You and your native language

[Speakeasy]

No Invitation Proffered
Thank you, Cainntear, for your thoughts. My comments on “there is / there are” and their respective grammatically-correct contractions were not proffered as an invitation to yet another “descriptive versus prescriptive” debate, whether open or disguised.

Natural is Better, It is more Noble
Yes, no, maybe ... well, sometimes, it all depends. Language is not natural, it is an acquired skill. Levels of skill vary considerably between individuals. The attainment of a given level of proficiency is dependent on a wide range of factors. The deliberate choice by educators to abandon their responsibility for creating an environment designed to promote a higher level of cognitive development cannot be used as an argument that anything that is purportedly “natural” is somehow automatically superior and therefore not in need of guidance, correction, or improvement. It is “natural” to believe that the world is flat. It is “natural” to believe that the celestial bodies revolve about the planet earth. It is “natural” to believe that earthquakes, thunderstorms, droughts, bad harvests, plagues, pestilence, and all other manner of calamity are manifestations of the wrath of omnipotent, omniscient beings. Small children possess “natural wisdom” that is suppressed and otherwise deformed by formal systems of education. Any attempts at educating the country’s citizenry are irrefutable evidence of the will of the elite to maintain their grasp on the levers of power. Ignorance, indolence, and generalized sloppiness are virtues.

Just Cause for Complaint
Before I reached kindergarten, my parents taught me the following distinctions and, yes, they really did place forks on the kitchen table to illustrate the point:

There is one fork on the table. / There’s one on the table.
There are three forks on the table. / There’re three on the table.

This was the “natural” language that I learned at home, from my parents, both of whom were unilingual native-speakers of English. Their understanding of this basic construction was not the result of a higher level of formal education, both of them were sent out to work, and to live alone in the streets, at the age of eleven. And yet, they managed to grapple with, and surmount, the enormously difficult “there are / there’re” conundrum. When I made mistakes in the use of these patterns, they corrected me. The reinforcement continued in the 1st and 2nd grades of elementary school.

If it is “natural” for someone to say “there is three forks on the table” or to believe that “there’s” is a contraction of “there are” then, in my view, such people have just cause to revisit their parents and elementary school teachers armed with the complaint that the latter did a poor job of teaching a rather simple pattern which exists in their native tongue.

EDITED:
Typos!

[aokoye]

I make a conscious effort at saying "there're" and I feel no shame at doing so.

I never suggested you should feel shame for it, but if you have to make a conscious effort to do so, it cannot be part of your native language -- your native language is the language you speak without conscious effort.

The two of you are too young to have been drilled in the sublte differences in pronunciation of "there, their, they're, there're" as I endured in the 1950's. Getting these right by the middle of the 2nd grade was like receiving a Boy Scout badge.

Again, if you have to be trained to do it, it's not part of your native language.

At the risk of being pedantic, do you not mean it's not part of one's "native" idiolect (if one can even have a native idiolect in that sense)? Even then I don't really see the logic in "if you have to be trained to do it, it's not part of your native language". That reasoning doesn't seem take into account that all languages have dialects. It also doesn't take into account that people learn new words in their native language(s) all the time and that languages are in a constant state of flux. Additionally peoples' idiolects are also in a constant state of flux for various reasons.

One of the other problems I see is that, assuming there, their, and they're are all being pronounced the same way, the way they're written really shouldn't be taken into account as to whether or not someone has a distinction between them in their idiolect.

[Cainntear]

No Invitation Proffered
Thank you, Cainntear, for your thoughts. My comments on “there is / there are” and their respective grammatically-correct contractions were not proffered as an invitation to yet another “descriptive versus prescriptive” debate, whether open or disguised.

No invitation proffered -- indeed, when I introduced the example of there is/are, it was not proffered as such an invitation either. It was an illustrative example of a particular pattern under discussion. It made no value judgement one way or the other.

You were the one who chose to respond by making a value judgement, one which you know I tend to take personally as an insult. It is often said that free speech means that no-one has the right not to be offended, but the flip-side of that is that everyone must have the right to be offended -- thus, if you are free to say what you did, I'm free to respond the way I did.

Yes, no, maybe ... well, sometimes, it all depends. Language is not natural, it is an acquired skill.

It is a naturally acquired skill.

