# There is / there are  a lot of people



## gvergara

Hi:

I've been wondering if I have to say _There is a lot of people_ or _There are a lot of people_ _in the classroom._ 

Gonzalo


----------



## Tazzler

I think "There are a lot of people" is the correct one, but you'd hear "There is a lot of people" quite frequently, which must be why I had to think about this question for a bit!

Nevertheless, I think I'd write, based on that sentence only, "Many people are in the classroom," or perhaps another verb besides "to be" if context allows it.


----------



## arxilaxis

Hola a todos!!  Tengo una duda en la siguiente expresión, porque creo haberla visto de las dos formas. ¿ Me podéis ayudar y decirme cuál es la forma correcta o si ambas lo son? 
Gracias.

There *is* a lot of people who think... o There* are* a lot of people who think...


----------



## SheilaCrosby

There are a lot of people who think...

"A lot of people" are countable, and therefore plural.

Sheila


----------



## aurilla

That would be "there *are *a lot people."


----------



## arxilaxis

Thanks a lot!!!!


----------



## mendoma

What's grammatically correct? there is a lot of people or there are a lot of people?


----------



## k-in-sc

There are. 
"People" is plural, unlike "gente."


----------



## Chris K

k-in-sc said:


> There are.
> "People" is plural, unlike "gente."



Agreed. Don't be misled by the apparent singular collective noun "a lot," which is treated like "many" when followed by a plural noun. There *are* a lot of people = there *are* many people.


----------



## mendoma

thanks! I have to keep working on this concept!


----------



## k-in-sc

"People is"  is a very common mistake among Spanish speakers. Don't you make it!


----------



## gringuitoloco

Chris K said:


> Agreed. Don't be misled by the apparent singular collective noun "a lot," which is treated like "many" when followed by a plural noun. There *are* a lot of people = there *are* many people.




Hmmm...this got me thinking. Why would you use there are *a lot *of people? Shouldn't the verb agree with "a lot?"

You wouldn't say "There are a group of people." Rather, "There is a group of people."

What changes about "a lot" that we need to make the verb plural?....hmmm....


----------



## Chris K

gringuitoloco said:


> Hmmm...this got me thinking. Why would you use there are *a lot *of people? Shouldn't the verb agree with "a lot?"
> 
> You wouldn't say "There are a group of people." Rather, "There is a group of people."
> 
> What changes about "a lot" that we need to make the verb plural?....hmmm....



In some circumstances you might say "there are a group of people," though that's really another story, to distinguish between:

"There are a group of people interested in the job (that is, there are several separate individuals, acting separately)."
"There is a group that deals with that sort of issue (that is, several people who work _together_)."

Of course you might argue in the former the individuals don't actually constitute "a group" at all.

"A lot of" is a special case, because it only rarely functions as a collective noun (mostly in auctions, as in "a lot of rare editions _is_ being auctioned tomorrow"). Instead, it's treated as if it were a quantifier (there are two books, there are a lot of books). Some people say "there are _lots_ of books" -- but also "there's lots of cheese," even though "cheese" in this case is not countable. In any case, "a lot / lots" is ignored when determining whether to apply a plural or singular verb to what follows it.


----------



## k-in-sc

Nouns of multitude are confusing even for native speakers.
http://stancarey.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/nouns-of-multitude/


----------



## gengo

mendoma said:


> What's grammatically correct? there is a lot of people or there are a lot of people?


 
Although I agree with my colleagues, I want to point out that "There is a lot of people" is VERY common among native speakers.  I believe the reason for this is that in the form of a contraction, the correct form is difficult for us to pronounce.

There're a lot of people.  (correct, but hard to say)
There's a lot of people.  (incorrect, but easy to say, and therefore far more common than the correct form)

This is true even with clearly plural nouns.

_There's hundreds of ants on the counter._

So, if you are writing or being careful of your grammar, use "are" in this phrase, but know that you will see and hear "is" many times.


----------



## Darte Sidious

Hi!

Do you say a lot of people is eating here or a lot of people are eating here? I'm hesitating between the two options. 

Thanks a lot in advance!


----------



## Mister Draken

Darte Sidious said:


> Hi!
> 
> Do you say a lot of people is eating here or a lot of people are eating here? I'm hesitating between the two options.
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance!



If you read the previous posts (first 4 or 5 from the top) you will find the answer.


----------



## gengo

Darte Sidious said:


> Do you say a lot of people is eating here or a lot of people are eating here?



Yes, your question has been answered above, but to reiterate:

a lot of = many
people:  always a plural noun

Note that both of the following are correct:
A large group of people is eating here.
A large group of people are eating here.

The first one focuses on the group as a unit, and the second on the individual people.


----------



## ayuda?

*Re: *I've been wondering if I have to say _*There is* a lot of people_ or _*There are* a lot of people_ _in the classroom._

I agree with the others; “_people_” here is a *collective noun*—the verb will be plural—the reference is to each of the separate individuals.
In British English, the use of the plural like this in general is much more common.
For example, “The team *are* coming onto the field now.” (kind of sticks right there in my ear drum).

It is a little complicated because, in AmE, you will most _always_ hear “The team *is* coming onto the field now”—however, you hear the plural steadily creeping into the language in a lot of similar cases all the time.

The site below and others on the Internet go into things a bit more in detail (Google>group nouns plural or singular).
Collective Nouns: Singular or Plural? | LEGIBLE

*▶︎ Also,* when people are talking, you will find that they slip into saying “there is” when it should be “there are.” Much easier is Spanish, German and other foreign languages..._hay _eliminates that problem altogether when pointing out things.


----------



## Forero

_There's_ is used as a contraction of _there are_ by some educated speakers, but _there is_ (not contracted) is wrong as a plural.


----------



## Gisellee

gengo said:


> Although I agree with my colleagues, I want to point out that "There is a lot of people" is VERY common among native speakers.  I believe the reason for this is that in the form of a contraction, the correct form is difficult for us to pronounce.
> 
> There're a lot of people.  (correct, but hard to say)
> There's a lot of people.  (incorrect, but easy to say, and therefore far more common than the correct form)
> 
> This is true even with clearly plural nouns.
> 
> _There's hundreds of ants on the counter._
> 
> So, if you are writing or being careful of your grammar, use "are" in this phrase, but know that you will see and hear "is" many times.


 So, all of these are correct? 
There are lots of sellers, they have a lot of things to sell.
There are a lot of sellers, they have lots of things to sell.
There is a lot of sellers, they have a lot of things to sell.
There's lots of sellers, they've lots of things to sell.
Thanks a lot!


----------



## Forero

_There are lots of sellers, they have a lot of things to sell.
There are a lot of sellers, they have lots of things to sell.
There is a lot of sellers, they have a lot of things to sell.
There's lots of sellers, they've lots of things to sell. _*OK* in informal speech.

(By the way, I would call these sentences examples of asyndeton, not examples of comma splices.)


----------



## gengo

Forero said:


> _There is a lot of sellers, they have a lot of things to sell._



That one looks perfectly correct to me.


----------



## Şafak

gengo said:


> That one looks perfectly correct to me.


Prescriptively speaking, “there is a lot of + plural” is incorrect.


----------



## SevenDays

Jennifer Weiss said:


> Prescriptively speaking, “there is a lot of + plural” is incorrect.



The operative word is "prescriptively." In actuality, as far as syntax is concerned, "There is a lot of + plural" is fine, or at least syntax is completely neutral. What happens is simply this, you start with a noun phrase

_a lot of sellers_

if you want to turn that phrase into a sentence, with "a lot of sellers" as part of the predicate, you add "There:"

_There __ a lot of sellers _

This is known as "There-insertion." Of course, this is not a sentence yet; we need a verb. The basic and main purpose of the verb that needs to be added is to signal "present tense;" "agreement" is secondary. And so you can say "are" to agree with the plural "sellers" (the informative word of the sentence), or you can say "is" to agree with the singular sense of "There" (a word that suggests "location" or "existence"). Either way is fine, because the point of the verb is to anchor this newly formed sentence in the proper "present tense."

_There is a lot of sellers, they have a lot of things to sell_

And "There is" usually gets contracted, particularly in speech

_There's a lot of sellers, they have a lot of things to sell_

That's as far as "There-insertion" is concerned. If you make "a lot of sellers" the subject, agreement will necessarily be plural:

_A lot of sellers are here, they have a lot of things to sell_

No one would say "A lot of sellers is here," but this is a different construction, without "There-insertion."


----------



## Gisellee

Thanks a lot, guys! I appreciate every point of view! It's awesome!


----------



## Forero

SevenDays said:


> The operative word is "prescriptively." In actuality, as far as syntax is concerned, "There is a lot of + plural" is fine, or at least syntax is completely neutral.


Isn't verbal number a syntactical element?





> What happens is simply this, you start with a noun phrase
> 
> _a lot of sellers_
> 
> if you want to turn that phrase into a sentence, with "a lot of sellers" as part of the predicate, you add "There:"
> 
> _There __ a lot of sellers _
> 
> This is known as "There-insertion." Of course, this is not a sentence yet; we need a verb. The basic and main purpose of the verb that needs to be added is to signal "present tense;" "agreement" is secondary.


In terms of syntax, a finite verb always has tense and number, and which is most "needed" is a semantic matter.





> And so you can say "are" to agree with the plural "sellers" (the informative word of the sentence), or you can say "is" to agree with the singular sense of "There" (a word that suggests "location" or "existence").


In fact, verbal number is a clue to which "there" is meant.

Are you saying that "There _ a lot of sellers" can mean "That place is a lot of sellers"?

I don't see much sense in that, but if you mean "In that place _ a lot of sellers", only "are" fits in the English I am used to, not "is" (assuming that "a lot" is not intended to mean something like "a complete batch" or "a parcel").

I need "are" in this type of sentence:

_Is there many sellers with lots of things to sell?
There is really not many sellers with a lot to sell.
There is a lot of sellers, they have a lot of things to sell._


----------



## gengo

Forero said:


> I need "are" in this type of sentence:
> 
> _There is a lot of sellers, they have a lot of things to sell._



This is extremely common in colloquial speech, for the reason I gave in #18 above, although of course I'm talking about the contraction:  there's.

And if we really want to be prescriptive (I don't), "lot" is a singular noun that normally takes a singular verb.  Only in its colloquial usage (there are a lot of Xs) does it take a plural verb.  I have no issue with the plural form, and it is perfectly correct, but we need to tell non-native English speakers that "there's a lot of {plural noun}" is standard, colloquial English.

Here is an explanation I found that seems very reasonable to me.

_There are two different issues here:

(1) The phrase a lot of, when applied to plural count nouns, requires the plural:
*A lot of people have come to my house* - you can’t say *A lot of people has come to my house.

This is called “plural override” and also applies to similar phrases like a number of and a load of.

(2) In colloquial English, there’s is very often used for both singular and plural complements in this type of clause (called “existential clauses”):
*There’s hundreds of ants circling the picnic basket.*
Though there are is still a common way to introduce plural versions, there’s is nowadays common even in prestige broadcasts - though it’s still probably best avoided in formal writing.
_
Note that last line.


----------



## Forero

gengo said:


> This is extremely common in colloquial speech, for the reason I gave in #18 above, although of course I'm talking about the contraction:  there's.


And I've been talking about the use of uncontracted "is".





> _(2) In colloquial English, there’s is very often used for both singular and plural complements in this type of clause (called “existential clauses”):
> *There’s hundreds of ants circling the picnic basket.*
> Though there are is still a common way to introduce plural versions, there’s is nowadays common even in prestige broadcasts - though it’s still probably best avoided in formal writing._
> 
> Note that last line.


It seems that "there's" is an alternative contraction (at least in speech) of "there are".

I normally say "there're" and write "there are", but lots of people say and write "there's". I have gotten used to this, but not to uncontracted "is" where I expect "are".


----------



## gengo

Forero said:


> And I I've been talking about the use of uncontracted "is".  It seems that "there's" is an alternative contraction (at least in speech) of "there are".
> 
> I normally say "there're" and write "there are", but lots of people say and write "there's".  I have gotten used to this, but not to uncontracted "is" where I expect "are".



Then we are in agreement at last.


----------

