There IS more than one, or there ARE more than one?
j...@xbase.com
Which is correct:
"There IS more than one" or "There ARE more than one"
It sounds correct to say "there is more than one book". But doesn't
"more than one" imply a plural, meaning, "there are more than one
books" would be correct.
How many books are there?
"There are more than one" sounds better than "there is more than one".
Ralph M Jones
This is a puzzler for me. I've been thinking about it, off and on, all
day. I was hoping that someone would post a brilliant response that
would clarify everything.
I normally go with "there is" contracted to "there's", as in "there's
more than one way to skin a cat". But "more than one" implies a plural,
as you mentioned.
Now if "more than" is an adverbial phrase which modifies the adjective
"one" which in turn modifies the noun "way", then "is" is clearly
required. That's the way that I'd parse it.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <330128...@hal-pc.org>, Ralph M Jones <rmj...@hal-pc.org>
writes:
> j...@xbase.com wrote:
>> It sounds correct to say "there is more than one book". But doesn't
>> "more than one" imply a plural, meaning, "there are more than one
>> books" would be correct.
> This is a puzzler for me. I've been thinking about it, off and on, all
> day. I was hoping that someone would post a brilliant response that
> would clarify everything.
> Now if "more than" is an adverbial phrase which modifies the adjective
> "one" which in turn modifies the noun "way", then "is" is clearly
> required. That's the way that I'd parse it.
The deadline for brilliant and clarifying responses having passed, you were
about to get mine, instead. But I see that you have not only anticipated me,
but you have done so accurately and concisely...indeed, clearly and brilliantly.
Confirmatory evidence is that there would be no hesitation in saying "there
_are_ more than two books".
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Philip Eden
Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>> > j...@xbase.com wrote:
>The sneaky way around this is to say "there's more than...", because
>both "there are" and "there is" contract to "there's" (who's ever heard
>of "there're"?).
I use it all the time, and I'm not alone. Is this something
peculiarly British?
Philip Eden
Bertel Lund Hansen
Adrian Tan wrote:
>The sneaky way around this is to say "there's more than...", because
>both "there are" and "there is" contract to "there's"
Nonsense.
>(who's ever heard of "there're"?).
Nobody, because you couldn't separate it from "there". This
does not mean, that you can call it anything you like.
--
Regards, Bertel
Adrian Tan
> > j...@xbase.com wrote:
>
> >> It sounds correct to say "there is more than one book". But doesn't
> >> "more than one" imply a plural, meaning, "there are more than one
> >> books" would be correct.
The sneaky way around this is to say "there's more than...", because
both "there are" and "there is" contract to "there's" (who's ever heard
of "there're"?).
Jonathan Paterson
j...@xbase.com wrote:
>> >> It sounds correct to say "there is more than one book". But doesn't
>> >> "more than one" imply a plural, meaning, "there are more than one
>> >> books" would be correct.
Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>The sneaky way around this is to say "there's more than...", because
>both "there are" and "there is" contract to "there's" (who's ever heard
>of "there're"?).
I have, and even if it were true that "there's" is a contraction of
"there are", you haven't answered the question of "book"or "books".
For what it's woorth, I'd stick with the singular.
Steve MacGregor
Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> wrote in article
<330974...@usyd.edu.au>...
> > j...@xbase.com wrote:
<<...both "there are" and "there is" contract to "there's" (who's ever
heard of "there're"?).>>
I have, and I sometimes use it in writing. But most often, I tend to
contract "there are" to "there's".
--
=======================================================
Reunite Gondwanaland!
=======================================================
Adrian Tan
Adrian Tan wrote:
> Incidentally, further proof that Mr Williams was correct in taking
> "more than" as an adverbial phrase modifying "one"
[snip]
I'm sorry -- 'twas "Ralph M. Jones".
Adrian Tan
Jonathan Paterson wrote:
>
> j...@xbase.com wrote:
> >> >> It sounds correct to say "there is more than one book". But doesn't
> >> >> "more than one" imply a plural, meaning, "there are more than one
> >> >> books" would be correct.
>
> Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> >The sneaky way around this is to say "there's more than...", because
> >of "there're"?).
>
> I have,
Well, I suppose it was folly to make a "no exceptions" remark
concerning language. By the way, I'm sure I can come up with literary
instances where "there's" clearly stands for "there are", but, of
course, that wouldn't mean anything.
> and even if it were true that "there's" is a contraction of
> "there are", you haven't answered the question of "book"or "books".
That's partly because the post to which my previous post was a reply
already answered it. :-) I just snipped the parts that contained the
answer because they weren't relevant to my comment (which was regarding
the original question). I was squirting on extra icing, not baking the
cake.
