THERE IS /ARE

Question

Which one is true?1. There are a lot of people here.2. There is a lot of people here.3. There are lots of people here.4. There is lots of people here.I think 1 and 3 are correct. But ,I see some people say 2 is correct too,,WHY?

Goldmund · Accepted Answer

Dear sir,

I believe that numbers 1 and 3 are correct too.

Kind regards,

Goldmund

Kangiten · Answer

1 & 3 are correct since here, "a lot of/lots of" are substitutes for "many", which is plural.

4 is grammatically incorrect.

2 is tricky. "A lot of" is technically a singular word so a singular verb could be used; the problem is that "a lot of" refers to multiple countable items here so it natually calls for a plural verb. This form is most probably very colloquial, it goes against the very meaning of the sentence. I would never use it myself.

Maybe a native speaker will confirm this (or prove me wrong

)

Sukhni · Answer

I & 3 are correct becuase we can use a lot of and losts of respectively. They are followed by count noun:

There ar a lot of chairs in the room.

There are lots of chairs in the room.

They both mean great amount or number of . A lot of can be followed either by coun and non-count nouns.

CalifJim · Answer

You need to ask which is correct, not which is true.
(We have no way of knowing if they are true, because we are not there, where there may be (or may not be) lots of people!)

Redkiddy · Answer

Califjim

I ve always admired of your english knowledge but I couldnt understand what you meant here....

Mr. Altuga · Answer

Hello,

I think, 1 and 3 are corrrect.2 is not correct.Only native speakers could use it.

Because "people" word signs single .But "a lot of people" signs people more than single person. So we can not use is instead of are.

CalifJim · Answer

Hi redkiddy!

If you ask me if it is true that there are a lot of people in the room where you are sitting, I will not be able to answer, because I cannot see you and cannot see your surroundings. I don't know if there are a lot of people in the room where you are sitting, so I can't say if it is true that there are a lot of people there. When we ask if something is true, we are asking about the meaning of the sentence.

But if you ask me, if the sentence below is correct (grammatically), I can certainly answer that question because you have written it there where I can see it and examine it to see if it is correct. It doesn't matter what the sentence means; I can see it and determine if it is correct.

"There are a lot of people in the room where I am sitting"

So, in a way, that was a little joke, but also a reminder that "true" and "correct" mean different things!

CJ

Davkett · Answer

Hi CalifJim,

If we say 'true (grammatically)' as you did with 'correct (grammatically)' do we change the argument?

CalifJim · Answer

davkett,

No, saying "true (grammatically)" does not change the argument.
The distinction can be characterized in two ways, actually.
First, the difference is between use and mention. When we use a sentence to impart meaning, we are concerned with its truth, not its correctness. Even grammatically problematic sentences may be used to speak the truth.
When we mention a sentence, however, (and this is normally emphasized by placing it in quotes), we look at it quite differently, as an example of one of any number of possible sentences. And in that case we are more likely looking at it from the point of view of its grammatical correctness, not its content, or at least, not the truth of its content.
Second, the difference is quite similar to the difference between truth and validity. Truth has to do with the correspondence of a sentence with reality. Validity is the term used to show that rules have been followed, that the correct procedures, if you will, have been followed in constructing the sentence. In logic, too, the difference is important. It is possible to produce untrue conclusions because the argumentation is invalid, even if you begin with true premises. (Monkeys are animals. Men are animals. Therefore, all men are monkeys.) This is why, in logic, we don't say that an argument is true; we only say it's valid or invalid.
Given my line of argumentation here, the expression "grammatically true" is undefined, has no meaning.

CJ

Davkett · Answer

CalifJim, (in full appreciation of your response),

'No, saying "true (grammatically)" does not change the argument.'

Not even in this sense of the word true? --5 a : that is fitted or formed or that functions accurately b : conformable to a standard or pattern (Merriam-Webster)

When the word is qualified by 'grammatically', might it not imply this definition: fitted well to the standard of grammar?

That's really the way I think of the term 'grammatically true"...not that I wouldn't also use 'grammatically correct' in many, or even most, circumstances.

THERE IS /ARE

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions