You and your native language

[reineke]

"One last thing – one of the contractions you’ve mentioned is only really used when speaking, while the other three are used in informal writing as well. Do you know which is the odd one out? It’s there're - the contraction of 'there are'. It's quite uncommon to see this written down unless you are trying to write exactly like we speak, for example in direct speech in a dialogue."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learn ... page.shtml

" I don't think "there're" is ever going to fly -- it's not so much a contraction as a simple elision. The only thing being dropped is a glottal stop, which isn't a "real" sound in English.

From a strict prescriptivist grammar and usage standpoint, "there's" used with a plural is wrong. But in spoken language (which is the real language, squiggles on pages and screens are no more than an approximate rendering) we need to be careful with prescriptivist tendencies. It may offend the grammarian's ear, but the fact that a very large number of native speakers -- likely a preponderance of them -- make exactly the same "mistake" indicates that there is something else going on."

https://english.stackexchange.com/quest ... ontraction

" examples of contemporary re-spelling due to elision are very rare — I believe the only unambiguous examples we came up with were bosun and gunnel, and even those date back to the 19th Century, and do not replace boatswain and gunwale but exist alongside them."
https://english.stackexchange.com/quest ... st-century

[Speakeasy]

" ... we need to be careful with prescriptivist tendencies..." (*See below)

Have you (that is, all of us) ever noticed how the "bad guys" are always referred to collectively by names ending in "...ist"? It is so prevalent that, here in Québec, this is often written in the vernacular as "...isse" and is pronounced with a forced, deliberately-agressive hissing sound. Just a thought!

Now then, from memory, this is the fourth discussion thread in this forum that, following the rather banal statement of a preference for, or the support of the use of, the “there are / there’re” pair, has derailed into a ritual debate of “descriptivism versus prescriptivism.”

In one of the previous derailments, two forum members openly accused a supporter of the “there are / there’re” pair of harbouring not just elitist, but racist and socially oppressive views on language based solely on his position on this particular question concerning English grammar. These personal and unsupported accusations went unchallenged by the Moderators. This time around, as of this writing, we have seen only the expression of a feeling of having been personally insulted, an accusation of having made a value judgment (which is a truly curious charge), and an implied accusation of an apparent desire to stifle free speech. Well, there is still a lot of metaphorical ink left in the Ethernet. So then, we’ll see where this goes.

By the way, the three forum members who have expressed their support of the “there are / there’re” pair represent 0.000001% of the world’s population of native speakers of English. This figure is already a thousand-fold increase over the figure suggested by Cainntear. Not just victory, but total victory, is in sight!

*Clarification: Please note carefully that invoking the "quotation" function when someone has submitted quoted text gives the incorrect impression that the person submitting the quote made the statement himself ... as in the case case above. That is, the materials submitted by Reineke are incorrectly attributed directly to him. Although he submitted the above quotes, he did not express his own opinion either way.

[reineke]

Please note that Reineke did not express his own opinion either way.

That's correct.

wink.jpg

[Cainntear]

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.”

Yes, I was suggesting he doesn't need to beat himself over it -- the reason he always says it is because so many people around him do it. I wasn't trying to say he was wrong to say it the other way, just that it wasn't wrong to say it that way. I never called something other people say grammatically incorrect or an error.

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.

Then you will never be convinced. Such is life.

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.

I'm not convinced by that. You describe your parents explicitly instructing you on the distinction. To me, this suggests that you were presenting the pattern that I have observed as being the most common one where I live -- undifferentiated "there's". I would speculate that this means that this pattern is the common vernacular in your area too.

(1) your question “And what's wrong with that? Most English speakers do ...” is, itself, a value judgment,

True. Perhaps what I should have said was a negative value judgement.

(2) your expression of taking personal insult was unwarranted,

You called my English ungrammatical (albeit indirectly). How is that not an insult?

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.

It's not an error. If you check the British National Corpus there are 16796 hits for "there 's" and only 87 for "there 're" in the spoken subcorpus. The Corpus of Contemporary American English has similar proportions -- 129729 hits for "there 's" and 278 for "there 're". It is highly unlikely that people speak almost exclusively about the existence of singular items, so the only sensible explanation is that people do indeed commonly use there's with a plural complement.
And no, you will not "eradicate" supposed errors by teaching them in schools. Telling kids that they're speaking wrong doesn't lead them to learn better, but rather to disengage and learn much, much less.

" ... we need to be careful with prescriptivist tendencies..." (*See below)

Have you (that is, all of us) ever noticed how the "bad guys" are always referred to collectively by names ending in "...ist"?

The other side of the coin is "descriptivists". You are a prescriptivist, I am a descriptivist. Both ists.

Now then, from memory, this is the fourth discussion thread in this forum that, following the rather banal statement of a preference for, or the support of the use of, the “there are / there’re” pair, has derailed into a ritual debate of “descriptivism versus prescriptivism.”

Perhaps this is not 100% on-topic, but we are discussing our native languages here, so it's not "derailed" the discussion by a long stretch.

In one of the previous derailments, two forum members openly accused a supporter of the “there are / there’re” pair of harbouring not just elitist, but racist and socially oppressive views on language based solely on his position on this particular question concerning English grammar. These personal and unsupported accusations went unchallenged by the Moderators.

You do not have to have racist or elitist intentions to carry out racist or elitist actions. Prescriptivist grammar preferentially supports the mode of speech of one group of people over another, and therefore results in indirect discrimination based on racial and social demographics. For example, you refuse to give anyone a job if they pronounce "ask" as "aks", then (in the US) you will end up turning away more black people than white people, and more people from poor family backgrounds than people from middle and upper-middle class backgrounds -- indirect discrimination. In the UK you will be discriminating against people from certain rural dialect regions and under-35s from racially diverse, low income urban areas.

I do understand that this is not your goal, but it is the consequence of the sort of language policy you support.

By the way, the three forum members who have expressed their support of the “there are / there’re” pair represent 0.000001% of the world’s population of native speakers of English. This figure is already a thousand-fold increase over the figure suggested by Cainntear. Not just victory, but total victory, is in sight!

The number was reduction ad absurdum, not data.

[Speakeasy]

...Then you will never be convinced. Such is life.

I could be convinced by a convincing argument, something that you have not yet provided, despite my repeated requests. I am tempted to qualify your reply as a dismissive, negative value judgment, something that I find personally insulting, but that would be descending to a level that I wish to avoid.

... I'm not convinced by that. You describe your parents explicitly instructing you on the distinction. To me, this suggests that you were presenting the pattern that I have observed as being the most common one where I live -- undifferentiated "there's". I would speculate that this means that this pattern is the common vernacular in your area too...

I reiterate that, as far as I can recall, when I entered the 1st grade, my classmates were comfortable with, and actually used, the “there are / there’re” pair. It is inconceivable that they all received instruction from my parents. In any event, I find your reasoning on this point not even superficially plausible, but actually quite wrong. It goes without saying that parents make very serious attempts at directing their children’s behaviour in innumerable ways. Would a responsible parent allow their small child to rush into the traffic in the hopes of recovering a runaway ball? Of course not! Likewise, it is quite normal for parents to help their offspring learn their native tongue. To qualify this process as “unnatural” is specious at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

... Perhaps what I should have said was a negative value judgement...

And yours was ...?

... You called my English ungrammatical (albeit indirectly). How is that not an insult?

I wrote nothing of the sort. I have merely maintained that the grammatically correct pairs are “there is / there’s” and “there are / there’re.” If you find this statement personally insulting, you should consider seeking professional help. Apparently in a desire to exchange insult-for-insult, you ascribed to me a set of beliefs that leads inexorably to the repression of a good portion of the world’s English-speaking population. Now, that’s insulting!!!

... The other side of the coin is "descriptivists". You are a prescriptivist, I am a descriptivist. Both ists...

Thank you, it never would have occurred to me (sic). So then, you admit to being a “bad guy”?

... Perhaps this is not 100% on-topic, but we are discussing our native languages here, so it's not "derailed" the discussion by a long stretch.

Many discussion threads go off-topic. My hope was that this one would not degenerate into, yet another, bun-fight. My mere suggestion that it just might do so, and that I was not inviting anyone to participate, merited your second-to-worst broadside to date. Apparently, you cannot resist the temption of responding to the “unpardonable provocation” of someone supporting the grammatically-correct “there are / there’re” pair by anything other than a full, unrelenting déscriptivisse assault. In your latest post, you compounded this by implying that by virtue of my position on this sole matter of English grammar, as a "consequence" I am condemned to supporting an entire set of racist and elitist beliefs. In my opinion, your specifc comments, reported below, run dangerously close to infringing on the Forum Rules concerning political discussions. And yet, you still maintain that this discussion has "not derailed ... by a long stretch"!!!

... You do not have to have racist or elitist intentions to carry out racist or elitist actions. Prescriptivist grammar preferentially supports the mode of speech of one group of people over another, and therefore results in indirect discrimination based on racial and social demographics. For example, you refuse to give anyone a job if they pronounce "ask" as "aks", then (in the US) you will end up turning away more black people than white people, and more people from poor family backgrounds than people from middle and upper-middle class backgrounds -- indirect discrimination. In the UK you will be discriminating against people from certain rural dialect regions and under-35s from racially diverse, low income urban areas. I do understand that this is not your goal, but it is the consequence of the sort of language policy you support. .

(Colour added by Speakeasy)

It has been a very long time since I studied the Rules of Formal Logic, but I believe that the fallacy in your reasoning above was illustrated by the following:

All cats are black.
This dog is black.
Therefore, this dog is a cat.

I would not be offended if you were to correct the illustration, I’m simply too tired to research it.

I thank you for your generous, and very much appreciated, statement that you do not suspect me of harbouring racist beliefs. Nevertheless, I find it offensive – without exaggeration, truly deeply offensive -- that you should imply that my mere support of the grammatically-correct “there are / there’re” pair leads inalterably to the holding of, or the support of, such a broad set of racist and elitist beliefs. Are all determinists destined to be supporters of the Stalinist purges? Have you no sense of proportion?

... The number was reduction ad absurdum, not data.

I detect the absence of a sense a of humour.


EDITED:
Formatting.
Tinkering.

[Random Review]

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.

Nope, there's some vowel reduction; but there's also a definite glottal stop before the "a" in "are" when I say it, because I would only use the construction in situations formal enough to require clearly enunciated words (or in the classroom, which also requires unnaturally clear pronunciation).

[tarvos]

I think there's a whole bunch of pedants in this thread. Cue arguing over whether "a bunch" is singular or plural.

[Cainntear]

... I'm not convinced by that. You describe your parents explicitly instructing you on the distinction. To me, this that you were presenting the pattern that I have observed as being the most common one where I live -- undifferentiated "there's". I would speculate that this means that this pattern is the common vernacular in your area too...

I reiterate that, as far as I can recall, when I entered the 1st grade, my classmates were comfortable with, and actually used, the “there are / there’re” pair. It is inconceivable that they all received instruction from my parents. In any event, I find your reasoning on this point not even superficially plausible, but actually quite wrong. It goes without saying that parents make very serious attempts at directing their children’s behaviour in innumerable ways. Would a responsible parent allow their small child to rush into the traffic in the hopes of recovering a runaway ball? Of course not! Likewise, it is quite normal for parents to help their offspring learn their native tongue. To qualify this process as “unnatural” is specious at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

I might be wrong in your case -- that's always possible. In general, however, the vast majority of basic language (and "there's" is pretty fundamental stuff) is never explicitly taught.

... Perhaps what I should have said was a negative value judgement...

And yours was ...?

"Neither is wrong" is not negative.

... You called my English ungrammatical (albeit indirectly). How is that not an insult?

