# There is / there's - with plural



## john_riemann_soong

<<This thread has been split from the discussion on 
A group of people + singular/plural? 
as it discusses whether or not there's or there is has to be followed by a singular noun.
Panj
(Mod)



maxiogee said:


> "There's" is only an abridgement of "There is". It may be sneaking into use as a replacement for "There are four people at the door" — "There's four people at the door", but I wouldn't want to see it written down.


 
Etymologically, "there's" is merely a contraction of "there is". But for the strict grammarians who find displeasure in "there's" being sometimes used in the plural (it also based on emphasis), one has to realise that the addition of the clitic "'s" has created a phrase that will probably become its own word sometime in the future.

I mean, consider "there*'s a* lot of people who *play* basketball."

There are three separate inflection disjunctions here. Perhaps one should note that English is already quite an analytic language and that there is a trend for the redundant feature of inflection to be used for emphasis or meaning nuance, just like we already have liberalised the adverb placement order.

It's not just English, French has the same issue with "c'est", which can be used in the plural, and there are other phrases like "it's". "It's not the books I'm worried about" and so forth.

This especially occurs because the apostrophe-s is arguably no longer a contraction, but a clitic morpheme that has developed sum semantic sense different from its constituent parts. Also, it's the tendency to generalise a semantic function - something exists - into one word, separate from the two words of "there is". The singularity of the apostrophe-s is starting to become immaterial, especially in fast speech, and often it is all about perspective and emphasis.

"_There's_ a lot of people [who are] playing basketball over _there_ [at sme location]"

Does "there's" simply mean "there is"? They remain interchangeable, but already in automatic fast speech, the "there" of "there's" is separate from the "there" of "over there", otherwise it would be a tautology.


----------



## Otter

Hi,

I also agree with sjofre.  "Group" is the subject of the phrase and is singular.

As to John's:

_There's_ a lot of people [who are] playing basketball over _there_ [at sme location]"

I don't think you can just interchange "lot" for 'group' in this instance.  If you say "there's a lot of people", as I use it, "lot" would become an adverb, not a noun, whereas "group" is a noun. So, to me, it would be "There are a lot of people", meaning "There are many people".

As to:

Does "there's" simply mean "there is"? They remain interchangeable, but already in automatic fast speech, the "there" of "there's" is separate from the "there" of "over there", otherwise it would be a tautology.

Yes, I believe "there's" simply means "there is" and I agree with Maxiogee that I wouldn't want to see "there's" written to indicate plural.  Perhaps I'm not up to speed on 'auto fast speak' but I'd also prefer to hear a kind of run-on "There're lot of people at the door".  

Maybe I didn't read all the posts clearly enough but I don't see how the example of uses of "there" applies to the discussion of singular/plural.


----------



## john_riemann_soong

Well it factors into how agreement on being singular and plural can be legally  deferred into some other emphasis.

And "a lot" still remains sort of a noun, only that its emphatic sense has made it into the plural.

Etymonline:


> O.E. hlot "object (anything from dice to straw, but often a chip of wood with a name inscribed on it) used to determine someone's share," also "what falls to a person by lot," from P.Gmc. *khlutom (cf. O.N. hlutr "lot, share," O.H.G. hluz "share of land," O.E. hleotan "to cast lots, to foretell"), of unknown origin. *The generalized sense of "great many" is first attested in 1812.*


E.g. very recent development..

My point was that something can be etymologically, but can turn into a semantic plural over time (a force of living language), especially if we want to want to define a set of people but still treat them (see? *them*, not treat the set of people as "it"s) as a plural entity. After all, the word "people" was and still singular in French (_le peuple_), but is treated as plural today.

"There're" is a rather ugly contraction, and rather nonstandard (ironically) I think. To me, "there's a lot of people at the door" and "there are a lot of people" at the door are both acceptable; "there're are a lot of people" sounds like what someone from the backcountry would say. It seems strange but it's for matters of euphony. What I mean is that "there's", linguistically has become arguably a separate word from "there is" though they still have the same meaning, and can take both singular and plural forms in certain occasions. 

"There're" is two syllables as well, (unless you're geminating the consonant "r" at the end of a word, which is really really difficult to do distinctively) which is not that much shorter than "there are". "There's" on the other hand, has a clear convenience over "there is". 

Note that the Romance demonstratives with their strong "-c-" morphemes were derived from the same Latin form with a fixed inflection, but ended up developing their own number, gender agreement, etc. independent of its restrictive etymological sense.

I'm only saying that "there's" can resolve things (and thus I want to stop a false caveat) because it's independent of number agreement in many cases (but sounds bad in others, e.g. "there's boys who..."). Why? It's freed itself in certain aspects (and in certain registers) from the restrictive singular inflection of the morpheme "'s" within it. Many of our words in English have the morpheme "-s" in them that we no longer recognise and have become assimilated into the word. The word "There's" is at the beginning of the process. There are often analogous processes in other languages.

