# Collective nouns - That's just lies - is lies a collective noun?



## RocketGirl

Hi all... I had an interesting discussion over in the French/English forum and I wonder if someone over here can shed some light on this debate.

Here are the two sentences:

_ Those_ are just lies to discredit him

vs

_ That's_ just lies to discredit him

Which do you think is right, or do you think they both work?

Thanks for your opinions.


----------



## JamesM

"Those are just lies to discredit him" is the only one that works for me. "That's just a lie" would be fine, but once it becomes plural, I expect "these" or "those".   "That's just a pack of lies" would work for me, too, because the pack is singular.


----------



## majlo

I think _These/Those are just lies to discredit him _is grammatically correct. However, it's rarely used in spoken English; even by the Brisith PM  The second one is definitely more often heard.

EDIT: Please, let me clarify my statement: I mean the English that _I _hear.


----------



## RocketGirl

So, you think it might be a matter of BE vs AE?  Truth be told, the first sentence is mine, and the second is from a UK native.

I've personally never heard "that's just lies" before, and as James pointed out, it's just not good grammar.  

That is lies 
That is a lie 
Those is lies 
Those are lies 

I'm really surprised by this actually....  Any other thoughts?  Is it BE vs AE?


----------



## majlo

From what I've noticed AmE is more likely to violate English grammar in spoken version, which is subsequently adapted in BrE. 

However, on one occasion, when I was on a bus in London I heard a girl (she was a Briton) say: "That*'s* hard times, you know. That's what she say (no, it's not my typo), not me". Also, the example given by me in my 1st post: if we were to analyse the scripts from the BBC radio, we would find Mr Blair's quotes containing singular verbs where logic as well as grammar requires plural verb.


----------



## RocketGirl

majlo said:


> From what I've noticed AmE is more likely to violate English grammar in spoken version, which is subsequently adapted in BrE.


Them's fighting words


----------



## Coppers

I think JamesM hits the nail on the head here, Rocket Girl.

"That's just a pack of lies" is clearly correct, which is what "that's just lies" (sort of) implies.


----------



## majlo

Coppers, how would you say: _They are lying _or _They is lying_?  I think you'd go for the former, but if our friends from across the pond (sorry for this identification  ) started using it in movies and elsewehere on a daily basis, in  a time you'd be likely to choose the latter, I think.


----------



## RocketGirl

I'm not quite sure how you can blame this poor slang on those of us in North America, majlo, as we're the only ones in this post saying it's wrong....

I see now what you're saying Coppers... at least a little... but do you understand where my issue with the sentence is?  And you're right, James does hit the nail on the head.  He said "That's just lies" is wrong, and "that's just a pack of lies" is right.  To you they are the same.  To me they are nowhere close.


----------



## Coppers

No, majlo, _They is lying_ is clearly wrong, and furthermore, as an Englishman I'm not altogether comfortable with the idea that we copy the grammar of our North American friends.


----------



## Coppers

RocketGirl said:


> I'm not quite sure how you can blame this poor slang on those of us in North America, majlo, as we're the only ones in this post saying it's wrong....
> 
> I see now what you're saying Coppers... at least a little... but do you understand where my issue with the sentence is?  And you're right, James does hit the nail on the head.  He said "That's just lies" is wrong, and "that's just a pack of lies" is right.  To you they are the same.  To me they are nowhere close.


The sentence is the equivalent of _saying that is just lies_. Except the word _saying _is dropped.


----------



## RocketGirl

Looks like we're at a standstill yet again Coppers... 

"Saying that is just lies" is also wrong as far as I'm concerned.  The correct sentence would be "Saying that is just lying"...

Hopefully some new people will be bold enough to tell us what they think... I'm really curious to know if it's just you vs me Coppers or if it's a regional difference or what...


----------



## Arinan

I see what Coppers is saying, but "That's just a pack of lies" is correct because "pack of lies" is singular.  It's just one pack even though it's made up of many parts.  

