There is several things..

Question

I suppose somebody has mentioned this before, but I can't find it in the FAQ..
Why do people say "there is" when they mean "there are"? Are they stupid? I first noticed this while watching "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and I thought it was something they introduced, but as soon as I became aware of it I began to notice it all over the place. People act like it's some kind of rule..
Are things like "There is several things I want to know." going to be recognized as standard? This disturbs me..
Roy

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]I suppose somebody has mentioned this before, but I can't find it in the FAQ.. Why do people say "there ... Are things like "There is several things I want to know." going to be recognized as standard? This disturbs me..[/nq]
This has often been discussed in this group. It *is* a rule of informal usage, and you got it wrong. What you are hearing is not "There is . . ." but the contracted form "There's . . ." which is used instead of "There're . . . ."
See the usage note for "there" in the AHD4 at
http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/T0153000.html

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I suppose somebody has mentioned this before, but I can't findit in the FAQ.. Why do people say "there is" ... Are things like "There is several things I want to know." going to be recognized as standard? This disturbs me..[/nq]
What you may be hearing is "there's several things..." That version with the contraction is not uncommon. The "there is" version is used much less often, I think.
Will it be recognized as standard? I don't know; I'm not sure what you mean by "standard." I can certainly see "there's several" being acceptable in many dialects.
But wait. More, and more informed, opinions should be along soon.

Maria Conlon
A very great part of the mischiefs
that vex this world arises from words. (Edmund Burke)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I suppose somebody has mentioned this before, but I can't find it in the FAQ..[/nq]
It's quite hard to find anything in the FAQ or archives that concerns common little words, like "is" and "have." We've talked a lot about singular and plural issues, including "there's", but I don't know of a label you could search for. I think the discussion tended to turn quickly to whether there was another expression "there're", but that's different.
[nq:1]Why do people say "there is" when they mean "there are"? Are they stupid? I first noticed this while watching ... aware of it I began to notice it all over the place. People act like it's some kind of rule..[/nq]
Well, yeah, that's how language works. People (especially young ones) unconsciously notice patterns rules and follow them; that's what it means to speak the same language as your family, friends, and neighbors. That's what makes dialects, and, eventually, new languages.

Using "There's" to introduce a plural does appear to be on the upswing in English, though it is not brand new, and its usage is hard to measure. Checking how often it is used on the web, I see these, for example:
"there are lots" 1,160,000
"there's lots" 332,000 Ratio 3:1
"there are two" 9,670,000
"there's two" 108,000 Ratio 90:1
Those numbers are quite different a ratio of 3:1 means the minority position is extremely common. A ratio of 90 is closer to questions like, is the plural of "elf," "elves" or "elfs"?
Perhaps some other readers would be kind enough to run the above searches again (in "English only") to confirm if they are valid or if we're still suffering from some of those inexplicably erratic estimates Google was returning for a while.
[nq:1]Are things like "There is several things I want to know." going to be recognized as standard? This disturbs me..[/nq]
Would you mind being disturbed by something more important, like the fact that the meltwater from Greenland and Siberia (due to global warming) is probably in this century and make Europe like the Artic? The parts that haven't been flooded by rising sea levels and major storms?

Language changes. It not only changes over the centuries, it changes visibly in one's own lifetime. I think you might as well learn to accept that the river rolls on.
Natch, you're entitled to speak the way you find best until the day you die. You're also allowed to demand compliance from your students, and your employees, and (good luck!) your young children.

Best Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Checking how often it is used on the web, I see these, for example: "there are lots" 1,160,000 "there's lots" 332,000 Ratio 3:1[/nq]
I wonder whether there's a problem here with "lots"? It may be that it's no longer seen as plural (think what's happening to "a lot"). It's used with mass nouns ("lots of stuff") to mean "much", for which the singular makes sense, as well as count nouns ("lots of things") to mean "many".
David

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]measure. Checking how often it is used on the web, I see these, for example: "there are lots" 1,160,000 "there's ... are valid or if we're still suffering from some of those inexplicably erratic estimates Google was returning for a while.[/nq]
They seem valid, but meaningless. Remember that "lots of" can mean "much", as well as "many", and for that "is" would be expected. Looking at the first hits, I find
There's lots of money
there's lots of new data
there's lots of food
there's lots of love
there's lots of amusement
there's lots of dirty laundry here
Also there's "lots" as a noun
there's lots to shoot (refering to photography)
there's lots to do.
I got all of those before I got
there's lots of cars

Evan Kirshenbaum + HP Laboratories >He who will not reason, is a bigot;
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 >he who cannot is a fool; and he whoPalo Alto, CA 94304 >dares not is a slave.

(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]measure. Checking how often it is used on the web, ... those inexplicably erratic estimates Google was returning for a while.[/nq]
[nq:1]They seem valid, but meaningless. Remember that "lots of" can mean "much", as well as "many", and for that "is" ... shoot (refering to photography) there's lots to do. I got all of those before I got there's lots of cars[/nq]
I sensed that "lots" would be a complicated case, but I hadn't thought through exactly why. Let's forget "lots" then, as not being a clear case.
I checked "there are three" and "there's three" ratio 110:1, similar to "two."
How about "there are people" and "there's people"... I find 972,000 to 41,700 which is 23:1. That feels quite a bit lower than 90 or 110... Looking through the hits to see if some unexpected use is contaminating it... It seems pretty consistent. I'd say all the hits I saw are first-person informal, colloquial writing newsgroup-level writing. Typical:
and there's people who really, really want to gossip

So, there's people moving across the border for work

There's people that have a lot of money and there's people that have next to nothing.
Trying a specific, concrete noun: "there are ducks" outnumbers "there's ducks" by 1570 to 101, which is a ratio of 16:1. Headed lower...

So, yeah, this is consistent with the original poster's assertion that he "began to notice it all over the place." Ratios of 23 and 16 are comparable to the frequency of "recieve," "loose a turn," and "missle." Fairly common.

Best - Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Perhaps some other readers would be kind enough to run the above searches again (in "English only") to confirm if they are valid or if we're still suffering from some of those inexplicably erratic estimates Google was returning for a while.[/nq]
I duplicated your searches, with virtually identical results.

But I think this is a situation where Google results aren't going to tell us much. The use of "there's" to mean "there are" is primarily a verbal habit, because "there's" is so much easier to say than "there're" or "there are". It's not much harder to type "there are" than "there's", so there's much less advantage to using the latter online.

Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply to: (Email Removed))

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I suppose somebody has mentioned this before, but I can't ... know." going to be recognized as standard? This disturbs me..[/nq]
[nq:1]This has often been discussed in this group. It *is* a rule of informal usage, and you got it wrong. ... "There is . . ." but the contracted form "There's . . ." which is used instead of "There're .[/nq]
I personally deplore "There's + plural", but I know I do it myself sometimes. However, unfortunately, "There is + plural" does exist; I have heard it several times from people who ought to know better.

Rob Bannister

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]This has often been discussed in this group. It *is* ... . . ." which is used instead of "There're .[/nq]
[nq:1]I personally deplore "There's + plural", but I know I do it myself sometimes. However, unfortunately, "There is + plural" does exist; I have heard it several times from people who ought to know better.[/nq]
Hmm, I'm sure that I have said it myself. I don't necessarily try to speak the best and most correct language at all times; I enjoy ******** around a bit. It's fun, and there ain't nothin' wrong with that. Don't we all do that sometimes? There's a time and place for everything.

I mentioned it here years ago that in the past (in my early career) I took a perverse pleasure in putting on an appearance that totally belied my true character and capabilities, thus stunning those who didn't know me with my accomplishments. Childish, I know, but boys will be boys. I don't think that I ever appeared to take my job seriously; I just did it.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I personally deplore "There's + plural", but I know I ... it several times from people who ought to know better.[/nq]
[nq:1]Hmm, I'm sure that I have said it myself. I don't necessarily try tospeak[/nq]
"I'm sure that I have said it myself." is ambiguous here. Have you said "There's + (plural)" or "There is + (plural)"? The first is said so often by speakers of standard English, and the second so rarely, that I wouldn't hesitate to identify the second as nonstandard and unlikely ever to become standard, while the first seems on its way to becoming informal standard usage (and see the article at
http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/T0153000.html
for some uses of it that already seem to be accepted in formal contexts.
[nq:1]the best and most correct language at all times; I enjoy ******** around a bit. It's fun, and there ain't ... boys will be boys. I don't think that I ever appeared to take my job seriously; I just did it.[/nq]
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

There is several things..

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions