Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Howdy word nerds,
I've been hearing myself say "There is" in sentences where maybe "There are" would be more grammatically correct. For example, "There's a beer and a carrot in the fridge." Is it more correct to say "There are a beer and a carrot in the fridge."? It just feels clumsy. Has "There is.." become acceptable in this kind of case?
Thanks bunches
N
I have noticed this phenomenon a good deal in others, on TV, and in my own speaking. I notice this both with American and British speakers. Personally, I find it difficult even to notice it, especially when it is contracted to there's. I never correct others, but when I catch myself, I correct the number of the verb.
Examples can be even more glaring than with a conjunction:
There's four ways to do this.
There's loads of reasons why we should.
There's countless stars in the sky.
At least in casual speech (where you're most likely to encounter beer and carrots) I think it's reasonable to assume an unspoken "there's" before the carrot, so I'd let it ride. To the best of my knowledge I always make the verb agree with the noun number in cases like Glenn's examples, though my wife might dispute that. I tend to be conscious of such stuff.
Peter
I would think we have two issues here. One is verb number agreement and the other is contraction.
On the first point, I think 'the there construction' is the problem. So much of english has the noun first and we know what the verb number should be when we get to it, but "there" does not number the verb. Therefore, we must choose and speak the verb (and its number implicitly) before we get to the noun. If we are lazy or not thinking ahead, it is easy to get the verb wrong since we have not heard how many it should be. In fact, "there" does not give a clue; the same 'leading word' is the same whether the verb is plural or singular. So many other examples exist where the word in front of the verb changes in conjunction with the verb: "she says", "they say", etc.
On the second issue, I believe that the contraction of "there are" is unused/untenable. That is, we have: there, their, and they're which are confusing enough. But, what could be the contraction of "there are"? "There're" or "ther're"? I don't think so. Therefore, I think the only viable contraction contains the singular verb.
My two cents.
Emmett
Hey, thanks for your input, interesting stuff.
Emmett, that's interesting waht you say about contracting there and are. In writing I would never do that, but I'm pretty sure I have when speaking – kind of sounds like "there" followed by a pirate sound, all very quickly mashed together, as we do in speech. Thererr? It helps that I pronounce "there" with a Boston-ish accent, so the contrast is greater.
Because I recently started teaching English to non-native speakers, I think a lot about how to explain the official rules *and* warn people about what they will hear lots of native speakers say, including myself. Outside the classroom I generally don't bother to match the verb and the number in a sentence starting with "there", and let it ride, as you do Peter (even if I consider beer and carrots to be a more formal topic). -wink-
Those are perfect examples, Glenn. I'm wondering if "There's" is on its way to just becoming acceptable, at least in spoken English…
There're plenty of examples of the contraction there're. Although it was more common in my youth, lo, those many years ago, it is still found quite regularly. I think it is safe to say it is a viable contraction and can be used.
Wordnik lists it and provides lots of examples in the right rail: There're
In my dialect, I pronounce it to rhyme with fairer, which feat seems like it could be accomplished in any dialect of English that distinguishes fair from fairer.
I found a credible example of there're from 1851 on Google books: 1851 . And Wordnik will provide you all the contemporary examples you care to examine.
However, I do agree with noah little that "there's" appears well "on its way to becoming acceptable ... ."
Glenn said:
There're plenty of examples of the contraction there're. Although it was more common in my youth, lo, those many years ago, it is still found quite regularly. I think it is safe to say it is a viable contraction and can be used.
Wordnik lists it and provides lots of examples in the right rail: There're
In my dialect, I pronounce it to rhyme with fairer, which feat seems like it could be accomplished in any dialect of English that distinguishes fair from fairer.
"
My bad. I had not remembered hearing it. (That may be more an assessment of my memory than my hearing.) And, I could not say it in a way that sounded like any thing I remember hearing and concluded that it did not exist.
Thanks for the links. Interestingly, in the 1851 link, shortly after "there're" is, "There are plenty of women..." That begs the question, is 'plenty' singular or plural in construction? The 1851 example does not grate on my ears, but, "There are plenty of wheat" does. MicroSoft WORD does not like it either but does not mind "there is plenty of wheat". This is the first time I ever noticed the number of the prepositional object affect the number of the verb. Are there any other examples?
