does
> one pronounce "there're"? The usual solution is /dhEr@r/, or more likely
> in a lightly stressed grammatical word that serves only to introduce the
> existential construction, /dhErr/, with a long final /rr/, like the long
> final /ss/ that distinguishes "sixths" from "six" in normal spoken
> English.
This seems to be easier for Brits, being non-rhotic an' all.
"There're two of them" becomes /dh@r@ tu @ dh@m/
"There're a lot of them" becomes /dh@r:@ lA:t @ dh@m/
On the other hand:
"There's two of them? becomes /dh@s tu @ dh@m/
"There's a lot of them? becomes /dh@z@ lA:t @ dh@m/
Pete
John Hughes
In article <33de57fd...@news.mindspring.com>,
Mimi Kahn <njk...@no-spam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>I say "There are." To me, "there's" sounds wrong (and is), and
>"there're" is a contraction I don't think I've ever heard *anyone*
>say.
"There's" followed by a plural noun really ought not be so maligned.
There is no real rule for this that applies for all nouns anyway. For
exmample, in this exchange:
"Who can we get to clean up this mess?"
"There's always you!"
(or "There's always me!")
It's not possible to say "There are always you" or "There am always I/me".
This kind of blows the idea that the form of to be must agree with the
following noun at all. Besides, everyone knows the subject of the sentence
is "there", not the noun following. We were always taught that "There is
an eraser" was equivalent to "An eraser is there", but "There is no eraser
here" is not equivalent to "No eraser is there here", no matter what your
third grade teacher tried to pound into your delicate little head while
forcing you to diagram sentences.
That said, I do agree "there is" followed by something plural can sound
pretty damn stupid sometimes... But GOD I hate it when people "correct"
me for doing it when it doesn't.
jah
Neil Coffey
In article <33dd4182...@newsreader.digex.net>, Keith C. Ivey
<mailto:kci...@cpcug.org> wrote:
> And what evidence (other than that put about by English
> teachers) is there that "there's" + plural is incorrect in
> English? It's certainly used by a great many native speakers.
I think most speakers who use "there's" + plural would agree that
this belongs to an informal register, and that a more formal register
would imply "there are". In French, this is not the case - c'est +
plural is considered perfectly acceptable in higher registers.
Neil Coffey
In article <cese...@kaa.gr.osf.org>, Éamonn McManus
<mailto:emcm...@gr.opengroup.org> wrote:
> That's a good point. I think many English speakers resist "there's"
> or especially "there is" with a plural complement, whereas only the
> most pedantic French speakers insist on "ce sont". And the historical
> precedent is much less clear for French.
Indeed, there are cases where 'ce sont' has come about as a
hypercorrection rather than because it is/was considered more
correct. The prime example of this is the construction "ce sont eux",
originally a hypercorrection of "c'est eux", now considered to be
"more correct" by pedantic speakers.
> > There is certainly no rule in French that states that
> > 'ce sont' must precede a plural noun; indeed, there are cases where
> > 'ce sont' is not possible (or at the very least extremely rare):
> > qu'est-ce que les finances?
> > *que sont-ce que les finances?
> > qu'est-ce que c'est que les finances?
> > *qu'est-ce que ce sont que les finances?
>
> These examples are not very good because the complement of "est" is
> "que", which is necessarily singular.
But 'sont-ce' was in the past used in the constructions above
(nowadays, saying "que sont-ce", "que seront-ce" etc is grammatically
correct, but is rare and usually sounds humorous, sarcastic etc).
Also, one can say "que sont-ils", "que sont-elles".
> Colin, in the _Dictionnaire des
> Difficultés du français_ gives better examples. Here's what he says,
> somewhat abbreviated:
[...]
> Et les malheurs de la France, pour toi, ce n'était que des
> récits de veillée (Anouilh).
> Non, ce n'était pas les livres qui l'intéressaient (Mauriac).
I wonder why the compiler chose examples in a tense where the
singular/plural have the same pronunciation for virtually all
speakers...!!!
Kenneth Palmer
Ken
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Neil Coffey wrote:
> In article <33dd4182...@newsreader.digex.net>, Keith C. Ivey
> <mailto:kci...@cpcug.org> wrote:
>
> > And what evidence (other than that put about by English > teachers) is
> there that "there's" + plural is incorrect in > English? It's certainly
> used by a great many native speakers.
>
> I think most speakers who use "there's" + plural would agree that this
> belongs to an informal register, and that a more formal register would
> imply "there are". In French, this is not the case - c'est + plural is
> considered perfectly acceptable in higher registers.
>
> -- Neil Coffey | e-mail: neil....@st-annes.ox.ac.uk St Anne's College
> | UNIX talk: sann...@sable.ox.ac.uk Oxford | World Wide Web:
> http://ox.compsoc.org.uk/~neil/ OX2 6HS | (See my French-English
> dictionary)
>
>
>
I use there's as third person with an object. A specific location or two
locations. There is the boy and there's the lamp. Not neccessarily with
as ownership. There's the girl and there is the map. Theirs as girls and
map. Them, they, object and third person. I use that's in the same way.
That is, specific location. That's the band (bus). It works for me.
Peter Hullah
Neil Coffey wrote:
>
> I think most speakers who use "there's" + plural would agree that
> this belongs to an informal register, and that a more formal register
> would imply "there are". In French, this is not the case - c'est +
> plural is considered perfectly acceptable in higher registers.
I lost count years ago of the number of times I've been corrected
by French speakers for saying "c'est" when I should have said
"ce sont". It seems to me that it's just a laxism in French which
is even more widely spread than its English equivalent.
But then, in France, they have the Academie Francaise to decide
when it'll "enter the language". In English there's plenty of
reasons to be grateful that we don't have sane an inane body
to tell us how to speak our own language. Just say it.
Pete
Neil Coffey
In article <33E045...@eurocontrol.fr>, Peter Hullah
<mailto:Peter....@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
> I lost count years ago of the number of times I've been corrected
> by French speakers for saying "c'est" when I should have said
> "ce sont".
In most cases this is a hypercorrection. The use of "c'est" before
a plural complement is far more common than "ce sont" in the neutral/
informal speech of all classes.
Grammar books which claim that "ce sont" is always required in the
plural (Le Robert & Nathan makes such a claim) should be taken with
a pinch of salt. A descriptive grammar will say, like A. V. Thomas
in "Dictionnaire des difficultés de la langue française", that in
most cases either "c'est" or "ce sont" is possible. Thomas gives
examples such as:
c'est / ce sont des heures qui paraissent longues
c'est / ce sont des bêtises
ce n'est pas les journaux qui racontent ces détails
c'est des poissons [Gide]
"ce sont" possibly has a more emphatic value than "c'est". For
example:
c'est des amis
ce sont de vrais amis
The Académie Française is a bunch of decrepit prescriptivists, most
of whom were probably still alive in the late 18th century. Needless
to say, nobody pays the slightest ounce of attention to what they
drone on about.
Neil Coffey
In article <cet...@kaa.gr.osf.org>, Éamonn McManus
<mailto:emcm...@gr.opengroup.org> wrote:
> (Actually to judge from this text the Académie is a good deal less
^^^^^^^^
> prescriptive than people commonly imagine.
Remeber this text isn't necessarily drawn up by the Academy! It
certainly isn't intended to express the Academy's views - its
main purpose is for use by exam markers.
Peter Schultz
I think there is a lot of reasons not to get hung up on this
agreement thing. In fact, there is a host of reasons.
(Note: "lot" and "host" are singular. Did I do it right?)
Robert Lieblich
There is no "right" on this issue, but most people with whom I
communicate would use "there are" in both places where you used "there
is." Reason - the understood complement of "there" is a plural -
"reasons." In a.u.e. we've chased each other around this tree so many
times that I will shut up now.
[Thank you. No applause necessary.]
Bob Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com>
Ian James Abbott
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970730212818.26783A-100000@scfn>, Kenneth
Palmer <sfd...@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us> writes:
>On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Neil Coffey wrote:
[Neil Coffey discussed the use of "there's" followed by a plural.]
>I use there's as third person with an object. A specific location or two
>locations. There is the boy and there's the lamp. Not neccessarily with
>as ownership. There's the girl and there is the map. Theirs as girls and
>map. Them, they, object and third person. I use that's in the same way.
>That is, specific location. That's the band (bus). It works for me.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, Ken, but it does not
seem to have any bearing on the subject of the thread, which in essence
is the correctness of the substitution of "there're" with "there's".
You seem to be saying that your use of "there's" indicates some sort of
possession by a place, but that that does not necessarily indicate
ownership, in other words, that it's a form of "possession by location".
