# there's a lot of people



## honeypie

Ocurre lo mismo con otras contracciones en inglés:

Por ejemplo, sería común decir "There's a lot of people coming to the party tonight" en vez de lo correcto que es "There are a lot of people..."

Yo cometo este error muy a menudo, aunque sé que lo estoy diciendo mal. Probablemente hay muchas personas que no quieren que se acepten este tipo errores, pero para mí es algo tan común que ya no me suena "mal-educado".  Sabiendo que es incorrecto, no me parece mal que lo digas si quieres aprender a hablar como cualquier angloparlante, pero cuando te expresas por escrito te recomiendo que utilices la gramática que se considera correcta.


----------



## el bajavoz

honeypie said:


> Ocurre lo mismo con otras contracciones en inglés:
> 
> Por ejemplo, sería común decir "There's a lot of people coming to the party tonight" en vez de lo correcto que es "There are a lot of people..."
> 
> QUOTE]
> De hecho, es correcto decir, "There is a lot..." aunque sí parece equivocado. Con _otras frases_ parecidas se dice así con "is" y es un error - "There's about 5 people comin'." o "There's lots of people coming." Por lo general honeypie explica bien el concepto del habla cotidiana vs formal.


----------



## honeypie

el bajavoz said:


> honeypie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ocurre lo mismo con otras contracciones en inglés:
> 
> Por ejemplo, sería común decir "There's a lot of people coming to the party tonight" en vez de lo correcto que es "There are a lot of people..."
> 
> QUOTE]
> De hecho, es correcto decir, "There is a lot..." aunque sí parece equivocado. Con _otras frases_ parecidas se dice así con "is" y es un error - "There's about 5 people comin'." o "There's lots of people coming." Por lo general honeypie explica bien el concepto del habla cotidiana vs formal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracias el bajavoz por aclarármelo. Siempre pensé que era un error...
Click to expand...


----------



## mhp

el bajavoz said:


> De hecho, es correcto decir, "There is a lot..." aunque sí parece equivocado.



So you say *"a lot of people _is_ here"?


----------



## gringomejicano

mhp said:


> So you say *"a lot of people _is_ here"?



No, I say "there's a lot of people here".  Both "a lot of people is here" and "a lot of people are here" sound wrong.  A lot of people is a lot of people.


----------



## mhp

gringomejicano said:


> No, I say "there's a lot of people here". [...] "a lot of people are here" sound wrong.


Interesting. I'd say a lot of people disagree (or as you may say, disagrees) with you.

"a lot of people" is a plural noun. The verb must must be in third person plural.


----------



## Agró

M. Swan. _Practical English Usage_.

"In an informal style, it is possible to use _here's, there's and where's_ before plural nouns:

_*Here's* your keys.
*There's* some children at the door.
*Where's* those records I lent you?"_


"When _a lot_ is used with a plural word, the verb is plural:

_A lot of *us were* invited at the last minute.
A lot of my *friends are* thinking of emigrating."_

So, A lot of people *are/have/think*...


----------



## Normaluz

Hay algunas palabras que pueden usar is o are, una de esas palabras es "people". Esto quiere decir que es correcto utilizar is o are.


----------



## mhp

Normaluz said:


> Hay algunas palabras que pueden usar is o are, una de esas palabras es "people". Esto quiere decir que es correcto utilizar is o are.


No, _people _is always used with a plural verb.


----------



## gringomejicano

mhp said:


> No, _people _is always used with a plural verb.



You really think that "a lot of people are a lot of people" is correct?  That sounds awful!

I'm more willing to go with the assumption that it's mixed, either plural or singular, depending upon the circumstances.

Good points, Agró.


----------



## mhp

gringomejicano said:


> You really think that "a lot of people are a lot of people" is correct?  That sounds awful!
> 
> I'm more willing to go with the assumption that it's mixed, either plural or singular, depending upon the circumstances.



Can you explain what you mean by "a lot of people are/is a lot of people"?
How about "many people is/are many people"?

Believe it or not, "there is a lot of people who thinks this way" is unacceptable in English. You can make it sound better by saying "there is a lot of people who think this way", but if you note it is inconsistent: "a lot of people" is being treated as both singular and plural in the same sentence. The correct sentence is "there are a lot of people who think this way"


----------



## gringomejicano

mhp said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "a lot of people are/is a lot of people"?
> How about "many people is/are many people"?
> 
> Believe it or not, "there is a lot of people who thinks this way" is unacceptable in English. You can make it sound better by saying "there is a lot of people who think this way", but if you note it is inconsistent: "a lot of people" is being treated as both singular and plural in the same sentence. The correct sentence is "there are a lot of people who think this way"


Sorry for the delay.  Jaqueca.

Who says that it's unacceptable?  I think that whether "people" is singular or plural depends on what people means in that particular case.  Either "is" or "are" can be used based on the circumstance.  Do you consider the people to be one mass or a collection of individuals?

A group of people is coming to the office for meetings tomorrow.

Are you saying that you would replace "is" with "are"?  Do you consider this to be different entirely since it uses "group" instead of "lot"?


----------



## mhp

gringomejicano said:


> Who says that it's unacceptable?



"there is a lot of people who thinks this way"

I highlighted the "s" so it can be seen easily. Do you consider "thinks" correct in that sentence?


----------



## gringomejicano

No.  Do you think "is" is wrong in the "a group of people" sentence I wrote?


----------



## mhp

gringomejicano said:


> No.  Do you think "is" is wrong in the "a group of people" sentence I wrote?



Please let's stay with "a lot of people" for the moment. ("a group of people" is different)

If you think the correct sentence is "there is a lot of people who *think* this way", is the antecedent, "a lot of people", singular or plural?


----------



## Franartes

I thik the following friends: "there is a lot of people" = hay mucha gente; "there are a lot of people"= hay muchas personas. As simple as that. Then, both are possible, as it means the same.


----------



## el bajavoz

Saying, "a lot", with singular verbs _sounds wrong_. One could say it is _correct_ since "a lot" is a singular noun. However it is _always_ used as a *collective noun* and therefore needs plural conjugations. In fact, "a lot of" has generally taken over the function of "many" as an *adjective* instead of a *noun *modified by a prepositional phrase. For this reason I was always instructed NOT TO USE "a lot" in any formal writing. I suggest y'all avoid it, too (in formal situations).


----------



## Lo que tu digas

In this instance the antecedent must agree in number (singular or plural) with the thing to which it refers. "A lot of" answers the question of "how much?" or "how many?".
"There are a lot of people..." (people=countable noun) How many people? 
"There is a lot of wine..." (wine=uncountable noun) How much wine?
When a "lot" refers to a specific unit: A LOT of forty acres and three tractors is being auctioned off on Saturday. Here "a lot" does not answer "How many/much?" It is treated as a unit. 
Not to stray too far from the point. The antecedent and pronoun must agree in number (singular or plural) with the thing to which it refers.
Anyone/Anybody can see *their* reflection in the mirror.  Anyone/Anybody is always treated as singular. Anyone/Anybody can see *his/her* reflection in the mirror.

*A group of people is coming to the office a 9 o'clock. * They all got the email of where and when to show up. They act collectively.

*A group of people are fighting in the street. * Individual people as part of a group are fighting.

Saludos


----------



## chileno

I agree with gringomejicano and Lo_que_tu_digas.


----------



## mhp

chileno said:


> I agree with gringomejicano and Lo_que_tu_digas.



If you have not noticed, they are saying opposite things.


----------



## Istriano

Lo que tu digas said:


> Anyone/Anybody can see *their* reflection in the mirror.  Anyone/Anybody is always treated as singular. Anyone/Anybody can see *his/her* reflection in the mirror.


In English texbooks I used (by Oxford University Press) this was considered correct: _Everyone should respect their mother._

I would say it is normal in all but superformal contexts, and most native speakers and foreign learners are fine with it.


----------



## chileno

mhp said:


> If you have not noticed, they are saying opposite things.



Really?

Read carefully again.


----------



## el bajavoz

mhp said:


> "there is a lot of people who thinks this way"
> 
> I highlighted the "s" so it can be seen easily. Do you consider "thinks" correct in that sentence?


 
Just to clarify one doubt... 
"thinks" is incorrect. The subject/antecedent that/who does the *think*ing is "people" which requires "think" (no "s"). The subject that "is" corresponds to "a lot" which is singular - and THAT is the dilemma/one dilemma in this thread.


----------



## Lo que tu digas

Istriano said:


> In English texbooks I used (by Oxford University Press) this was considered correct: _Everyone should respect their mother._
> 
> I would say it is normal in all but superformal contexts, and most native speakers and foreign learners are fine with it.



_Everyone should respect their mother_.