> For what it's woorth, I'd stick with the singular.
Incidentally, further proof that Mr Williams was correct in taking
"more than" as an adverbial phrase modifying "one" is expressions like
"I am more than happy", "I am more than pleased", where "more than" is
clearly adverbial. (I suppose it would be natural, in that case, to say
"There are more than zero books", though there might only be one book).
"More" as an adjective standing for a noun (or with an implied noun) is
normally singular, however. "But there is more on the back of the
message".
Adrian Tan
>
> >The sneaky way around this is to say "there's more than...", because
> >both "there are" and "there is" contract to "there's" (who's ever heard
> >of "there're"?).
>
> peculiarly British?
Foiled again!
Adrian Tan
Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
> Adrian Tan wrote:
>
> >The sneaky way around this is to say "there's more than...", because
> >both "there are" and "there is" contract to "there's"
>
>
> >(who's ever heard of "there're"?).
>
> does not mean, that you can call it anything you like.
I normally admit when I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong here. The
four criticisms I've read either have expressed doubt over "who's ever
heard of 'there're'", or have taken issue with the assertion that "there
are" "contracts" to "there's".
Firstly, IMSO, some of the reasons words are shortened include issues
of rhythm, type of language, formality of language, fast speech, ease of
speech, and pure habit. "There are" on face value seems a prime
candidate for shortening as it’s a common phrase, "are" is frequently
contracted, and the verb "to be" is usually readily understandable from
context. The possibilities offered are that it shortens to "there’s" (my
claim), that it contracts to "there’re" (Philip Eden, for instance), or
that it doesn’t contract (Bertel Lund Hansen).
Secondly, "contracts" in the context of my original post is a
misleading word, but I don't think it's the "wrong" word. Any process of
contraction to "there’s" wouldn’t take place on a phonological level
(it's not like "alpha plus episolon go to eta" or whatever -- it doesn’t
correspond to an established pattern of change), but "there's" can be
said to be a "contraction" in the sense that on the level of thought one
chooses it as a *shortened form* of "there are". Mentally one contracts.
Some examples from the guy who couldn’t spell his name:
Winter's Tale: "there's rosemary and rue; these keep Seeming and savour
all the winter long: Grace and remembrance be to you both"
Twelfth Night: "there's vinegar and pepper in't. FABIAN Is't so saucy?
SIR ANDREW Ay, is't, I warrant him: do but read. SIR TOBY BELCH Give
me."
The Tempest: "there's but five upon this isle: we are three of them; if
th' other two be brained like us, the state totters. STEPHANO Drink,
servant"
[Note that it's arguable, however, that the first two of these are
genuinely singular and can be attributed to some form of hendiadys.]
My objections to use and existence of "there’re": 1) I’ve never heard
of it; 2) I think it difficult to pronounce; 3) it’s not meaningfully
different from "there are". "1" and "2" are neither here nor there --
I’ve seen two posted testimonies to the occurrence of "there’re", and I
can give "2" no linguistic support. "3" is a better objection if the
"'re" of the word is pronounced as a separate syllable (in which case
there is no rhythmical change, no benefit to speed or ease of speech,
and very little difference from a quickly spoken "there are"). Mr
Hansen’s objection that "there’re" is not distinguishable from "there" I
don’t think valid -- "they’re" and "their" are indistinguishable from
"there", and I don’t believe that, in most contexts, not hearing the
"'re" after "there" would cause confusion or difficulty.
Objections to "there’s": 1) it’s grammatically incorrect; and 2) it has
no relation to "there are" -- "This does not mean, that you can call it
anything you like". "1" is valid with respect to formal speech, but
contractions generally belong to the realm of colloquial speech, and I
wasn’t making any comment on the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of
"there’s" when I claimed that it existed. "2" is a better objection, but
a) "there’s" exists as a substitute for "there are" whether there’s a
relation or not; b) one can guess a relation, save that it’s not a
phonological one -- "there’s" is an old contraction of "there + 'to be'"
and when a speaker tries to contract "there are" and finds the task
impossible, he or she naturally falls back to "there are", or to
"there’s" if habit or the urge to contract outweigh regard for grammar.
Robert M. Wilson
In article <330FCD...@usyd.edu.au>, Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>
>> Adrian Tan wrote:
>>
>> >The sneaky way around this is to say "there's more than...", because
>> >both "there are" and "there is" contract to "there's"
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> >(who's ever heard of "there're"?).
>>
>> Nobody, because you couldn't separate it from "there". This
>> does not mean, that you can call it anything you like.
[big snip]
The people outside this room may think I have finally lost it; why else would
he be talking to himself.