Is that right? Most people merely use it as a contraction of "there is"
except when they are using it as a perverted contraction of "there are".
I am wondering whether you would ever say "there're the maps" (a
contraction of "there are the maps", or would always say "there's the
maps", which brings this posting nicely back on topic.
--
* Ian James Abbott: ja...@spuddy.mew.co.uk, i...@perfect.airtime.co.uk, *
* rat-u...@geocities.com, http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/3210/ *
Éamonn McManus
Peter Hullah <Peter....@eurocontrol.fr> writes:
> Neil Coffey wrote:
> > I think most speakers who use "there's" + plural would agree that
> > this belongs to an informal register, and that a more formal register
> > would imply "there are". In French, this is not the case - c'est +
> > plural is considered perfectly acceptable in higher registers.
> by French speakers for saying "c'est" when I should have said
> "ce sont".
In that case you must be surrounded by an unusual number of pedants.
I have *never* in six years living here been corrected for that, even
though I often do it.
> But then, in France, they have the Academie Francaise to decide
> when it'll "enter the language". In English there's plenty of
> reasons to be grateful that we don't have sane an inane body
> to tell us how to speak our own language. Just say it.
An "Arrêté" entitled "Tolérances Grammaticales ou Orthographiques" of
December 1976 had this to say:
Accord du présentatif _c'est_ suivi d'un nom (ou d'un pronom de la
troisième personne) au pluriel:
Ce sont là de beaux résultats.
C'est là de beaux résultats.
C'étaient ceux que nous attendions.
C'était ceux que nous attendions.
+----------------------------------------------------+
| L'usage admet l'accord au pluriel ou au singulier. |
+----------------------------------------------------+
As I understand it these decrees are produced by the Minister for
Education in consultation with the Académie so if even *they* think
"c'est" can always be used for "ce sont" I think you can legitimately
tell your correctors to sod off.
(Actually to judge from this text the Académie is a good deal less
prescriptive than people commonly imagine. In particular, they
frequently give preferred forms but with other common forms in
parentheses, and they admit in the preamble that «dans certains cas,
ce sont [!] les normes elles-mêmes qu'il serait difficile de
justifier avec rigueur, tandis que les transgressions peuvent
procéder d'un souci de cohérence analogique ou logique».)
Peter Hullah
Éamonn McManus wrote:
>
> In that case you must be surrounded by an unusual number of pedants.
> I have *never* in six years living here been corrected for that, even
> though I often do it.
Perhaps, in fifteen years, I've had more chance to be corrected than
you in six; though, to judge by other posts of yours you've learnt
to correct other people's every mistake in French like a true
Frenchman, so you must have learnt by example.
> +----------------------------------------------------+
> | L'usage admet l'accord au pluriel ou au singulier. |
> +----------------------------------------------------+
There's a difference between the Education Ministry writing that
"L'usage admet" for the purposes of marking exams (it is, after
all, just stating the obvious) and the Academie Francaise writing
that "L'Academie admet" for the purpose of defining the language.
> (Actually to judge from this text the Académie is a good deal less
> prescriptive than people commonly imagine. In particular, they
> frequently give preferred forms but with other common forms in
> parentheses, and they admit in the preamble that «dans certains cas,
> ce sont [!] les normes elles-mêmes qu'il serait difficile de
> justifier avec rigueur, tandis que les transgressions peuvent
> procéder d'un souci de cohérence analogique ou logique».)
Which is not the case here.
Markus Laker
Peter Schultz <schu...@erols.com>:
> I think there is a lot of reasons not to get hung up on this
> agreement thing. In fact, there is a host of reasons.
> (Note: "lot" and "host" are singular. Did I do it right?)
You should know by now, Peter, that English usage is always more
complicated and less susceptible to logic than we think. Some
collective nouns are treated grammatically as singular, others as
plural; some vary depending on what exactly you mean, and others cause
transpondian arguments on a.u.e between people who accuse each other of
being illogical or ungrammatical.
If you would write 'a lot of reasons are given' and 'a host of reasons
are given' -- as I would -- then you should, at least, reconsider your
decision to write 'there is a lot of' and 'there is a host of'.
Markus Laker.
[sci.lang removed from follow-ups.]
--
My newsfeed is dropping messages again.
*Please* send an emailed copy of any reply.