"again*st*" 
"among*s*t"
"beside*s*"

No one today would say "you can't do that! That's not a genitive use!", but if we were strict about the etymological use we would.


----------



## Otter

As to John's:

_"There're" is a rather ugly contraction, and rather nonstandard (ironically) I think. To me, "there's a lot of people at the door" and "there are a lot of people" at the door are both acceptable; "there're are a lot of people" sounds like what someone from the backcountry would say. It . . . ._

Yes, "there're" may an 'ugly' contraction. I, personally, would not enjoy seeing it as written language. What I was saying, as _simply_ as possible, is that I would prefer to hear someone say something that sounded like that contraction (which I just made up - as a believer in living language and all) so that he/she would have correct grammar coming out of his/her mouth even if it takes a little longer to say "there are" than "there's". 

I'm not sure to which "back country" John refers.  I neither see what's wrong with said back country usage nor what makes it somehow 'less' than incorrect urban (or coastal?) grammar. I fail to see that educated automatic fast speech is more creative than "back country" automatic fast speech, particularly if the back-country version is actually grammatically correct and doesn't require changing the rules of language to accommodate the more, shall we say, erudite class. 

And, since I'm neither matriculating in this subject nor being paid to debate, I think I'll drop out now.

Night. . . .


----------



## john_riemann_soong

My contention is that using "there's" in the plural _is_ grammatically correct. Everything has a grammar, there is a concept behind each observed linguistic trend. The use of plural "there's" is already quite widespread. Even the news services use it: look up "there's many" or "there's several" in Google News. 

In the case of "there's", it's not changing the rules of language, it's just changing the vocabulary, turning it into a form of impersonal "il y a". How is it incorrect? It's just informal, as contractions tend to be (although it's arguably beyond a contraction). 

It's not just the "little longer" part: there *is* a reason why "there's" is used in certain situations than "there is". "There's" is often used with definition clauses:

"There's several things [that] you _can_ _do_."

Here, the emphasis is on the "can do". The "there's" is mainly to complete the idea that these things exist and are viable, but with no emphasis on that aspect. It is the same thing as "you can do several things", except this too changes the emphasis (English word order is flexible but analytic for a reason).

"I assure you, there *is* a reason for all of this."

The audience is doubting whether a reason exists. Thus, the emphasis of this sentence is on "there *is*". The main focus is on "there is": unlike the above sentence, you can't take away the "there is" and reword accordingly. "All of this has a reason", "For all of this a reason" both sound dreadfully wrong.


----------



## Scorny

<<Moderator note: Scorny's post added to an exisitng thread.  Remember Rule 1, please search first>>

There are some things that just drive me crazy with many American speakers today. One of my top offenses is the incorrect use of the singular contraction *there's* (there is) in place of the plural *there are*.  This practice seems to occur at all levels of education from your average Joe on the street to the supposedly well educated people.  I have also heard many broadcasters commit the error and I don't understand why. 

Examples:

There_*'s*_ so many people that don't know how to speak correctly. 

rather than 

There are so many people that don't know how to.....

Is it that difficult to understand what is plural and what is singular when you decide to contract there is?


----------



## boozer

I suppose they do it out of sheer laziness  - they save their breath by uttering a syllable less. When you are in a hurry to say what you mean to say a syllable less gives you an edge if you don't mind sounding ungrammatical.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Scorny.

You're obviously right in complaining about this phenomenon, but I'd like to call your attention to the fact that the use of a singular form — even when the speaker has already _decided_ that he's going introduce a plural notion — is much more common (in natural languages) than we might expect. I don't know if you are familiar with French or German, where this is indeed the norm. 

I believe there's a _tendency_ to use one and the same singular form for _existential structures _of this kind_: _a sort of crystalised form to be employed whatever comes afterwards.

Maybe what I'm going to add is a little OP, but isn't what you complain about similar to what happens when you say, eg, "The problem in this country is the politicians". Although the speaker — before starting to utter his sentence — has _decided_ he will blame _the politicianS_, he'll conjugate the verb BE in the singular, to match the singular NP "the problem". There are languages — Italian, for example — where this is impossible, and where the speaker who's decided to name a plural NP has to mentally "go back" some steps in the sentence and adjust the verb BE accordingly: " The problem in this country ARE <--- the politicianS".

All the best. 

GS


----------



## niveau-un

" At least *There's* pretty lights, and though there's a little variation " ( source: Overkill- Colin Hay, _Scrubs soundtrack_)

Shouldn't it be there are instead, as the referred object is plural ( _lights_) ? 

I don't know if it's a colloquial use but I've often come across such examples, especially in TV shows. If it's grammatically correct, what can be the possible explanation?