Emmett
EmmettRedd said:
Interestingly, in the 1851 link, shortly after "there're" is, "There are plenty of women…" That begs the question, is 'plenty' singular or plural in construction? The 1851 example does not grate on my ears, but, "There are plenty of wheat" does. MicroSoft WORD does not like it either but does not mind "there is plenty of wheat". This is the first time I ever noticed the number of the prepositional object affect the number of the verb. Are there any other examples?
Emmett
Strictly speaking, these aren't prepositional objects, but rather nouns in a partitive noun phrase. Partitive noun phrases indicate that some portion of the head noun is being discussed, and not necessarily the entire group. Examples:
some of the objections
most of the students
all of the books
much of her worry
many of the websites
neither of the cars
your example: plenty of women
In some similar cases, the noun phrase is structured as [syntactic head] + [prepositional phrase]: in these noun phrases, the verb agrees with the word before the preposition. In the case of partitive noun phrases, the structure is [determiner] + [syntactic head] : in these noun phrases, the verb agrees with the word after the preposition. Some phrases can be treated either way! (e.g. Some kind of these machines is prone to failure; Some kind of these machines are prone to failure.)
These kinds of partitive noun phrases all function in such a way that the number is determined by the noun phrase after the of
Half of the drinks are …
Half of the water is …
Most of the assignments were …
Most of the reading was …
Here are some academic treatments:
Kim, Jong-Bok, "On the Structure of English Partitive NPs and Agreement".
Stickney, Helen, "The emergence of DP in the partitive structure" (2009). Open Access Dissertations. Paper 131.
Glenn said:
I have noticed this phenomenon a good deal in others, on TV, and in my own speaking. I notice this both with American and British speakers. Personally, I find it difficult even to notice it, especially when it is contracted to there's. I never correct others, but when I catch myself, I correct the number of the verb.
Examples can be even more glaring than with a conjunction:
There's four ways to do this.
There's loads of reasons why we should.
There's countless stars in the sky.
I started a thread on this subject several months ago. To me it's casual/sloppy conversational English — likewise, I catch myself making the mistake. In print they usually have a better time of matching things up.
If I'm not mistaken, diagraming sentences is a thing of the past. Probably if you asked someone what the subject was in the sentence "There is clouds coming," they would like say "there."
I'll bet you you chatted in English with a young Finn, Swede or Dutchman, you wouldn't hear this.
Glenn said:
Strictly speaking, these aren't prepositional objects, but rather nouns in a partitive noun phrase.
...snip...
Here are some academic treatments:
Kim, Jong-Bok, "On the Structure of English Partitive NPs and Agreement".
Stickney, Helen, "The emergence of DP in the partitive structure" (2009). Open Access Dissertations. Paper 131.
Boy! I never heard such a thing at Halfway High School or Freshman Composition at the University of Missouri at Rolla (now, Missouri University of Science and Technology). And, I am happy Word seems to know it.
I don't know if I am now smarter, but I am less ignorant, at least.
Thanks, Glenn.
Emmett
Glenn said:
I have noticed this phenomenon a good deal in others, on TV, and in my own speaking. I notice this both with American and British speakers. Personally, I find it difficult even to notice it, especially when it is contracted to there's.
Once we've thought about it, the misuse of "is" and "are" is more noticeable.
When I hear professional journalists make the mistake, it does irritate me. Especially since much of what they say is being read from a teleprompter, so someone took the time to compose the material.
I would have thought that in written English, where contractions are not used, the correct form would still be "There are many clouds" "There are plenty of women", etc., with "there's many clouds" being colloquial spoken English.
However, "there is a carrot and a beer in the fridge.." I don't think would have to be "there are a carrot and a beer" because of the singular article "a", which prompts us to use the singular verb. And yes, probably as Peter says it's because we assume the repetition of "... there is" before a beer. If we said "there are two carrots and a beer in the fridge" everyone would naturally use the plural 'are' because of the number two. I would not feel it natural to say "there are a carrot and two beer in the fridge" either, though.
Thanks, Glenn, for the clear explanation of the grammar rules governing the partitive noun clauses.
Finally, I see a difference between the use of singular and plural verbs depending on whether we are referring to countable or uncountable nouns - singular for a quantity of uncountable nouns seems correct to me:
thus
"there are plenty of women" - you can count the number of women
but
"there is plenty of wheat"
"there is a lot of dirt on the floor"
"there is plenty of time"
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)