However, "that's just lies" is, as JamesM said, wrong because "that's" is singular while "lies" is plural.

People might hear the incorrect one "that's just lies" more often in spoken English because very few people speak grammatically.  That said, I almost never hear it said that way, so to me it seems very wrong.


----------



## gaer

majlo said:


> I think _These/Those are just lies to discredit him _is grammatically correct. However, it's rarely used in spoken English; even by the Brisith PM  The second one is definitely more often heard.
> 
> EDIT: Please, let me clarify my statement: I mean the English that _I _hear.


1) Results 1 - 10 of about 147 for "Those are just lies".
2) Results 1 - 10 of about 130 for "These are just lies".
3) Results 1 - 10 of about 42 for "That's just lies". 

If you add up the first two set of results, I think you'll see that 3 is a bit unusual.

However:

Results 1 - 10 of about 539 for "it's a pack of lies".
Results 1 - 10 of about 658 for "it's a bunch of lies".

I think JamesM is on the right track!

Gaer


----------



## bellerophon

RocketGirl said:


> _ Those_ are just lies to discredit him
> vs
> _That's_ just lies to discredit him
> 
> Which do you think is right, or do you think they both work?



They both CAN work, although without any further context, the first is the only one that is grammatically correct.

"Those are just lies..." shows agreement between subject and verb (as is normal)

However, "That's just lies..." could be used when referring to an item that contains a bunch of lies.  Eg. If I just received a document that listed a bunch of lies about someone, I might get away with saying "That (the document) is just lies..."   Of course, in this case, I'm using the word "lies" as an adjective as opposed to a noun (perhaps another nasty Americanization of the English language - as our counterparts from across the pond might say!)

Food for thought.


----------



## Coppers

It all depends on what the "that's" is referring to.

For me both sentences are correct, as long as _these_ refers to a plural and _that_ refers to a singular.


----------



## JamesM

> I might get away with saying "That (the document) is just lies..." Of course, in this case, I'm using the word "lies" as an adjective as opposed to a noun (perhaps another nasty Americanization of the English language - as our counterparts from across the pond might say!)


 
Hey, wait a minute!  It's "Canadization" of the English language if a Canadian is promoting it.   

"That's just lies" is just plain wrong in this American's opinion.


----------



## majlo

Coppers said:


> No, majlo, _They is lying_ is wrong,


So is _That's just lies_, but it simply has been adapted to spoken English as a popular and frequently used construction.



Coppers said:


> and furthermore, as an Englishman I'm not altogether comfortable with the idea that we copy the grammar of our North American friends.


Whatever sources, textbooks etc I read, I get to know that BrE is being increasingly influenced by AmE. There must be something in it. Unfortunately, I'm currently out of examples as far as syntax is concerned, but think of, for instance, the pronunciation of _either _and _neither_. Don't the Englishmen commence to pronounce it in an American style?



RocketGirl said:


> I'm not quite sure how you can blame this poor slang on those of us in North America, majlo, as we're the only ones in this post saying it's wrong....



That's what I've noticed in my study of English, in my experience of English. And I don't know if I'm blaming you. I'm simply stating a, in my opinion, fact. Language is a dynamic phenomenon, and I don't accuse Americans of the fact that their way of speaking is being adapted not only in England, but also throughout the world.



RocketGirl said:


> He said "That's just lies" is wrong, and "that's just a pack of lies" is right.



He is absolutely right. "That's just lies" is incorrect as far as grammar is concerned. "Lies" is a plural noun which must concord with the verb, and thus it cannot be _That's _but _These are/Those are. _On the other hand, "That's just a pack of lies" is right because "a pack" is singular, and thus "That's" concords with the singular noun.


----------



## RocketGirl

Coppers said:


> It all depends on what the "that's" is referring to.



... which is why I think "that's just lies to discredit him" on it's own as a sentence, with no further context, is not a good thing to suggest to our poor Québécois  friend trying to learn English...