I agree with you that most native speakers and foreign learners are fine with it. The problem is that English doesn't have a word to refer to a singular noun of undetermined gender. That one word, if it existed, would put an end to the formal and at times awkward sounding "his/her". Why not rewrite the sentence? *All people should respect their mother.* 

Saludos


----------



## mhp

el bajavoz said:


> Just to clarify one doubt...
> "thinks" is incorrect. The  subject/antecedent that/who does the *think*ing  is "people" which requires "think" (no "s"). The subject that "is"  corresponds to "a lot" which is singular - and THAT is the dilemma/one  dilemma in this thread.


What is "a lot" as a noun?

Compare: 
I heard that _there is a group that is_  exploring something along those lines.
I heard that _there is a lot that is_  exploring something along those lines.


----------



## chileno

mhp said:


> What is "a lot" as a noun?
> 
> Compare:
> I heard that _there is a group that is_  exploring something along those lines.
> I heard that _there is a lot that is_  exploring something along those lines.



...a group (of people)...
...a lot (of people) ...

Right?


----------



## mhp

chileno said:


> ...a group (of people)...
> ...a lot (of people) ...
> 
> Right?



I am sorry, I don't understand what you are asking.


----------



## chileno

mhp said:


> What is "a lot" as a noun?
> 
> Compare:
> I heard that _there is a group that is_  exploring something along those lines.
> I heard that _there is a lot that is_  exploring something along those lines.





chileno said:


> ...a group (of people)...
> ...a lot (of people) ...
> 
> Right?





mhp said:


> I am sorry, I don't understand what you are asking.



When you wrote "I heard that there is a group that is exploring something along those lines" 

You meant " I heard that there is a group (of people) that is exploring along those lines" Right?


----------



## mhp

chileno said:


> You meant " I heard that there is a group (of people) that is exploring along those lines" Right?


Yes, a _group _that is composed of individuals. Note that you normally don't say "a lot" that is composed of individuals, at least not when what you want to say is "a lot of people" in the normal sense of the phrase---i.e. many people.


----------



## el bajavoz

chileno said:


> ...a group (of people)...
> ...a lot (of people) ...
> 
> Right?


  That is correct.  One can say, "There are a lot that do not have signs."  Of course, you should first establish that "a lot" refers to "a lot of cars".  Likewise one can say, "There are many that do not have signs," in which case "many" means "many cars".  However, that is a different concept.  GRAMATICALLY, there is a question about 1 single "a lot" taking on the plural/singular verb conjugations.


----------



## chileno

mhp said:


> Yes, a _group _that is composed of individuals. Note that you normally don't say "a lot" that is composed of individuals, at least not when what you want to say is "a lot of people" in the normal sense of the phrase---i.e. many people.



But that is precisely one of the meaning of lot. A group of people.

That is what I agreed with gringomejicano and lo que tu digas.


----------



## mhp

chileno said:


> But that is precisely one of the meaning of lot. A group of people.
> 
> That is what I agreed with gringomejicano and lo que tu digas.


That interpretation of "a lot" in "a lot of people" is not normal. That could work in something like "Up  for sale is a lot of 20 marble eggs." In this case, "a lot"="one lot".

PS. And for the record, I also agree with everything that _lo_que_tu_digas_ has said in this thread.


----------



## Lo que tu digas

el bajavoz said:


> GRAMATICALLY, there is a question about 1 single "a lot" taking on the plural/singular verb conjugations.



The adjectival phrase *a lot* refers to either countable or uncountable nouns. When it refers to a countable noun the verb conjugation is plural. When it refers to a uncountable noun it takes the singular.

My previous examples:
_
"There are a lot of people..." (people=countable noun) How many people? 
"There is a lot of wine..." (wine=uncountable noun) How much wine?_

_A lot of _is an informal way of saying "many" for countable nouns and "much" for uncountable nouns. Am I missing the significance of what you mean by "1 single "a lot" taking on the plural/singular verb conjugations"?

Saludos


----------



## chileno

From Merriam-Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lot 

#5a and 5b


----------



## testalos

Hi!

Well, there are too many posts contradicting each other, so I'll just skip them and proceed to explain:

_"a lot of"_ is *not *a noun, it's an adjective of quantity. Therefore, the verb agreement has nothing to do with it. The correct conjugation is ARE sincer it refers to PEOPLE.