Adrian Pepper
Peter Hullah <Peter....@eurocontrol.fr> wrote,
in article <33E045...@eurocontrol.fr>:
>Neil Coffey wrote:
>>
>> I think most speakers who use "there's" + plural would agree that
>> this belongs to an informal register, and that a more formal register
>> would imply "there are". In French, this is not the case - c'est +
>> plural is considered perfectly acceptable in higher registers.
>
>I lost count years ago of the number of times I've been corrected
>by French speakers for saying "c'est" when I should have said
>is even more widely spread than its English equivalent.
>
>when it'll "enter the language". In English there's plenty of
>reasons to be grateful that we don't have sane an inane body
>to tell us how to speak our own language. Just say it.
You seem to be saying that French (Francophone) speakers will actually
say "c'est" when "ce sont" would be "more correct", but will correct
you when you make the same "mistake".
Is that in fact what you are saying?
Adrian Pepper
Ralph M Jones
Adrian Pepper wrote:
>
> You seem to be saying that French (Francophone) speakers will actually
> say "c'est" when "ce sont" would be "more correct", but will correct
> you when you make the same "mistake".
>
> Is that in fact what you are saying?
I think that this sort of thing happens not infrequently in a friendly
supportive way just to make sure that the foreign speaker is aware of
the correct way of saying something. What is being expressed is not "you
shouldn't say it that way" but "what you said is OK but I want to be
sure that you know the correct way of saying it". That's been by
experience.
--
There never was a horse that couldn't be rode
Nor a man that couldn't be throwed.
- Old Rodeo Saying
Neil Coffey
In article <33E527...@hal-pc.org>, Ralph M Jones
<mailto:rmj...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
> Adrian Pepper wrote:
> >
> > You seem to be saying that French (Francophone) speakers will actually
> > say "c'est" when "ce sont" would be "more correct", but will correct
> > you when you make the same "mistake".
>
> supportive way just to make sure that the foreign speaker is aware of
> the correct way of saying something. What is being expressed is not "you
> shouldn't say it that way" but "what you said is OK but I want to be
> sure that you know the correct way of saying it". That's been by
> experience.
I think there's another reason which comes into play, and that's
that people just aren't always fully aware of the way they speak. For
example, many French people (particularly French teachers!) would claim
hand on heart not to drop the "ne" of the negative, when in practice
they rarely _don't_ drop it.
The point about "c'est"/"ce sont" is that there's nothing wrong
with saying something like "c'est les journaux qui disent cela"; there
are few writers who would consider "ce sont" to be more correct in this
case. Saying that "ce sont" is more correct is usually a hypercorrection.
Andy Averill
>I use there's as third person with an object. A specific location or two
>locations. There is the boy and there's the lamp. Not neccessarily with
>as ownership. There's the girl and there is the map. Theirs as girls and
>map. Them, they, object and third person. I use that's in the same way.
>That is, specific location. That's the band (bus). It works for me.
>
-----
Andy Averill (an...@lisco.com)
Fairfield, Iowa
Andy Averill
In article <33E527...@hal-pc.org>, rmj...@hal-pc.org wrote:
>Adrian Pepper wrote:
>>
>> You seem to be saying that French (Francophone) speakers will actually
>> say "c'est" when "ce sont" would be "more correct", but will correct
>> you when you make the same "mistake".
>>
>
>supportive way just to make sure that the foreign speaker is aware of
>the correct way of saying something. What is being expressed is not "you
>shouldn't say it that way" but "what you said is OK but I want to be
>sure that you know the correct way of saying it". That's been by
>experience.
>
Is there a polite way to suggest that French people are a little quick to
correct those who make language mistakes? I've even heard one Frenchman
correct another when both were speaking English.
Arne Dehli Halvorsen
Fantastic rejoinder!
When you look at what's written there, it does look like the later Beckett,
like Stirrings Still or something.
Andy Averill <nospam...@lisco.com> wrote in article
<5saeba$m97$5...@jefferson.lisco.com>...
> >I use there's as third person with an object. A specific location or
two
> >locations. There is the boy and there's the lamp. Not neccessarily
with
> >as ownership. There's the girl and there is the map. Theirs as girls
and
> >map. Them, they, object and third person. I use that's in the same
way.
> >That is, specific location. That's the band (bus). It works for me.
> >
> Yeah, but you learned English from Samuel Beckett; that's cheating.
>