I cannot agree that "there's" is an acceptable contraction for "there are".
I would say "there're" to rhyme with "fairer" in "There're six miles to go".
But I would probably write "there are" because of the unfamiliarity of
"there're". I would not write "There's more than - - -" if it is a number
greater than one. (e.g."there are more than six people in the room" but "there
is more than a cupful left".
What we say and what we would write are frequently different.
Truly Donovan
Adrian Tan wrote:
>
>
> My objections to use and existence of "there’re": 1) I’ve never heard
> of it; 2) I think it difficult to pronounce; 3) it’s not meaningfully
> different from "there are".
I'm underwhelmed. I've heard it (unless of course you meant something
else by "heard *of* it" than simply "heard it" -- a possibility I
considered and ultimately dismissed because that would make even less
sense), because I've heard me say it. Just because you find it hard to
pronounce doesn't meant that I do. Of course it's not meaningfully
different from "there are" because it means exactly the same thing as
"there are." (Or are you saying that you can't hear any difference, in
which case your first argument just went to hell in a handbasket, but I
can hear a difference when I say it, and since you never say it or hear
it, mine has to be the more comprehensive experience.)
--
Truly Donovan
"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
ISBN 0-13-216243-1
http://www.prenhall.com
Philip Eden
Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
> I normally admit when I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong here. The
>four criticisms I've read either have expressed doubt over "who's ever
>heard of 'there're'", or have taken issue with the assertion that "there
>are" "contracts" to "there's".
I know that "there're" is right for me, and I believe it is right for most
RP speakers. But I wouldn't presume to claim that it was wrong for
others to think differently.
> Objections to "there’s": 1) it’s grammatically incorrect; and 2) it has
>no relation to "there are" -- "This does not mean, that you can call it
>anything you like". "1" is valid with respect to formal speech, but
>contractions generally belong to the realm of colloquial speech, and I
>wasn’t making any comment on the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of
>"there’s" when I claimed that it existed. "2" is a better objection, but
>a) "there’s" exists as a substitute for "there are" whether there’s a
>relation or not; b) one can guess a relation, save that it’s not a
>phonological one -- "there’s" is an old contraction of "there + 'to be'"
>and when a speaker tries to contract "there are" and finds the task
>impossible, he or she naturally falls back to "there are", or to
>"there’s" if habit or the urge to contract outweigh regard for grammar.
I do not find it difficult to pronounce; in fact an examination of my
own speech patterns reveals five or six variants of "there're" and
"there are", depending on where
the emphasis falls in the clause, where the stress falls in the next
word, whether the next word begins with a consonant or a vowel,
the degree of colloquialness I am speaking with, and probably other
reasons too. I also write "there're" as well, but only when preparing
material for (informal) radio broadcasts. I would expect that most
people have no reason or need to write it. Again, though, I would
not dispute for a moment that speakers of other Englishes might find
it difficult or uncomfortable.
Here's another thought: are you happy with the inconsistency between
your suggesting "there's" as a contraction for "there are", and
"there aren't" as a contraction for "there are not"? I would say:
There're three windows in my boss's office.
There aren't any windows in my office.
There're no windows in my office
What would you say?
Philip Eden
Chris Malcolm
In article <5enak2$6pd$1...@noc.van.hookup.net> r...@mail.duncan.island.net (Robert M. Wilson) writes:
>In article <330FCD...@usyd.edu.au>, Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>>Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> Adrian Tan wrote:
>>> >The sneaky way around this is to say "there's more than...", because
>>> >both "there are" and "there is" contract to "there's"
>>> >(who's ever heard of "there're"?).
>>>
>>> Nobody, because you couldn't separate it from "there". This
Nobody American, he means. Hear for example how they strangle over words
like "error". But of course he exaggerates. Some Americans can pronounce
"rer" words properly, as can all other English speaking nationalities.
>I cannot agree that "there's" is an acceptable contraction for "there are".
>I would say "there're" to rhyme with "fairer" in "There're six miles to go".
So does all of the non-American English-speaking world.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@dai.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
Andrew {Daggers} Dagnall
Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <5enak2$6pd$1...@noc.van.hookup.net> r...@mail.duncan.island.net (Robert M. Wilson) writes:
> >In article <330FCD...@usyd.edu.au>, Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> >I would say "there're" to rhyme with "fairer" in "There're six miles
> >to go".
>
> So does all of the non-American English-speaking world.
You mean: non-American-English-speaking world.
--
Andrew
Mark Baker
In article <3314E9...@keble.oxford.ac.uk>,
No, because that includes the French, the Germans and many others. Chris's
statement only includes English speakers. Non-English speakers don't tend
to say "there're" very often at all.
Andrew {Daggers} Dagnall
> >> r...@mail.duncan.island.net (Robert M. Wilson) writes:
> >> >Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> >> >I would say "there're" to rhyme with "fairer" in "There're six
> >> >miles to go".
> >>
> >> So does all of the non-American English-speaking world.
> >
> >You mean: non-American-English-speaking world.
>
> No, because that includes the French, the Germans and many others.
> Chris's statement only includes English speakers. Non-English speakers
> don't tend to say "there're" very often at all.
O.K., my misinterpretation.
Would you consider "non-American, English-speaking world" to be better?
--
Andrew
Adrian Tan
Truly Donovan wrote:
>
> Adrian Tan wrote:
> >
> > My objections to use and existence of "there’re": 1) I’ve never heard
> > of it; 2) I think it difficult to pronounce; 3) it’s not meaningfully
> > different from "there are".
>
> I'm underwhelmed. I've heard it (unless of course you meant something
> else by "heard *of* it" than simply "heard it" -- a possibility I
> considered and ultimately dismissed because that would make even less
> sense), because I've heard me say it. Just because you find it hard to
> pronounce doesn't meant that I do.
Ms Donovan, I made two serious mistakes, and I think I've at least
partly misled you. I assumed a certain pronunciation of the "image"
"there're", and I assumed that the person who wrote the word would only
use it to represent a certain sound. I'm not convinced we're talking
about the same thing when you write "because I've heard me say it".
You're obviously right to draw attention to the presumption in a
sentiment like "no one says this", but when I wrote
> "1" and "2" are neither here nor there --
> I’ve seen two posted testimonies to the occurrence of "there’re", and I
> can give "2" no linguistic support.
that was tantamount to confessing that '"1" and "2"' stink as reasons. I
wasn't trying to argue that "there're" never occurs -- I admitted it
does. In listing "1" at all I was justifying previous misconception
rather than current position.
One reason I wrote "heard of" rather than "heard" was that I was
speaking of the form "there're" -- the word as image, rather than the
word as sound. I don't think it was a nonsensical or unnecessary "of";
when I wrote "I think it difficult to pronounce", that was meant to
amount to "If I saw it on the page, I would find it difficult to
pronounce" (although the sentiment falls into both assumption traps).
> Of course it's not meaningfully
> different from "there are" because it means exactly the same thing as
> "there are." (Or are you saying that you can't hear any difference, in
> which case your first argument just went to hell in a handbasket, but I
> can hear a difference when I say it, and since you never say it or hear
> it, mine has to be the more comprehensive experience.)
I wrote at the beginning of that paragraph "use and existence". This
third point was more to do with use; in the face of the fact that
written form "there're" does exist whether I like it or not, as far as
"existence" went it did no more than further justify why I previously
thought it didn't exist.
"Meaningfully different" was supposed to be read in the context of my
initial remarks about why contractions occur at all, and *was again
making those two assumptions*. The contracted form does mean exactly the
same thing as the uncontracted form, but I was treating it as a question
of usage rather than of meaning. The logic, if you can call it that, as
far as existence is concerned was along these lines: if the reasons why
words contract don't apply to this contraction, why should it contract?
As far as use was concerned: if it's not different from "there are" --
'and very little difference from a quickly spoken "there are"' -- why
should one write it? In the second, I was, of course, making the
assumption that one wouldn't use the form to represent a quickly spoken
"there are".
I'm not simultaneously saying I can hear two different words and can't
hear any difference, and the way I originally took the form "there're"
to be pronounced was certainly different from "there are". Yours *is*
the more comprehensive experience, and I intend no sarcasm or bitterness
when I say that.
Adrian Tan
> >four criticisms I've read either have expressed doubt over "who's ever
> >heard of 'there're'", or have taken issue with the assertion that "there
> >are" "contracts" to "there's".
>
> I know that "there're" is right for me, and I believe it is right for most
> RP speakers. But I wouldn't presume to claim that it was wrong for
> others to think differently.
[In jumpy mode], if you're saying that I'm presumptious, I think the
truth of the accusation depends on at which stage you would apply the
adjective.
Before I'd heard of the word, there was an element of presumption in
saying "who's ever heard of 'there're'?", but wouldn't mitigating
circumstances apply? -- as they would to "Who's ever seen a tennis ball
fly into the air and stop there?" or any general statement based on
experience? "There're" was so alien to me.
Having heard several testimonies to "there're", I'm not claiming it's
"wrong", and did not do so in the post to which you're responding. To
some extent, however, I *was* prescribing -- I *was* listing objections
to the use of the word -- and there was presumptiousness in that.