 The only possible sentence in which I can imagine that someone could use IS with a lot of + plural is when you are taking LOT as the subject, referring to a set amount (2, 4, 20000 or 3 million but SET). That is not the case of the sentence we are all talking about. This sentence means an unknown amount, at least more than one due to the plural.

Now, I read some things I'd like to clarify:

1) People CAN be used in the singular. People as a singular noun means the habitants of a town, city etc as a whole. 

Example: I am the governor of A people who wants to know the truth.

2) Anyone/Anybody can see *their* reflection in the mirror 

This sentence is gramatically CORRECT. When you use the possessive pronouns of the third person of the singular, as they differenciate gender, you have to include both of them. That's why we say: his/her. However, intead of that, you can use the third person plural possessive THEIR as a general pronoun rather than as a plural one.

3) the sentence " a lot of people is a lot of people" is also correct since it's taking A LOT OF PEOPLE as the who noun, the who concept rather than as a noun+modifier. Of course, this is a case of emphasis, so " a lot of people is A LOT of people" may clarify it.


----------



## inib

I cannot believe that such a long thread has been generated from such a simple and obvious concept. In my opinion, honeypie had it right from the beginning. _People_ is used with a verb conjugated in the plural. The same if it's got "a lot of" in front of it. Nevertheless, when using the contraction, it is frequent to hear "there's" (I know I've used it myself). It is so illogical that I would have thought it incorrect, but I'm not a grammarian, so I can't state this categorically.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

In "There's a lot of people who believe that the Earth is flat" I believe that the singular of BE is influenced by the nearness of "a lot" which, although part of a quantifier, is a singular countable noun.

Best.

GS


----------



## blasita

inib said:


> _People_ is used with a verb conjugated in the plural. The same if it's got "a lot of" in front of it. Nevertheless, when using the contraction, it is frequent to hear "there's" (I know I've used it myself). It is so illogical that I would have thought it incorrect, but I'm not a grammarian, so I can't state this categorically.



I'm not a grammarian either, but I can say that grammar books state so; I think _Lo que tu digas_ explained it well. More examples:

_There*'s* still a lot of *work* to do_ (uncountable noun - singular verb).
_There *are* a lot of interesting *things* to do here_ (plural noun - plural verb).

Only from the point of view of grammar (I've heard myself 'There's a lot of +plural noun' both in AmE and BrE).

Saludos.


----------



## James2000

I don't think you'll ever get complete agreement on the singular/plural issue in this case.  I avoid 'a lot' completely in writing and use 'lots' instead.  I'm sure there's some grammarian shaking his or her (dare I say 'their') head or finger somewhere, but at least there's no argument about whether it's plural:

I'm sure lots of people do the same thing.


----------



## Istriano

*A lot* is a colloquial* expression anyway,
in formal contexts you should prefer _much/many.
*Lots *_and _*loads *_are even more informal than *a lot.*_


There are many things you can do about it. (the most formal)
There's many things you can do about it.**
There's a lot of things you can do about it. (the most colloquial)
_
---
*


> *A lot of* and *lots of* are very common  in speech and writing, but they still have a distinctly informal feel  and are generally not considered acceptable for formal English, where  alternatives such as *many* or *a large number* are used instead.


 (NOAD)
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lot?region=us&q=lot


**I guess_ There's many things_ is easier to pronounce than_ there're many things,_
so the 1st option prevailed.


----------



## blasita

James2000 said:


> I don't think you'll ever get complete agreement on the singular/plural issue in this case.  I avoid 'a lot' completely in writing and use 'lots' instead.



James, I think that grammatically the two forms (_a lot of_ and _lots of_) mean exactly the same thing and are used the same way; do you agree or they are used differently in practice?


----------



## inib

Blasita, I use_ a lot of_ and _lots of_ in exactly the same way, but as James says, it could be useful in this sentence to avoid the problem.
We seem to have established that "people" (in the sense it is used here) is plural, that there is some disagreement about whether _a lot _should be considered singular or plural, but the bottom line is that sometimes we make mistakes and use the contraction _there's _with a plural noun: _Did you know there's two more bottles in the fridge_? It looks awful in writing, but I'll admit to having said such things.


----------



## James2000

blasita said:


> James, I think that grammatically the two forms (_a lot of_ and _lots of_) mean exactly the same thing and are used the same way; do you agree or they are used differently in practice?



I agree - to me they're the same.  'Lots of' is just unquestionably plural, and so avoids disagreements.


----------

