Is or are?
Robert E. Lewis
"There is one or two..."
I would tend to say, "There are one or two..." I don't remember the exact
phrasing, but there wasn't a subject folllowing "two" - it was something
like "...but there is one or two left..."
I can see "is" in the sense of there is either this (one) or that (two). Is
there any consensus on is or are in this usage?
--
Robert
Skitt
"Robert E. Lewis" <rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> wrote in message
news:9jidln$i...@netaxs.com...
My observation is that quite often, in casual speech, people say (and I'm
one of them), "there's three things that ...". It is a colloquialism, not
to be used in formal context, but nevertheless, often encountered. It is a
contraction for "there are", which, were it to be reduced to "there're",
would be quite unwieldy.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
ref
In standard informal American English "are" must be used. I can see some,
influenced by arch-prescriptivists, using "is" in formal writing, but I
suppose the phrase is unlikely to come up in such a setting.
John Lawler
>Robert E. Lewis writes:
>> A newsreader on the BBC World News this morning used the phrase:
>> "There is one or two..."
>> I would tend to say, "There are one or two..." I don't remember the exact
>> phrasing, but there wasn't a subject folllowing "two" - it was something
>> like "...but there is one or two left..."
>> I can see "is" in the sense of there is either this (one) or that (two).
>> Is there any consensus on is or are in this usage?
Yes, there are.
>In standard informal American English "are" must be used. I can see some,
>influenced by arch-prescriptivists, using "is" in formal writing, but I
>suppose the phrase is unlikely to come up in such a setting.
That's one consensus. Though the phrase "standard informal American
English" is an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Informal languages be
definition have no standard, and certainly spoken American English, of
whatever register, has none.
Another consensus is to contract the dummy "there" with the following
verb, which leaves, by Hobson's phonological choice, no option but 'is',
since you can't contract /DEr/ and /ar/ into one syllable successfully.
This results in a frozen existential word /DErz/ (like 'yesh' in Hebrew),
used indiscriminately with both singular and plural subjects.
This consensus is reinforced by the fact that the number of the subject
noun phrase becomes much less memorable (indeed, it is often deleted
entirely, as in the example given) by being demoted from initial position
by There-insertion. That means that the speaker has to decide on the
shape of the existential word without having the subject NP in memory to
agree with (only in imagination, if that), and the listeners (if they
care) must set a flag in the parsing to anticipate agreement with the
eventual number specification of the subject NP. Needless to say, this
rarely happens.
Finally, in the example above, "one or two" is a disjoined quantifier
ambivalent between singular and plural, and English has no good rule
for verb agreement with disjoined subject. Some other examples:
Either she or I ??is/??am leaving. (Person agreement)
Bill or his parents ??is/?are picking me up. (Number agreement)
The most common practice in English is to throw up one's hands and avoid
making a decision by either contracting, using a non-agreeing modal
(
Either she or I must leave.
Bill or his parents will pick me up.
)
or rephrasing altogether.
In the example given, though, I'd expect to find "is" (in the form of
final /z/ in /DErz/) most of the time, since there's an overwhelming
number of reasons for it, against very few for "are". Of course, matters
like this are well within the realm of individual variance --
#include http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/disclaimers.html
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because in our brief lives, we catch so little of the vastness of
history, we tend too much to think of language as being solid as a
dictionary, with granite-like permanence, rather than as the rampant
restless sea of metaphor that it is." -- Julian Jaynes
Martin Ambuhl
>
> A newsreader on the BBC World News this morning used the phrase:
> "There is one or two..."
Where do you listen to the BBC World News in Brazosport? There are only one or
two local choices and I don't think KBRZ is the answer.
R J Valentine
} ref <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> writes:
}>Robert E. Lewis writes:
}
}>> A newsreader on the BBC World News this morning used the phrase:
}>> "There is one or two..."
}
}>> I would tend to say, "There are one or two..." I don't remember the exact
}>> phrasing, but there wasn't a subject folllowing "two" - it was something
}>> like "...but there is one or two left..."
}
}>> I can see "is" in the sense of there is either this (one) or that (two).
}>> Is there any consensus on is or are in this usage?
}
} Yes, there are.
See, now, that's wrong any way you look at it; but of course that's your
point, and I agree with it.
}>In standard informal American English "are" must be used. I can see some,
}>influenced by arch-prescriptivists, using "is" in formal writing, but I
}>suppose the phrase is unlikely to come up in such a setting.
}
} That's one consensus. Though the phrase "standard informal American
} English" is an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Informal languages be
} definition have no standard, and certainly spoken American English, of
} whatever register, has none.
You apparently mean a formally adopted written standard, where Prof.
Fontana is likely referring to the floating standard that makes people
look up from their beer and wonder where this guy is from and why his
mother dresses him funny.