Levels of skill vary considerably between individuals. The attainment of a given level of proficiency is dependent on a wide range of factors. The deliberate choice by educators to abandon their responsibility for creating an environment designed to promote a higher level of cognitive development

There is nothing in the literature that suggests that the imposition of arbitrary rules that do not match natural vernacular usage does anything to "promote a higher level of cognitive development". Indeed, the literature actually shows that the old style of grammar teaching is more likely to result in students, particularly those from a poor background, struggling to engage with education at all, thus promoting a lower average level of cognitive development.

Intentions and outcomes are distinct -- the death penalty is intended as a deterrent to crime, for example, but it has been proven time and again that it is no such thing.

Just Cause for Complaint
Before I reached kindergarten, my parents taught me the following distinctions and, yes, they really did place forks on the kitchen table to illustrate the point:

My mother taught me the difference between "may" and "can". She spent a lot of time doing so. The reason she had to spend so much time on it is that it's not a natural part of the language, and all my exposure to real, natural, normal English told me that "may" is about speculation, and if you want permission, you use "can".

[Cainntear]

At the risk of being pedantic, do you not mean it's not part of one's "native" idiolect (if one can even have a native idiolect in that sense)? Even then I don't really see the logic in "if you have to be trained to do it, it's not part of your native language". That reasoning doesn't seem take into account that all languages have dialects. It also doesn't take into account that people learn new words in their native language(s) all the time and that languages are in a constant state of flux. Additionally peoples' idiolects are also in a constant state of flux for various reasons.

A fair point, but the way I see it (and at the risk of being unnecessarily philosophical), my native language is what I speak natively, and my idiolect (or my continuum of register idiolects) is the only thing I speak natively. Thus, my native tongue is my idiolect, and if my tongue is not a "language", then I must have no native language at all.

But leaving that to one side, I'll reword it:
If the majority of native speakers have to be trained to do it, it's not a mandatory part of their native language.

No native speaker without a learning disability or speech impediment needs to be explicitly taught to pluralise nouns with S, for example, or explicitly trained in the SVO order.

One of the other problems I see is that, assuming there, their, and they're are all being pronounced the same way, the way they're written really shouldn't be taken into account as to whether or not someone has a distinction between them in their idiolect.

A fair poin

[Speakeasy]

“Natural” versus “Unnatural” Language/Language-Learning

... It is a naturally acquired skill... My mother taught me the difference between "may" and "can". She spent a lot of time doing so. The reason she had to spend so much time on it is that it's not a natural part of the language, and all my exposure to real, natural, normal English told me that "may" is about speculation, and if you want permission, you use "can".

Cainntear, with respect to your contention that it is “natural” to contract “there are” to “there’s” which, by the way, leads logically to the “natural” contraction of “they are” to “they’s” amongst hundreds of other possibilities and which, from my perspective, are grammatical errors irrespective of how common they occur, perhaps you could provide a reference to an English grammar supporting these types of contractions. In addition, it would be helpful if you were to provide a description of “natural” language/language-learning and to contrast this with what-I-would-assume-must-be the opposing process of “unnatural” language/language-learning. You seem to be suggesting that “natural” language/language-learning is more authentic and that it possesses greater intrinsic value than “unnatural” language/language-learning. Could you please explain why? Could you please provide a broad range of examples of both types, comparing and contrasting them, and illustrating where the greater value lies?

Now then, since you and I are unlikely ever to agree on the “there are / there’s” pair, I suggest that we work from a plausible hypothetical example. Let us suppose that someone, an adult, acquires a new word “naturally” according to your own definition of the process but, owing to the context, he misses the new word’s most basic meaning as well as any of its generally-accepted connotations. From time to time, this individual comes across this new word in different contexts but, as he is quite comfortable with his misunderstanding of its meaning, he does not seek clarification. Occasionally, he slips this new word into conversations with his colleagues who say nothing in response but whose facial expressions suggest surprise and puzzlement. Although their reaction perplexes him, he does not pursue the matter. Nevertheless, following a few encounters of this type, he becomes concerned that his original understanding of the new word, and his use of it, are at odds with the one commonly-held by others in his entourage. Finally, although he is not an avid user of dictionaries, he takes the time to look up this word and, to his surprise and embarrassment, he discovers his error.