----------



## natkretep

<Moderator note: niveau-un's question has been merged with another thread>

Niveau-un, you might want to scroll up and look at some of the earlier comments.


----------



## joannaz

The whole sentence is:
“There's a lot of military activities, a lot of commercial activities in Cook Inlet, and those animals are known to be declining at a rate of about two percent per year. And we think noise is a major stressor to those animals.”

I think they shall use 'there are' here, and 'there is' shall be wrong.

The original text is from Scientific American 60's 'wild beluga whales pass hearing test'.

<Joannaz's thread has now been merged with another thread.>


----------



## perpend

I'd use: There is a lot of military activity.


----------



## Edinburgher

Strictly speaking you are right, it should be "there are", or alternatively "activity".

But in informal spoken English, we so often contract "there is" to "there's", that we also want to contract "there are".  If so, we ought to contract it to "there're", but that's not easy to say, so we just say "there's" instead.

I would not expect this to appear in writing in the text of an article in a respected publication, unless the article is quoting someone speaking.  Is that the case here?


----------



## pob14

Edinburgher said:


> I would not expect this to appear in writing in the text of an article in a respected publication, unless the article is quoting someone speaking.  Is that the case here?


That's exactly the case.  And it's not "Scientific American 60's," it's the "Sixty Second Science" feature of _Scientific American_ online (I haven't subscribed in years, so I don't know if it's in the print edition as well).

Presumably if Dr. Mooney, who was quoted there, had been writing rather than speaking, he would have taken care to say either "there are" or "activity," as Edinburgher says.


----------



## fh3579

The following sentence is cited from a listening material:
I hope there's free tickets for us.
I think it should be "I hope there are free tickets for us". 
How do you explain this grammatically incorrect sentence?

<fh's thread has been merged with an earlier thread?>


----------



## entangledbank

It's not incorrect. It's fully correct, and is the normal way of saying it, just as much as 'there are'. It would be incorrect if it said 'there is', two words, because we don't say that. The contracted form _there's_ is grammatically different from the two-word _there is_. There have been many previous threads on this (and much argument, I'm sure).


----------



## fh3579

Thanks entangledbank. I never heard of it.


----------



## gramman

I've learned not to question entangledbank's knowledge of grammar, but I want to note that there is an easy way around this. You can say "I hope _there're_ free tickets for us."

This too is discussed (argued over) in previous threads, e.g., Contracting there are to there're and There’re?, from GrammarBlog

A post that includes some links to threads on the specific question you've raised is found in use of [ there's ] to introduce a plural noun.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

You can dodge the issue by saying,"I hope there'll be free tickets for us."


----------



## fh3579

Thanks very much for your help, gramman and ain'ttranslationfun?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

gramman said:


> I've learned not to question entangledbank's knowledge of grammar, but I want to note that there is an easy way around this. You can say "I hope _there're_ free tickets for us."



This is what I would instinctively say, but I am in a minority (or so it feels). I have always disliked using _there's_ with plural quantities.


----------



## fh3579

Neither have I, Pedro y La Torre.


----------



## ewie

entangledbank said:


> It's not incorrect. It's fully correct, and is the normal way of saying it, just as much as 'there are'.


These is news to me.


----------



## gramman

ewie said:


> These is news to me.



I might not use the words "correct" and "normal," but when I looked  around I found a number of people saying that it's now "accepted."

As you'd imagine, this topic is widely debated.  Tina Blue, the University of Kansas lecturer at GrammarTips, makes a  good argument about being economical in the use of linking verbs in "There's a Problem with "There's"--Actually, There ARE Two." The Grammarphobia Blog seems to suggest using _there's _and _there are_, rejecting _there're_ altogether: There’s a whole lotta grammar goin’ on. A poster at Language Log offers a detailed analysis of proper usage with "noun phrases like 'a bunch of' and 'a number of'.": There's a bunch of reasons -- or are there? Finally, _t__here's_ the usual collection of threads at Stack Exchange, e.g., Is "there're" (similar to "there's") a correct contraction? 

Of course, that's not all there is to say about say about there're.


----------



## Scorny

I agree that _there're_ is incorrect, but I actually think it is *less* offensive then there's - when _there's_ is used to convey plurality.

There are more towels in the closet. *Correct*
There's more towels in the closet.  *WRONG!
*There're more towels in the closet. _Wrong_ again...but it seems like a rather useful contraction.  Why is _*you're*_ an acceptable contraction, but _*there're*_ is not acceptable usage?


----------



## JulianStuart

I don't accept that there're is "incorrect".  There'll be hell to pay before you're going to get me to accept it.  As you note, if "   're  " is an acceptable contraction of are in you're, we're, they're etc., I see no reason to reject there're other than ugliness (or unfamiliarity) but that's not exactly a grammar rule - or is it?


----------



## Edinburgher

Quite so.  If you blindly apply the simple rules, then "there's" would be equally as incorrect as a plural as "there is" is, and "there're" would be a perfectly valid contraction.  But normal usage rejects this "correct" version as ugly, and prefers "there's" in defiance of the rules.  It is therefore correct, at least in speech and informal writing, to deem "there's" to be the contraction of "there are".  As soon as the context becomes more formal, the best course of action is not to contract, and instead just to say "there are" in full.


----------



## More od Solzi

_There's many (+ plural)_ is pretty common in speech, even among educated people.
And not only in speech: ."There's so many things" occurs 50,600 times in Google Books.


----------



## Johnny519

<<Moderator note: Johnny's question has been merged with one of several on the same topic.  Please scroll up to review earlier discussion>>

I know this sentence is incorrect and broken, but I don't know if sentence with similar problem is sometimes used by native speakers in informal situation.

_*Please call me if there's any questions*_


----------



## entangledbank

It's perfectly correct, and quite normal. The contracted form _there's_ can be used with any complement, singular or plural. I presume that is what you think is wrong with it. The two words _there is_ would not be used like this: they require a singular to follow.


----------



## Franco-filly

I suggest: _Please call me if you have any questions_  or _Please call me if there are (plural.= there *are* or there're) any problems._


----------



## Johnny519

Ohh, really? 

I thought the correct one should be *please call me if there's any question* or *please call me if there're any questions.*


----------



## Johnny519

Franco-filly said:


> I suggest: _Please call me if you have any questions_  or _Please call me if there are (plural.= there *are* or there're) any problems._



The first one you proposed can avoid this problem very well.


----------



## dumbfounded

<<Moderator note: dumbfounded's thread has been merged with some earlier threads>>_

_I have a problem in these sentences.
I think it should be plural form rather than singular. 
1._____ is a disgusting place. There *is* terrorists in the government and rapists everywhere. Should be are.
 2.There *was* dead Krauts and horses, busted up tanks and cars for miles. (Were)
Does it mean, that we always use *is*﻿ with there?


----------



## dumbfounded

_Does it mean, that we always use *Singular *with there?_


----------



## tunaafi

dumbfounded said:


> 1. _There *is* terrorists in the government and rapists everywhere.
> 2.There *was* dead Krauts and horses, busted up tanks and cars for miles.
> Does it mean, that we always use *is*﻿ with there?_


No, It should be _are_ in the first and _were_ in the second.


----------



## PaulQ

There *is/was *<singular noun>
There *are/were *<plural noun>


----------



## sandpiperlily

Part of your confusion may be that it's a very common error among native speakers (at least in the US), to say "there is" or "*there's*" (contraction for "there is") or "there was" followed by a plural noun, as in your examples.  It's possible that your original sentences were written by native speakers.  It's still wrong and English learners should avoid it, but be aware that you'll sometimes hear this mistake especially in informal contexts.


----------



## sandpiperlily

Now that this thread has been merged with older ones, I am astonished to learn that a lot of people think "there's + plural" is perfectly ok.  Am I totally alone / insane on this?


----------



## PaulQ

sandpiperlily said:


> I am astonished to learn that a lot of people think "there's + plural" is perfectly ok.  Am (a) I totally alone / (b) insane on this?


No, (a) you will see my post #37 (b) I am not medically qualified to advise.


----------



## JordyBro

I'm only repeating what already been said but I think it's perfectly okay for all casual purposes, and similar to because > 'cause'/'coz', try to > try and or want to > wanna. It should be covered in any english tutorials / textbooks so people know what to expect out of casual discussion, with only a footnote that it's "techincally wrong" and for test purposes you should stick to "there are".


----------



## NewAmerica

<Moderator note: NewAmerica's thread has been merged with some earlier threads. Nat>

What does "planes" mean here? If it refers to aircraft, then it should be "there are planes..."

The sentence simply reminds me of aircraft contrail.

Thanks in advance
**********************
'Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn't have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going, and steam's going all over the place, there's planes thrown in the air.'
-Yahoo News

Source


----------



## Loob

I'd say that _*planes*_ = well, *planes*.  As in *aeroplanes*.

We often, colloquially, use "there's" for "there are".


----------



## Egmont

If this is about planes taking off from an aircraft carrier (Is it? That is important context), then the steam in the quotation is the steam used to power the catapults that launch (throw) aircraft into the air after a shorter take-off run than they would otherwise require.


----------



## kentix

Yes, "there is" (singular) doesn't match "planes" (plural) but people say that sometimes. Remember, they were spoken words originally so there was no editing or proofreading. I find myself even writing it that way sometimes but when I catch it I change it to "there are".


----------



## natkretep

Moderator note: Please scroll up for earlier comments. _There's_ + <plural> occurs often in speech.


----------