----------



## RocketGirl

JamesM said:


> Hey, wait a minute!  It's "Canadization" of the English language if a Canadian is promoting it.
> 
> "That's just lies" is just plain wrong in this American's opinion.



This Canadian is with you, JamesM


----------



## Coppers

majlo said:


> So is _That's just lies_, but it simply has been adapted to spoken English as a popular and frequently used construction.


How about: _that's just bollocks_? Supposedly you think it should be _these are just bollocks?_


----------



## Coppers

RocketGirl said:


> ... which is why I think "that's just lies to discredit him", on it's own as a sentence, with no further context, is not a good thing to suggest to our poor Québécois  friend trying to learn English...


I see where you're coming from, RG, but I don't think you can say that the phrase is absolutely wrong - context is always required!


----------



## RocketGirl

Coppers said:


> I see where you're coming from, RG, but I don't think you can say that the phrase is absolutely wrong - context is always required!



Because it is absolutely wrong.  With or without context :

That's lies 
That's a bunch of/a pack of/etc lies 

The "a bunch of/a pack of etc" needs to be said, not just implied, or it's wrong.



Coppers said:


> How about: _that's just bollocks_? Supposedly you think it should be _these are just bollocks?_



That's not the same Coppers... "That's bollocks" is an expression.  "That's just lies" isn't.


----------



## JamesM

I can't see where any context would avoid the fact that you are using "is" with a plural noun.

If I heard "that's just lies" from someone, I would assume they were either poorly educated or a non-native speaker. To me it screams a basic lack of command of the language. I would feel the same about "That's just noises", "that's just dreams", "that's just fantasies", "that's just pipedreams" or any other combination of "that is" and a plural noun.



> That's not the same Coppers... "That's bollocks" is an expression. "That's just lies" isn't.


 
This is not an expression I've heard, but I'll take RocketGirl's word on it.


----------



## Coppers

What about: "They're late. But that's women for you" then? Or would you say "those are women for you"?


----------



## JamesM

Coppers said:


> What about: "They're late. But that's women for you" then? Or would you say "those are women for you"?


 
I'd go with that one as a set expression, but I wouldn't go with "that's lies for you."


----------



## RocketGirl

Coppers said:


> What about: "They're late. But that's women for you" then? Or would you say "those are women for you"?



Yeah !! Now you're cooking with fire Coppers....

Again though, I'll have to say that those are more colloquial expressions...  Like the one I posted earlier "Them's fighting words"...  It's just not the same as "That's lies".


----------



## majlo

Coppers said:


> But that's women for you



That's what I feel about it:


JamesM said:


> I can't see where any context would avoid the fact that you are using "is" with a plural noun.
> 
> or any other combination of "that is" and a plural noun.









JamesM said:


> This is not an expression I've heard, but I'll take RocketGirl's word on it.



You should see the _Green Street Hooligans _movie then.


----------



## RocketGirl

"That's bollocks" is and English expression, James.  I only know it because I used to have an English roomate...


----------



## gaer

JamesM said:


> Hey, wait a minute! It's "Canadization" of the English language if a Canadian is promoting it.
> 
> "That's just lies" is just plain wrong in this American's opinion.


Are you sure it's not "Canadisation"? 

I would like to make one point. I think this is incorrect (It's just lies…), and the reason is grammar. However, I think it's one of those "things" that will slip by when people who normally speak well are in hurry.

This is a question for everyone:

Do many of you have the same experience I have? I can't tell you how many times I've either corrected myself a second after saying something clearly wrong. Some days I think I sound like Sybil's brother.

Pardon me—oops—my interrupting…

That's just lies—oops—just a pack of lies…

That's the difference between my wife and I—<swearing, because this is SO wrong>—between my wife and ME.

Everyone said they—everyone said that he—everyone said that he or she—<crap> They all said that they…

I believe these mistakes happen now and then—in speech, when we in hurry—to the best of us. And such mistakes are not in the same category as "I is American." 

Gaer


----------



## Coppers

_That's false. That's untrue. That's bollocks. That's lies.

_I'm actually flirting with the idea that both _bollocks_ and _lies_ here may be treated as singular. It's late here though, I'm sure this debate is to be continued.


----------



## majlo

Coppers said:


> _I_t's late here though, I'm sure this debate is to be continued.



The same here. I need to go to sleep so to make it on time for classes, but I hope we carry on with this conversation tomorrow.


----------



## RocketGirl

Coppers said:


> _That's false. That's untrue. That's bollocks. That's lies.
> 
> _I'm actually flirting with the idea that both bollocks and lies here may be treated as singular. It's late here though, I'm sure this debate is to be continued.



That's false /untrue  (no issues there)
That's bollocks  (I understand it to be an English expression, though I am not entirely sure of this one)
That's lies  (Sorry... still don't buy it.)

Of course Coppers, if you and I were sitting beside eachother right now having a verbal conversation and you said this to me, I would understand you.  I would think you made a mistake of course, but I probably wouldn't correct you.

Well, good night then... thanks for the lovely discussion.


----------



## JamesM

gaer said:


> This is a question for everyone:
> 
> Do many of you have the same experience I have? I can't tell you how many times I've either corrected myself a second after saying something clearly wrong. Some days I think I sound like Sybil's brother.
> 
> Pardon me—oops—my interrupting…
> 
> That's just lies—oops—just a pack of lies…
> 
> That's the difference between my wife and I—<swearing, because this is SO wrong>—between my wife and ME.
> 
> Everyone said they—everyone said that he—everyone said that he or she—<crap> They all said that they…
> 
> I believe these mistakes happen now and then—in speech, when we in hurry—to the best of us. And such mistakes are not in the same category as "I is American."
> 
> Gaer


 
I agree. I make mistakes all the time, and I'm sure I don't catch all of them. However, if anyone were to post a question about any of the examples above, they would all be incorrect, in my opinion. 

I don't think the question was "do people say these things sometimes, even in error", though, but "is this correct?"

If I tried to speak perfect English all the time, I'd probably sound like the president of the Slow Talkers of America.


----------



## RocketGirl

JamesM said:


> If I tried to speak perfect English all the time, I'd probably sound like the president of the Slow Talkers of America.



True, but some things are just more wrong than others.

Oh, and JamesM and gaer, it's Canadi*an*ization/Canadi*an*isation...


----------



## JamesM

RocketGirl said:


> True, but some things are just more wrong than others.
> 
> Oh, and JamesM and gaer, it's Canadi*an*ization/Canadi*an*isation...


 
Thanks! I learned another new word today.  I can see where that makes sense; it's a direct parallel to "Americanization." I wonder what is for British? "Anglicization" could mean the English language or the English culture, I suppose.



			
				RocketGirl said:
			
		

> ... some things are just more wrong than others.


 
Yes, and that varies from person to person, don't you think? For me, "That's just lies" strikes me as something I would hear from a guest on the Jerry Springer show.


----------



## bellerophon

RocketGirl said:


> ... which is why I think "that's just lies to discredit him" on it's own as a sentence, with no further context, is not a good thing to suggest to our poor Québécois  friend trying to learn English...



If you are teaching ESL then definitely go with the grammatically-correct route...s/he will have lots of experience with that whole subject-verb agreement issue - eh?!


----------



## Arinan

Coppers said:


> What about: "They're late. But that's women for you" then? Or would you say "those are women for you"?



I feel the need to put in my two cents here.  I'd say "those are women for you," to me it's the same problem as with "that's just lies" v "those are lies."  Thus my answer is the same.


----------



## RocketGirl

In case any of you are interested, here's the original discussion that sparked this whole debate (it's mostly all English)

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=356151


----------



## RocketGirl

I think what bothers me is that Coppers doesn't seem to think it's gramatically wrong.  Now, he's not here to defend himself so I don't want to pick on him, but in the original thread that I linked to he wrote:



Coppers said:


> The difference is what the "that" or "these" or "those" is referring to.
> 
> [Saying things like] that is just lies. >>> that = "the act of saying things" (singular)



I don't think I'm wrong to think that English doesn't work like that ...

To me, it doesn't really matter what "that" is referring to.  The fact is that "is" and "lies" don't agree.


----------



## JamesM

"[Saying things like] that is just lies."

Even with this construction, once you get to "Saying things like that is just _____" you must plug in:

an adjective ("mean", "unkind", "uncouth", "ridiculous") 

or 

"a/the" noun/noun phrase ("a disgrace", "the height of rudeness", "lying")


I can't see any other way to complete the sentence that works grammatically.


----------



## RocketGirl

Exactly JamesM.  I consider myself to be well spoken and well written, but when it comes to explaining the ins and outs of English grammar, I'm at a loss for words.

I blame the French-Canadian education system....


----------



## gaer

JamesM said:


> I don't think the question was "do people say these things sometimes, even in error", though, but "is this correct?"


True, but there are different "degrees of error" in my opinion. Some errors sound not only typical of native speakers but might "fly right past us" if used by someone else, if we are not paying careful attention.

Other mistakes, in my opinion, are much more noticeable.


> If I tried to speak perfect English all the time, I'd probably sound like the president of the Slow Talkers of America.


Actually, I do try very hard to speak nearly perfect English. Many of the parents of my students speak English as a second language, so I make a special effort to speak slowly, clearly and (if possible) correctly. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

RocketGirl said:


> I don't think I'm wrong to think that English doesn't work like that ...


Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

The word "is" may also be used in the sense of "consists" of:

"The article consists, at best, of nothing but half-truths. In fact, I think it (the article) is (consists of) nothing but lies."

I would certainly not object to this in speech, although I would prefer:

"The article consists, at best, of nothing but half-truths. In fact, I think it is nothing but *a pack of* lies."

As always, context is everything, and I may have picked unusual context to "soften" something that might grate on "sensitive ears". 

Gaer


----------



## Coppers

Great example there gaer.

My point is that the “that” doesn’t _necessarily _have to refer to the “lies” here.

It can refer the the thing that happens to be lies (an book for example), which may well be singular.

_That book is just lies. That’s just lies._


----------



## heidita

I can only agree with Coppers,having lived in England I heard this all the time. Look at this, which came into my mind inmediately:

Resultados *1* - *10* de aproximadamente *267.000* de *"that's news*

_It's not only us, that's just us_, etc. is very common usage in British English.


----------



## majlo

heidita said:


> Resultados *1* - *10* de aproximadamente *267.000* de *"that's news*



heidita, it's nothing unusual as the noun _news _is uncountable, so using a singular verb is a grammatically correct thing to do here.

I sustein my opinion on _That's just lies _being grammatically incorrect no matter what the context is. Copper's arguments that _that _can refer to a singular noun haven't convinced me.


----------



## Coppers

majlo said:


> heidita, it's nothing unusual as the noun _news _is uncountable, so using a singular verb is a the grammatically correct thing to do here.
> 
> I susteain my opinion on _That's just lies _being grammatically incorrect no matter what the context is. Copper's arguments that _that _can refer to a singular noun havesn't convinced me.


I've abondoned that theory for the moment. Please see my latest post for my position on the matter.


----------



## panjandrum

That's lies is used, no doubt about that (several thousand Google examples). But of course usage doesn't make it consistent with good grammar ...
...
... unless?

I think we can safely dismiss *lies* being singular.

What if *lies* could be an adjective? Unlikely, I think.

What if *lies* could be a non-count noun?
Like news - except that it is a very long time since a new was around.
Now there's a thought. 

In the examples I looked at, the word *lies* was being used almost adjectivally, but more as a non-count noun. Certainly the general intention was to castigate all of "that" as being untrue - no sense of there being a number of specific untruths.

It may well be that *lies* is moving in the general direction that *balls* has already travelled.


----------



## majlo

Coppers said:


> I susteain my opinion on _That's just lies _being grammatically incorrect no matter what the context is. Copper's arguments that _that _can refer to a singular noun havesn't convinced me.



Sorry for this typo. 



Coppers said:


> Copper's arguments that _that _can refer to a singular noun havesn't convinced me.



I think it should be _haven't_, Coppers.


----------



## heidita

majlo said:


> _That's just lies _being grammatically incorrect no matter what the context is. .


 

Surprising, as to "it's just us", that's so frequently used, and the verb with a plural object, that I am surprised at the statement.


----------



## majlo

heidita said:


> Surprising, as to "it's just us", *that's so frequently used*, and the verb with a plural object, that I am surprised at the statement.



I think that's due to the fact that spoken English, especially informal one, doesn't always comply with grammar. 

I posit this is the case in most languages if not all. In Polish we often violate our grammar because some phrases or words have been so frequently used that they are deeply rooted in people's lexicons. But, of course, that doesn't mean they're correct. They might become correct in time, but for the time being they're not.


----------



## heidita

majlo said:


> I think that's due to the fact that spoken English, especially informal one, doesn't always comply with grammar.


 
Let's further not forget that there is no such thing as a "Royal academy of English" (like for instance in Spanish). So _correct and not correct_ is not so clear, as standard and non-standard are sometimes very close.

And the fact remains, that _that's_ is used with *plural nouns and pronouns*, at least in British English.


----------



## RocketGirl

'That's just us" is not the same.  We're comparing apples to oranges.  The word "us" is and has always been considered a singular unit.  You'd never hear "Those *are* us"...

Panjandrum, thanks so much for joining this conversation.  I was starting to feel like I was smashing my head on a brick wall and not one answer so far has been to my satisfaction, until yours.  



panjandrum said:


> In the examples I looked at, the word *lies* was being used almost adjectivally, but more as a non-count noun. Certainly the general intention was to castigate all of "that" as being untrue - no sense of there being a number of specific untruths.
> 
> It may well be that *lies* is moving in the general direction that *balls* has already travelled.



Not to say that I agree necessarily, but this is the first theory that's been suggested that I haven't dismissed the moment I read it.  I'm still formulating my opinion on it.


----------



## heidita

RocketGirl said:


> 'That's just us" is not the same. We're comparing apples to oranges. The word "us" is and has always been considered a singular unit. You'd never hear "Those *are* us"...


 
Do we understand then that in the sentence: *that's men for you!* _men _is a _singular unit,_ too?

And if we are comparing apples to oranges, I would agree here, as fruit is fruit!


----------



## cuchuflete

panjandrum said:


> That's lies is used, no doubt about that (several thousand Google examples). But of course usage doesn't make it consistent with good grammar ...
> ...
> ... unless?
> 
> I think we can safely dismiss *lies* being singular.   Ahhh, but can we?
> 
> What if *lies* could be an adjective? Unlikely, I think.
> 
> What if *lies* could be a non-count noun?
> Like news - except that it is a very long time since a new was around.
> Now there's a thought.
> 
> In the examples I looked at, the word *lies* was being used almost adjectivally, but more as a non-count noun. Certainly the general intention was to castigate all of "that" as being untrue - no sense of there being a number of specific untruths.
> 
> It may well be that *lies* is moving in the general direction that *balls* has already travelled.



Panj has got to the heart of it.  In the particular example under discussion, "lies" is trending towards bollocks, politics, women, and other seemingly plural nouns, when these are used to describe something collective...a body of thought or behavior.

That's just politics.  There's a close equivalent in meaning to 'That's just lies'. 
I don't like the sound of "That's just lies", and I can see the grammatical defect, if we take 'lies' as a plural noun.  If we perceive it to be singular, countable or otherwise, the sentence works, sort of...almost.

That's just opinions! Over fifty posts, and not a single authoritative statement strong enough to convince everyone.


----------



## RocketGirl

Sorry heidita... you're not convincing me.  We've discussed this one already.  "That's men for you" is iffy, but at least it can be considered a standard colloquial expression.  "That's just lies for you" isn't standard ... it's not a common expression.


----------



## heidita

> RocketGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry heidita... you're not convincing me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think nobody can convince anybody on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've discussed this one already. "That's men for you"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...as I have read, thank you. I chose_ men_ though, the other example was with _women_. I think _men_ is much more adequate, don't you??
Click to expand...


----------



## JamesM

I think there are some set phrases that are accepted, even though grammatically incorrect.

"It's me"
"It's us"
"It's them"
"Them's the breaks"
"Them's fightin' words!"
"That's men/women for you!"


In fact, "that's ____ for you" seems to be able to take any word - singular or plural.  I'd even go so far as to say, "that's lies for you!" would work as an expression.    I'd be comfortable with "That's lies for you; they'll always get you in trouble!"  It is the "for you!" at the end, though, that makes this a set expression.


----------



## heidita

JamesM said:


> I think there are some set phrases that are accepted, even though grammatically incorrect.
> 
> "It's me"
> "It's us"
> "It's them"
> "Them's the breaks"
> "Them's fightin' words!"
> "That's men/women for you!"


 
Them's the breaks???? Is that: these are the breaks?? Jesus!


----------



## RocketGirl

JamesM said:


> In fact, "that's ____ for you" seems to be able to take any word - singular or plural.  I'd even go so far as to say, "that's lies for you!" would work as an expression.    I'd be comfortable with "That's lies for you; they'll always get you in trouble!"  It is the "for you!" at the end, though, that makes this a set expression.



Good point James.  More than 50 posts later, as chuchuflete pointed out, (and I see I'm actually at # 61 now) and I think we're finally starting to get to the bottom of why this is so controversial.


----------



## JamesM

> Them's the breaks???? Is that: these are the breaks?? Jesus!


 
Both are meant to be humorous and are deliberately poor English, but yes, "Them's the breaks" means "those are the breaks." I don't hear that one as often as "Them's fightin' words!" I just heard someone say this last night.  It's an interesting phrase.  It's usually said only half in jest, in my experience.  The person is warning the other person that continuing in the direction would result in an argument.  The current equivalent, I think, is "Don't (even) go there!"


----------



## gaer

cuchuflete said:


> Panj has got to the heart of it. In the particular example under discussion, "lies" is trending towards bollocks, politics, women, and other seemingly plural nouns, when these are used to describe something collective...a body of thought or behavior.
> 
> That's just politics. There's a close equivalent in meaning to 'That's just lies'.
> I don't like the sound of "That's just lies", and I can see the grammatical defect, if we take 'lies' as a plural noun. If we perceive it to be singular, countable or otherwise, the sentence works, sort of...almost.
> 
> That's just opinions! Over fifty posts, and not a single authoritative statement strong enough to convince everyone.


"That's our foreros for you." 

Seriously, I'm very happy that our language is free enough to make such discussions possible.


----------



## gaer

RocketGirl said:


> Good point James. More than 50 posts later, as chuchuflete pointed out, (and I see I'm actually at # 61 now) and I think we're finally starting to get to the bottom of why this is so controversial.


I think you've only described one part of the puzzle.

Our problem is that we have many unanswered questions.
Our problem is many unanswered questions.
That's our problem: many unanswered questions.
Many unanswered questions is our problem.
It's the many unanswered questions that is our problem.

The "jar" occurs when any sentence is constructed with the form:

A is B

When A is singular and B is countable.

"It is Europeans who must learn Japanese customs, and not the other way around."

So far I think some people will accept "It is Europeans". However, when "that" replaces "it", we start to wander into very informal or slang usage:

Where's all the noise coming from?

"That's [it's] just our stupid neighbors again with their freakin' boom-box. We "oughta" call the cops, really."

OR

-- Did you hear what they said about us?
-- Don't worry about it. That's just our stupid neighbors and their typical lies.

In speech, many things just happen that are not correct according to any formal English rules.


----------