> >relation or not; b) one can guess a relation, save that it’s not a
> >phonological one -- "there’s" is an old contraction of "there + 'to be'"
> >and when a speaker tries to contract "there are" and finds the task
> >impossible, he or she naturally falls back to "there are", or to
> >"there’s" if habit or the urge to contract outweigh regard for grammar.
>
> I do not find it difficult to pronounce; in fact an examination of my
> own speech patterns reveals five or six variants of "there're" and
> "there are", depending on where
I think the fact that "there's" is used for "there are" at all lends
some sort of credibility to the claim. What alternative reason would you
propose?
On the spelling level, one problem is that I didn't make clear what
pronunciation I was asserting was difficult to produce or never
occurred, and I'm still not sure if the pronunciation I envisaged
corresponds to any of your five or six types.
I wrongly assumed that those last two letters would be read, and that
any writer would intend those last two letters to be read, in the same
way that the "'re" of "they're" is pronounced (and I hope that our
pronunciations for "they're" correspond). However, at least one
subsequent poster has taken the word to rhyme with "fairer".
[snip]
> Here's another thought: are you happy with the inconsistency between
> your suggesting "there's" as a contraction for "there are", and
> "there aren't" as a contraction for "there are not"? I would say:
>
> There're three windows in my boss's office.
> There aren't any windows in my office.
> There're no windows in my office
>
> What would you say?
I don't see the inconsistency, but I'm writing this at four in the
morning, and am not surprised I don't see it. :-) Even with a singular
subject I wouldn't write or say "there'sn't", if that's what you mean.
Philip Eden
Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>Philip Eden wrote:
>> I know that "there're" is right for me, and I believe it is right for most
>> RP speakers. But I wouldn't presume to claim that it was wrong for
>> others to think differently.
>
>[In jumpy mode], if you're saying that I'm presumptious, I think the
>truth of the accusation depends on at which stage you would apply the
>adjective.
Please don't be jumpy. I'm not suggesting that you're presumptuous;
if I wanted to say that, I would say it. I'm just covering my own
backside (in case someone thought I was implying that my choice
was the 'right' choice).
>
>> Here's another thought: are you happy with the inconsistency between
>> your suggesting "there's" as a contraction for "there are", and
>> "there aren't" as a contraction for "there are not"? I would say:
>>
>> There're three windows in my boss's office.
>> There aren't any windows in my office.
>> There're no windows in my office
>>
>> What would you say?
>
>I don't see the inconsistency, but I'm writing this at four in the
>morning, and am not surprised I don't see it. :-) Even with a singular
>subject I wouldn't write or say "there'sn't", if that's what you mean.
What I am trying to say is that, if I understand you, your preferences
seem to be:
There's three windows in my boss's office
There's no windows in my office
There aren't any windows in my office
but not There isn't any windows in my office
nor There's not any windows in my office
I perceive this to contain an element of inconsistency. Again, I'm not
presuming to suggest there is any 'right' or 'wrong' about it - there
are plenty of inconsistencies elsewhere in the language, after all.
Please don't think I'm on the offensive here ... just probing a
usage that is not natural to my particular version of English.
Philip Eden
Christophe LAPP
Adrian Tan wrote :
| Some examples from the guy who couldn't spell his
name:
| Winter's Tale: "there's rosemary and rue; these
keep Seeming and savour
| all the winter long: Grace and remembrance be to you
both"
| Twelfth Night: "there's vinegar and pepper in't.
FABIAN Is't so saucy?
| SIR ANDREW Ay, is't, I warrant him: do but read. SIR
TOBY BELCH Give
| me."
| The Tempest: "there's but five upon this isle: we
are three of them; if
| th' other two be brained like us, the state totters.
STEPHANO Drink,
| servant"
|
| [Note that it's arguable, however, that the first
two of these are
| genuinely singular and can be attributed to some
form of hendiadys.]
I don't know if this contribution will be relevant to
this discussion, since its original thread brought up
so many comments. However, I have personnaly had
trouble with the agreement in number of 'be' in there
+ [be] with the noun clause that follows.
ex :
- there is an apple, a pear and a kiwi the
refrigerator OR there *are* an apple, etc...
- there are four apples in the...
- there is more than one apple in the...
- there are a lot of apples in the...
Here is what I found in the Grammar Usage supplement
of the *Cobuild Advanced Learner's Dictionnary*, which
I personnaly found very helpful.
*****************
1-Usually a plural form of 'be' is used if the noun
group after it is plural.
ex : There were two men in the room.