Were the individual’s acquisition of this new word, his original misunderstanding of its meaning and his subsequent misuse of it all part of a “natural” process? Had his parents introduced him to the word in his childhood and had they corrected his errors had he made any, would this have been “unnatural” as you suggested had been the case when my own parents clarified the “there are / there’re” pair for me? Was the individual's process of error acquisition and self-correction “unnatural” or “natural”? Would it make any difference if, instead discovering his error his own, someone in his entourage had mentioned the error to him? Had the individual never discovered his error, what does this say about the apparent superiority of "natural" language/language-learning? Under what conditions would you change your judgment of the “naturalness” of the process and of its apparently-for-you greater authenticity?

EDITED:
Typos.

[Cainntear]

Cainntear, with respect to your contention that it is “natural” to contract “there are” to “there’s” which, by the way, leads logically to the “natural” contraction of “they are” to “they’s” amongst hundreds of other possibilities and which,

I never said that "there are" contracts to "there's" -- not once, not ever. First off, to the majority of English speakers, "there's" is not a contraction of anything, any more than a speaker of Spanish, French or Italian sees nous ferions/faremo/haremos as a contraction of faire avions/fare avemo/hacer hemos. That is the historical origin of it, but it's not what it is now. I do not believe "it's" is a contraction in modern English -- it evolved as a contraction historically of "it is", but now it's just the default form "it's". ("it is" is now an emphatic form.

perspective, are grammatical errors irrespective of how common they occur, perhaps you could provide a reference to an English grammar supporting these types of contractions.

How does that work? If 99.999999999% of people said it, it could not be a grammatical error, because if only 0.00000001% of people say it, it cannot be correct! If it's a difference of 60% vs 40%, 75% vs 25%, or 80% vs 20%; what are the criteria which would make the minority "correct" and the majority "wrong"?

it would be helpful if you were to provide a description of “natural” language/language-learning and to contrast this with what-I-would-assume-must-be the opposing process of “unnatural” language/language-learning.

The quintessential example of unnatural language: "to go boldly" -- never split the infinitive. "to go" is not an infinitive -- there is no such thing as "an infinitive" in English. And yet we talk about "the infinitive" because we try to pretend English is like Latin (Bcoz any fule no that Latin iz langwidge).

You seem to be suggesting that “natural” language/language-learning is more authentic and that it possesses greater intrinsic value than “unnatural” language/language-learning. Could you please explain why? Could you please provide a broad range of examples of both types, comparing and contrasting them, and illustrating where the greater value lies?

Grraz ftappy wappong brrrrnnngg.
Or in other words, because language is what humans speak to each other. I can say that humans should say whatever I want; but humans say what they say, not what I/you/the queen/parliament wants them to say.

suppose that someone, an adult, acquires a new word “naturally”

No.
Let's say that a child acquires a word according to the way everyone in their village uses it. That's what natural language is.
It's not a matter of "missing nuance" because no-one in their village ever uses it that way. How is that any more wrong than the fact that every single English speaker speak uses "will" to mean future tense, when the "correct" Germanic meaning is "want to"?

[Speakeasy]

Recapitulation
Cainntear, in your reply to eido’s post wherein he expressed his sense of exasperation with himself when using the (grammatically incorrect) of “there’s” in the plural, you wrote: “And what's wrong with that? Most English speakers do, so that's the modern pattern. I expect it to be fully accepted in writing within 20 years.”

In support of eido, I merely added (accompanied by an intentional attempt at humour referencing my age): “I make a conscious effort at saying "there're" and I feel no shame at doing so. The two of you are too young to have been drilled in the subtle differences in pronunciation of "there, their, they're, there're" as I endured in the 1950's. Getting these right by the middle of the 2nd grade was like receiving a Boy Scout badge.”

I was surprised that you should question my use of the contraction “there’re” for the “there are” as in: “...if you have to make a conscious effort to do so, it cannot be part of your native language -- your native language is the language you speak without conscious effort... if you have to be trained to do it, it's not part of your native language.” As of this writing, I do not find your explanations in support of "native" or "natural" language convincing.

I attempted to clarify how I learned this grammatical form: “This was the ‘natural’ language that I learned at home, from my parents, both of whom were unilingual native-speakers of English” accompanied by the precise example that they had used and a statement as to their own level of formal education.

My attempts at clarification yielded the following curious reply: “You were the one who chose to respond by making a value judgement, one which you know I tend to take personally as an insult. It is often said that free speech means that no-one has the right not to be offended, but the flip-side of that is that everyone must have the right to be offended -- thus, if you are free to say what you did, I'm free to respond the way I did.” This is curious for the following reasons: (1) your question “And what's wrong with that? Most English speakers do ...” is, itself, a value judgment, (2) your expression of taking personal insult was unwarranted, and (3) your reference to free speech was entirely out-of-place. I invite you to take a closer look at what you were replying to. The tone of your comments was openly confrontational, aggressive, and totally unjustified. While I chose to ignore them at the time, I mention them now, as part of this recapitulation. Should you wish to continue the discussion of values, value judgments, the taking personal insult, and issues of free speech, I suggest that we do so in the Private Message section of this forum. In my view, further open discussions of this nature would invite the justifiable intervention of the Moderators.

As to “natural” language, I find your explanation wanting. I learned “there’re” from my parents, as a child, before I entered kindergarten. While this formulation was reinforced in elementary school, I had already absorbed it, as had most of my classmates. I do not recall anyone being surprised by the use of “there’re” as a contraction of “there are”; that is, we were all using it correctly. My original post reads: “...drilled in the subtle differences in pronunciation”, not in usage.

I challenge your contention that most people use “there’s” in the plural. What are your sources? An estimated 360 million people speak English as their first language. If I am the sole person still using “there’re” in the plural, this represents 0.0000003%, not the 0.00000001% as you report. Assuming that eido succeeds in his efforts, those employing the correct contraction of “there are” doubles to an astounding 0.0000006% and, with a little attention to the “education” of our fellow native English speakers, we will soon eradicate the error “there’s” in the plural.

EDITED:
Tinkering.
Formatting.

[Random Review]

Look, I have a lot of respect for Speakeasy and his many excellent contributions to this forum; but I genuinely don't see why "there's [plural reference noun phrase] is ungrammatical.
I mean English verbs usually agree with the subject, don't they? In this case the subject is the invariable pronoun "there". I can think of other examples where an invariable pronoun as subject takes singular verb agreement even with plural reference.

A They are on the table?
B What is?
A Huh?
B What's on the table?
A Oh, the books you asked for.

* Edit: Although if we add an explicit complement, the verb will agree, so the whole situation is clearly more complicated:

B What are these books you're on about?

Edit to the edit: actually, maybe "what" isn't the subject in that last sentence. I don't know. I made a mess of this. That'll teach me to think out loud in public forum. But FWIW it feels different from the earlier sentences: "What are these books you are on about?" is clearly a transformed version of "These books you are on about are what" with obligatory wh fronting; whereas "What is on the table does not seem to be a transformed version of "On the table is what" (since "on the table" surely can't be a subject, unless it's the name of a bar).
This would seem to parallel the difference between "There are the men I told you about." and "There's 3 people here to see you." (the first clearly being a transformation of "The men I told you about are there.", while the latter doesn't seem to be. *

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me a logical progression. Presumably the expression started as a reanalysis of some sort of locative inversion with "there" as an adverb and the subject after the verb (like in "There's the man I told you about) and the prescriptive structure was just an intermediate phase where the verb agreed with the complement (e.g. "There are 3 options") and now it's changing again to have the verb agree with the subject.

Probably I got the details wrong, but at any rate I genuinely don't see why it's ungrammatical to use "there's" with plural reference but not ungrammatical to use "what's" with plural reference.

FWIW I would never say "there're", not least because it is quite hard to pronounce. I either say "there are" (in very formal speaking) or "there's", pretty much most of the time. Even in writing I think I would rarely use "there're" to be honest.

* Yup, I had a mare in this post.

[rdearman]

Actually I use there're and there's.

There's a pear on the table.
There're pears on the table.

And just because people say it doesn't make it correct. Next time just AXE me and I'll tell you why.

[rdearman]

FWIW I would never say "there're", not least because it is quite hard to pronounce. I either say "there are" (in very formal speaking) or "there's", pretty much most of the time.

Actually when you say "there are" you probably are saying "there're" since the vast majority of English speaking people tend run the a into the e of "there are" anyway so it comes out like one word.