I wrote nothing of the sort. I have merely maintained that the grammatically correct pairs are “there is / there’s” and “there are / there’re.”

You said

the contraction “there’re” is increasingly being replaced by the grammatically incorrect “there’s”

So your exact words were "grammatically incorrect" rather than "ungrammatical", but that's the same thing really, isn't it?

My English is "wrong", yours is "right" -- that's what I'm objecting to. I'm not saying your English is "wrong", but simply that your use of there're does not reflect majority usage. I accept that there are [sic] multiple equally valid forms of English. I do not object to your usage of "there're", but I do object to your suggestion that it is somehow more correct than the majority-use "there's".

If you find this statement personally insulting, you should consider seeking professional help. Apparently in a desire to exchange insult-for-insult, you ascribed to me a set of beliefs that leads inexorably to the repression of a good portion of the world’s English-speaking population. Now, that’s insulting!!!

No, you set out your own beliefs. I asserted that those beliefs lead to repression and suppression, which is taken pretty much as fact by most of current academia.

... The other side of the coin is "descriptivists". You are a prescriptivist, I am a descriptivist. Both ists...

Thank you, it never would have occurred to me (sic). So then, you admit to being a “bad guy”?

Well if all ists are bad guys (which was your claim, not mine), then the only good guys are neither prescriptivists or descriptivists. The only people who are neither prescriptivist or descriptivist are people who do not study language at all, but rather pick it up naturally. As a descriptivist, I have always seen them as the good guys of language, so I'm cool with that.

Apparently, you cannot resist the temption of responding to the “unpardonable provocation” of someone supporting the grammatically-correct “there are / there’re” pair

You did not simply support that pair, you attacked the other pair.

... You do not have to have racist or elitist intentions to carry out racist or elitist actions. Prescriptivist grammar preferentially supports the mode of speech of one group of people over another, and therefore results in indirect discrimination based on racial and social demographics. For example, you refuse to give anyone a job if they pronounce "ask" as "aks", then (in the US) you will end up turning away more black people than white people, and more people from poor family backgrounds than people from middle and upper-middle class backgrounds -- indirect discrimination. In the UK you will be discriminating against people from certain rural dialect regions and under-35s from racially diverse, low income urban areas. I do understand that this is not your goal, but it is the consequence of the sort of language policy you support. .

(Colour added by Speakeasy)

It has been a very long time since I studied the Rules of Formal Logic, but I believe that the fallacy in your reasoning above was illustrated by the following:

All cats are black.
This dog is black.
Therefore, this dog is a cat.

I would not be offended if you were to correct the illustration, I’m simply too tired to research it.

That's a false analogy. Instead consider this:

Some bombs are dropped deliberately.
Some bombs are dropped accidentally.
All bombs explode.

Note the lack of "therefore". If you don't think you are dropping a bomb, we cannot call you a bad person, so I am not doing so. I am simply stating facts that are widely recognised in education: calling kids' language "wrong" results in disengagement from the learning process and poorer education outcomes. You believe the opposite, but there is nothing in the literature that I have seen that supports your view in any way.

I thank you for your generous, and very much appreciated, statement that you do not suspect me of harbouring racist beliefs. Nevertheless, I find it offensive – without exaggeration, truly deeply offensive -- that you should imply that my mere support of the grammatically-correct “there are / there’re” pair leads inalterably to the holding of, or the support of, such a broad set of racist and elitist beliefs.

It's not about beliefs, it's about outcomes. If something demonstrably leads to the marginalisation of certain groups of people in the workplace or the education system, it really doesn't matter what people's intentions are -- the bomb still explodes.

[reineke]

You could use all this energy for something else.

[Cainntear]

Having chosen not to respond to a request to provide support that the pair is incorrect, Cainntear evades the discussion of grammar

Again, I was not suggesting that "there're" is incorrect, I was responding to your claim that "there's" is incorrect. I provided data that you did not even acknowledge which supports my assertion that most native speakers use "there's" for both singular and plural.

Please do not accuse me of evading discussion.