} Another consensus is to contract the dummy "there" with the following
} verb, which leaves, by Hobson's phonological choice, no option but 'is',
} since you can't contract /DEr/ and /ar/ into one syllable successfully.
No doubt that's written up somewhere, if only in jest. But I don't have
any problem with "there're" (any more than I would with "they'd've"), and
I must've missed the day when they said it had to fit in one syllable.
} This results in a frozen existential word /DErz/ (like 'yesh' in Hebrew),
} used indiscriminately with both singular and plural subjects.
It does happen, and I'm not denying that part.
} This consensus is reinforced by the fact that the number of the subject
} noun phrase becomes much less memorable (indeed, it is often deleted
} entirely, as in the example given) by being demoted from initial position
} by There-insertion. That means that the speaker has to decide on the
} shape of the existential word without having the subject NP in memory to
} agree with (only in imagination, if that), and the listeners (if they
} care) must set a flag in the parsing to anticipate agreement with the
} eventual number specification of the subject NP. Needless to say, this
} rarely happens.
}
} Finally, in the example above, "one or two" is a disjoined quantifier
} ambivalent between singular and plural, and English has no good rule
} for verb agreement with disjoined subject.
Ain't neither. It's different-from-one, and different-from-one tends to
take the plural verb form, even if it's less than one.
} Some other examples:
}
} Either she or I ??is/??am leaving. (Person agreement)
} Bill or his parents ??is/?are picking me up. (Number agreement)
}
} The most common practice in English is to throw up one's hands and avoid
} making a decision by either contracting, using a non-agreeing modal
} (
} Either she or I must leave.
} Bill or his parents will pick me up.
} )
} or rephrasing altogether.
That's not what I've noticed. The most common practice I've observed is
either to take the closest and use that for the number or ball them up
together and use the plural, irregardless. If the PRP (q.v.) is at a
point when a modal can still be thrown in, sure, that could happen.
} In the example given, though, I'd expect to find "is" (in the form of
} final /z/ in /DErz/) most of the time, since there's an overwhelming
} number of reasons for it, against very few for "are".
Me, I'd expect something more like "The donuts on the tray went fast, but
there're one or two left in the box."
} Of course, matters
} like this are well within the realm of individual variance --
} #include http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/disclaimers.html
Kim _ann_!
} -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics Dept
} -----------------------------------------------------------------------
} "Because in our brief lives, we catch so little of the vastness of
} history, we tend too much to think of language as being solid as a
} dictionary, with granite-like permanence, rather than as the rampant
} restless sea of metaphor that it is." -- Julian Jaynes
_There_ you go. Just don't be saying the sea isn't there or that everyone
can have his own.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Skitt
"R J Valentine" <r...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:tlrt355...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Me, I'd expect something more like "The donuts on the tray went fast, but
> there're one or two left in the box."
In an informal setting, such as when munching on donuts at the local donut
shop, I'd be likely to say, "The donuts on the tray went fast, but there's
one or two left in the box."
I'm just a regular type of guy. So shoot me!
ref
>
> "R J Valentine" <r...@smart.net> wrote in message
> news:tlrt355...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >
> > Me, I'd expect something more like "The donuts on the tray went fast, but
> > there're one or two left in the box."
>
> In an informal setting, such as when munching on donuts at the local donut
> shop, I'd be likely to say, "The donuts on the tray went fast, but there's
> one or two left in the box."
>
> I'm just a regular type of guy. So shoot me!
I'd say either "there's" or "there're". What I wouldn't say in informal
speech is "there is", and I'd bet that that's as uncommon as "in future".
My previous comments about "there is" should be understood with this in
mind: that "there is" is not the same as "there's".
a1a5...@sprint.ca
wrote:
(amused, one supposes, at the 'sig' and its appropriateness for the
laissez faire school)
>} -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics Dept
>} -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>} "Because in our brief lives, we catch so little of the vastness of
>} history, we tend too much to think of language as being solid as a
>} dictionary, with granite-like permanence, rather than as the rampant
>} restless sea of metaphor that it is." -- Julian Jaynes
>
>_There_ you go. Just don't be saying the sea isn't there or that everyone
>can have his own.
>
>--
>R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Heraldry _is_ granite-like. sort of, innit?
R J Valentine
...
} Heraldry _is_ granite-like. sort of, innit?
Maybe, but I worry about statues of generals, especially those killed or
wounded in battle. I don't take them for granite.
a1a5...@sprint.ca
wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 04:03:33 GMT a1a5...@sprint.ca wrote:
Nor do penguins.
Al in Dallas
[snip]
> Another consensus is to contract the dummy "there" with the following
> verb, which leaves, by Hobson's phonological choice, no option but 'is',
> since you can't contract /DEr/ and /ar/ into one syllable successfully.
> This results in a frozen existential word /DErz/ (like 'yesh' in Hebrew),
> used indiscriminately with both singular and plural subjects.
Am I alone in pronouncing "there're" as [Der?R]?
[snip]
--
Al in Dallas
Richard Fontana
With a glottal stop in the middle? I think I've heard it said that way,
but that's not how I'd say it.
Aaron J Dinkin
> jla...@login.itd.umich.edu (John Lawler) wrote in message news:<8Ah77.754$am2....@news.itd.umich.edu>...
>
>> Another consensus is to contract the dummy "there" with the following
>> verb, which leaves, by Hobson's phonological choice, no option but 'is',
>> since you can't contract /DEr/ and /ar/ into one syllable successfully.
>> This results in a frozen existential word /DErz/ (like 'yesh' in Hebrew),
>> used indiscriminately with both singular and plural subjects.
>
> Am I alone in pronouncing "there're" as [Der?R]?
Conceivably: that glottal stop seems fairly strange to me. When I say
"there're", it's /'Der@r/ which comes out as [DeRR] or the like. But I
think I say "there's" for "there are" more often than "there're".
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Maria Conlon
a1a5...@sprint.ca
>R J Valentine wrote:
>>Maybe, but I worry about statues of generals, especially those killed
or
>>wounded in battle. I don't take them for granite.
>Nor do penguins.
Uh...pigeons, a1?
Maria (Tootsie)
Al in Dallas
So, how do you separate your [R]s? The "consonant" between mine
is not identical to the one in /V V/, but it seems to be a whole
lot like the way I begin words that begin with a vowel sound.
--
Al in Dallas
Aaron J Dinkin
> Aaron J Dinkin <din...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<9jn762$2l0$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
>> Al in Dallas <alfar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Am I alone in pronouncing "there're" as [Der?R]?
>>
>> Conceivably: that glottal stop seems fairly strange to me. When I say
>> "there're", it's /'Der@r/ which comes out as [DeRR] or the like. But I
>> think I say "there's" for "there are" more often than "there're".
>
> So, how do you separate your [R]s?
I don't really. I probably should have written [DeR:], but there's a
noticeable falling pitch over the course of the prolonged [R] that makes
it sound more like two distinct [R]s, one high and one low, than a single
long [R].
> The "consonant" between mine is not identical to the one in /V V/, but
> it seems to be a whole lot like the way I begin words that begin with a
> vowel sound.
That would be a glottal stop, all right, I expect.
Jerry Friedman
> } Another consensus is to contract the dummy "there" with the following
> } verb, which leaves, by Hobson's phonological choice, no option but 'is',
> } since you can't contract /DEr/ and /ar/ into one syllable successfully.
>
> No doubt that's written up somewhere, if only in jest. But I don't have
> any problem with "there're" (any more than I would with "they'd've"), and
> I must've missed the day when they said it had to fit in one syllable.
...
Another vote for "there're". I think I pronounce it /'DErR/, or maybe
/'DER/. I have no phonological problem with "The deer're over there"
or "The things in the freezer're gonna thaw," either.
How many of us do there have to be before the majority usage
("there's") isn't a consensus?
--
Jerry Friedman
Skitt
"Jerry Friedman" <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96efe132.01072...@posting.google.com...
Oh, at least a couple more.
Peter Tan
'There're', for me, would typically come out as /'DE@/ - and 'there' is
typically /'DE:/, and 'there are' is typically /DErA:/
--
Peter K W Tan
Singapore
Email: peter...@yahoo.co.uk
Al in Dallas <alfar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:91f41fac.01072...@posting.google.com...
Richard Fontana
> Oh dear! And what about those of us with non-rhotic accents?
>
>
> 'There're', for me, would typically come out as /'DE@/ - and 'there' is
> typically /'DE:/, and 'there are' is typically /DErA:/
That seems inconsistent. Why would you pronounce the 'linking r' or
whatever you'd call it in "there are" but not in "there're"?
In a situation like this, you better check with a1a.
Alan Jones
"Richard Fontana" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.01072...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Peter Tan wrote:
>
> > Oh dear! And what about those of us with non-rhotic accents?
> >
> >
> > 'There're', for me, would typically come out as /'DE@/ - and
'there' is
> > typically /'DE:/, and 'there are' is typically /DErA:/
>
> That seems inconsistent. Why would you pronounce the 'linking r' or
> whatever you'd call it in "there are" but not in "there're"?
It may be inconsistent, but I think Peter's usage is common in RP. The
omission of the linking r in "there are" sounds affected, and usually
results in a half-hearted glottal where the r would be.
Alan Jones
Aaron J Dinkin
I don't think Richard was questioning the inclusion of the linking [r] in
"there are" so much as its omission in "there're". At least, that's what I
would have wanted to know - why is there no linking [r] in "there're"?
Alan Jones
for "there 're".
Alan Jones