There's...

In what sense is there's or there is with a plural subject ungrammatical? "Not correct" maybe, as you first suggested, since correctness is more a social concept, but it's hardly ungrammatical, is it?

How there's with a plural subject came about, I don't know. I assume it's more popular because it's more economical to articulate, especially for non-rhotics.

<In what sense is there's or there is with a plural subject ungrammatical? "Not correct" maybe, as you first suggested, since correctness is more a social concept, but it's hardly ungrammatical, is it?>

How do you define grammatical?

MilkyHow do you define grammatical?

I wouldn't try to define grammaticality, but if I were to hazard a characterisation...

Grammaticality means consistency with an internal system of rules governing sentence structure.

This characterisation means that

1. grammaticality belongs to the individual,
2. grammaticality relates to

<Grammaticality means consistency with an internal system of rules governing sentence structure.>

So would you say that "there's a lot of museums" is grammatically correct in Standard English? And, is this grammatical, IYO:

We can should go out tonight?

MilkySo would you say that "there's a lot of museums" is grammatically correct in Standard English?

I would try to avoid answering such questions.

And, is this grammatical, IYO: We can should go out tonight?

My judgement says it isn't grammatical for me, but I believe double modals are grammatical for some USAans.

/km

<I would try to avoid answering such questions.>

You just did avoid such.

MilkyQuite a few linguists ( J Cheshire being one) state that, even among educated people, usage such as "There's lots of museums" is more common that the grammatically correct "There are lots of museums". How did that come about? Why is the ungrammatical form more popular, even among educated people?

<I noticed those parts I highlighted. Why do you think it is strange for educated people to talk in a certain way? Do you think an educate person would never say "ain't"? >

Not at all, but many who have not been taught grammatical concord, or those who were taught grammatical concord but paid little attention, in later life, to its use, might be forgiven if they "misuse" codified gr

MilkyThose educated in grammatical concord, those who pay fairly strict attention to "correct" usage, those who are normally labeled as "educated" in regard to "good" usage, would normally be eexpected to castigate themselves if they found themselves using there's + plural noun.

Hmm, yeah, I think that's true for "those who pay fairly str

<It seems you are implying that those who use certain forms (like "ain't") are uneducated, and those who are educated don't use those forms (like "ain't").>

If you know the meaning of "educated" when talking about grammar and usage, you'd know it doesn't state that those whe use "ain't" are, in the wider sense of the word, "uneducated". It refers instead to showing one is well-educa