2-You use a singular form of 'be' when you are giving
a list of items and the first noun in the list is
singular or uncountable.
ex :
There was a sofa and two chairs.
There is grief in his face and reproach at the
injustice of it all.
3-Note that you use a plural form of 'be' in front of
plural quantifiers beginning with 'a', such as 'a
number of', 'a lot of', and 'a few of'.
ex : There were a lot of people camped there.
4-You also use a plural form of 'be' in front of
numbers beginning with 'a', such as 'a hundred', 'a
thousand', and 'a dozen'.
ex : There were a dozen reasons why a man might hurry
from a bar.
*****************
--
Christophe LAPP, EFL teacher in Strasbourg, France
yo...@msn.com
"You don't teach what you know, you teach what you
are". unknown
"On n'enseigne pas ce que l'on sait, on enseigne ce
que l'on est".
Duncan McKenzie
I think many English speakers would indeed run "they" together with "are"
in a sentence like "There are three people in the van." I certainly would.
But since when, in English, does the way something is written have to
reflect the way it is pronounced?
"There're" looks terrible in print -- it isn't something we're used to
seeing, and I think most people will stumble when they read it. How do the
following sentences strike you?
Those're nice flowers,
Here're the sandwiches you ordered.
The workers're feeling depressed.
Who're you going out with tonight?
In all these cases, the writing reflects the way the sentence might be
pronounced, but I can see no good reason to write it that way.
Duncan McKenzie
Toronto, Canada
Barbara B
Duncan McKenzie <dun...@cable.com> wrote in article
<01bc2c2b$dcbcae20$026e...@duncan.cgocable.net>...
The apostrophe is very important in that lase example.
>
R. Sournois-Jambon
Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> said:
<snip>
> I was making the assumptions that "there're" would probably only
>indicate a certain sound, and that no one would write "there're" without
>intending to produce that "certain sound".
I haven't followed this thread closely, but I think there is one
important consideration that may not have been touched upon:
"There're" represents two quite different sounds, depending upon whether
the speaker is rhotic or nonrhotic.
A rhotic speaker will tend to pronounce it to sound like "there" but
with a somewhat lengthened "r". In some cases it might be hard to tell
whether the rhotic speaker is saying "there" or "there're." The rhotic
speaker might realize this and try to compensate by emphasizing the
ending in what seems an unnatural way to him or her. This might lead to
a feeling that "there're" is harder to pronounce than "there's."
As spoken by a nonrhotic speaker, though, the two would be quite
different. "There" would be pronounced /DE@/. while "there're" would be
pronounced /DE r@/.
I suspect that the difference between rhotic and nonrhotic speech
underlies the disagreement about whether or not "there're" is 'hard to
pronounce.'
--
To deantispam e-mail address, change double letters to
single. Please, no e-mail copies of Usenet postings.
Aaron J. Dinkin
>Philip Eden wrote:
>>
>> Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > I normally admit when I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong here.
>> >The four criticisms I've read either have expressed doubt over "who's ever
>> >heard of 'there're'", or have taken issue with the assertion that "there
>> >are" "contracts" to "there's".
>>
>> I know that "there're" is right for me, and I believe it is right for most
>> RP speakers. But I wouldn't presume to claim that it was wrong for
>> others to think differently.
Ah! - here's the significant point. You're an RP speaker, which means
you're non-rhotic. Therefore you'd pronounce "there're" as something like
/'Der@/. But to a rhotist, it would have to be /'Der@r/, and the /r@r/ is
very difficult to articulate without letting it coalesce into a single
/r:/.
>> >relation or not; b) one can guess a relation, save that itâs not a
>> >phonological one -- "thereâs" is an old contraction of "there + 'to be'"
>> >and when a speaker tries to contract "there are" and finds the task
>> >impossible, he or she naturally falls back to "there are", or to
>> >"thereâs" if habit or the urge to contract outweigh regard for grammar.
>>
>> I do not find it difficult to pronounce; in fact an examination of my
>> own speech patterns reveals five or six variants of "there're" and
>> "there are", depending on where
>
> I think the fact that "there's" is used for "there are" at all lends
>some sort of credibility to the claim. What alternative reason would you
>propose?
>
> On the spelling level, one problem is that I didn't make clear what
>pronunciation I was asserting was difficult to produce or never
>occurred, and I'm still not sure if the pronunciation I envisaged
>corresponds to any of your five or six types.
> I wrongly assumed that those last two letters would be read, and that
>any writer would intend those last two letters to be read, in the same
>way that the "'re" of "they're" is pronounced (and I hope that our
>pronunciations for "they're" correspond). However, at least one
>subsequent poster has taken the word to rhyme with "fairer".
I cannot imagine how else "there're" would be pronounced, but this way is
sufficiently difficult for me, at least, to pronounce (see above) that I
see no problem with the pronunciation argument for "there's".
>[snip]
>
>> Here's another thought: are you happy with the inconsistency between
>> your suggesting "there's" as a contraction for "there are", and
>> "there aren't" as a contraction for "there are not"? I would say:
>>
>> There're three windows in my boss's office.
>> There aren't any windows in my office.
>> There're no windows in my office
>>
>> What would you say?
>
>I don't see the inconsistency, but I'm writing this at four in the
>morning, and am not surprised I don't see it. :-) Even with a singular
>subject I wouldn't write or say "there'sn't", if that's what you mean.
There's no inconsistency, if you accept that "there's" can be expanded as
"there are". "There's" is "there are", and "[there] aren't" is "[there] are
not". "There's not" is conceivable, if unlikely, for "there are not".
"There" always takes "are", but sometimes this "are" becomes "-'s" (which
is no more bizarre than "will" becoming "wo-", as in "won't").
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Adrian Tan
Philip Eden wrote:
>
> Please don't be jumpy. I'm not suggesting that you're presumptuous;
> if I wanted to say that, I would say it. I'm just covering my own
> backside (in case someone thought I was implying that my choice
> was the 'right' choice).
presumptious. :-) Hopefully ["it is to be hoped that"?] I won't misread
you in the future, now that I have more idea of how you express
yourself.
Incidentally [incidentally, that's a word I use far too much] I'm not
sure if you read my response to Ms Donovan, but one thing I said was
that I was making the assumptions that "there're" would probably only
indicate a certain sound, and that no one would write "there're" without
intending to produce that "certain sound". I thought this on the analogy
of "they're" and "you're", which I'd rhyme with "there" and "your", but
I now recognize (at least) two glaring problems:
1) obviously people pronounce things differently, and I guess, in this
case, that I didn't consider the issue of different pronunciations
because I so rarely hear alternative pronunciations for those two
particular words. After all, the fact that people pronounce things
differently doesn't mean that all possible pronunciations occur.
I do now remember, however, that some speakers don't change the sound
of "they" in "they're", so I suspect that if such speakers saw "'re" on
the page, it would indicate to them less of a swallowing-up of the
vowel;
2) I'm uncertain of whether I'd always rhyme "we're" with "where"!
> >> Here's another thought: are you happy with the inconsistency between
> >> your suggesting "there's" as a contraction for "there are", and
> >> "there aren't" as a contraction for "there are not"? I would say:
> >>
> >> There're three windows in my boss's office.
> >> There aren't any windows in my office.
> >> There're no windows in my office
> >>
> >> What would you say?
> >
> >I don't see the inconsistency, but I'm writing this at four in the
> >morning, and am not surprised I don't see it. :-) Even with a singular
> >subject I wouldn't write or say "there'sn't", if that's what you mean.
>
> What I am trying to say is that, if I understand you, your preferences
> seem to be:
>
> There's three windows in my boss's office
> There's no windows in my office
> There aren't any windows in my office
> but not There isn't any windows in my office
> nor There's not any windows in my office
>
> I perceive this to contain an element of inconsistency. Again, I'm not
> presuming to suggest there is any 'right' or 'wrong' about it - there
> are plenty of inconsistencies elsewhere in the language, after all.
Yes, I see what you mean now. I guess I'd attempt to explain my way
around any inconsistency thus:
1) My speculation, right or wrong, was that "there's" is used as a
"contraction" for "there are" when "'re" is considered, but considered
difficult to pronounce. By "'re" I meant how I'd pronounce the
contraction of "are" in "they're" and "you're" (and maybe "we're").
2) I wasn't claiming that it's a case of "there is" being used for
"there are".
3) I assume that the main possibilities of contraction for "there are
not" are "there aren't", "there'ren't", and "there're not".
4) Only the second and third of these possibilities use the combination
"'re", and therefore I'd claim that only in the second and third cases
would there be any urge to substitute "'s" for "'re".
5) I wouldn't say "there'sn't" or "there's not" purely because I
wouldn't contract "are" in those ways, but I find the latter far less
disturbing than the former. I'd claim that those people who both would
contract "are" instead of "not" and find "'re" difficult to manage
*would* say "there's not"!
Geoff Butler
"R. Sournois-Jambon" <aad...@llaaffnn.org> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>"There're" represents two quite different sounds, depending upon whether
>the speaker is rhotic or nonrhotic.
>
>A rhotic speaker will tend to pronounce it to sound like "there" but
>with a somewhat lengthened "r". In some cases it might be hard to tell
>whether the rhotic speaker is saying "there" or "there're." The rhotic
>speaker might realize this and try to compensate by emphasizing the
>ending in what seems an unnatural way to him or her. This might lead to
>a feeling that "there're" is harder to pronounce than "there's."
>
>As spoken by a nonrhotic speaker, though, the two would be quite
>different. "There" would be pronounced /DE@/. while "there're" would be
>pronounced /DE r@/.
I speak rhotics, and pronounce "there're" /DEr@r/, clearly distinct from
"there", /DEr/, and "there are", /DEr ar/.
-ler
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <ZiPgXGAm...@gbutler.demon.co.uk>, Geoff Butler
<Ge...@gbutler.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I speak rhotics, and pronounce "there're" /DEr@r/, clearly distinct from
>"there", /DEr/, and "there are", /DEr ar/.
Fascinating. What are your allophones for /r/ and /@r/? (Most American
speakers use [r] and [R], so /r@r/ becomes the difficult-to-enunciate [rR]:
semivowel followed immediately by equivalent vowel. This is probably one
reason why "ye" /yi/ died out, and "woo" /wu/ is uncommon - same problem.)
Where in the UK are you from?
Geoff Butler
I don't know how to answer that without resorting to a .WAV, and the
description of [r] and [R] in the faq doesn't really help. I pronounce
"there're" as an exact rhyme of "fairer". The [a] in "there are" is
swallowed, but it's definitely not a schwa, and the stress pattern is
different too.
>Where in the UK are you from?
Bristol originally, although I've lived elsewhere for long enough to
have only the remains of the accent.
-ler
j...@xbase.com
The direction of this discussion has wavered from the original topic.
No one has definitively answered which is correct; THERE IS MORE THAN
ONE or THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE.
Brian J Goggin
Correct? What's that?
The Longman "Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" says
(section 10.35, p758)
"Grammatical concord is usually obeyed for 'more than' and 'many a',
though it may conflict with notional concord:
More than a thousand inhabitants have signed the petition. [1]
More than one member has protested against the proposal. [2]
Many a member has protested against the proposal. [3]
Although the subject is notionally plural in [2] and [3], the singular
is preferred because 'member' is analysed as head of the noun phrase."
Burchfield in "Modern English Usage" (3rd ed) says
"... 'more than one'. Despite its plural appearance, the phrase is
normally followed by a singular noun and verb: eg 'more than one
journalist was killed'. But if 'one' is replaced by a larger number,
naturally a plural verb is required .... Any other slight disturbance
of the phrase 'more than one' ... leads to the use of a plural verb:
eg 'In the positions defined above in which more than one of these
morphs occur'."
The "Good English Guide" says
"'More than one' should logically be followed by a plural verb. But
because of the influence of the word 'one', the usual way is to treat
the phrase as singular ...."
If you still don't like "There is more than one", use "There are
several" instead.
bjg
Jim Lewis
j...@xbase.com wrote in article <33295f7b....@news.xbase.com>...
> The direction of this discussion has wavered from the original topic.
> No one has definitively answered which is correct; THERE IS MORE THAN
> ONE or THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE.
>
There's more than one way to skin . . .
(_sounds_ better, doesn't it?)
--
Jim Lewis jkl...@ix.netcom.com
Frogs do for the night what birds do for the day;
they give it voice. Archie Carr - The Everglades
Ralph M Jones
j...@xbase.com wrote:
>
> The direction of this discussion has wavered from the original topic.
> No one has definitively answered which is correct; THERE IS MORE THAN
> ONE or THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE.
Do you think there is more than one answer?
Truly Donovan
j...@xbase.com wrote:
>
> The direction of this discussion has wavered from the original topic.
> No one has definitively answered which is correct; THERE IS MORE THAN
> ONE or THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE.
Oh, my goodness. Here's someone who is paying their ISP and not getting
satisfactory service. Heaven forfend! That semicolon should have been a
colon, and the things you have in caps should have been enclosed in
quotation marks and rendered in lower case.
Jim Lewis
> >
> > The direction of this discussion has wavered from the original topic.
> > No one has definitively answered which is correct; THERE IS MORE THAN
> > ONE or THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE.
>
> Oh, my goodness. Here's someone who is paying their ISP and not getting
> satisfactory service. Heaven forfend! That semicolon should have been a
should? or could have? Either's OK, or so I think
jim l
Geoff Butler
j...@xbase.com wrote:
>The direction of this discussion has wavered from the original topic.
>No one has definitively answered which is correct; THERE IS MORE THAN
>ONE or THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE.
True, but that's ok because it's not about food yet.
-ler