🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <RMUGELE.92Jul24082955@oasun1.oracle.com> rmugele@oracle.com
(Robert Mugele) writes:
>I tend to agree with this last comment.  It seems to me that "there is"
>and "there are" are moving toward an idomatic usage where they merge and
>number is no longer significant.  I see this as analagous to the Spanish
>word "hay" which has the meanings "there is" and "there are".

I have a sort of alternative theory that "there's" has become an acceptable
contraction for "there are", most likely because "there're" is awkward to
pronounce and easily confused with "their" or "they're".  So i wonder how much
people who use "there's" with plural objects would also use "there is" in the
same place, or whether most of them would switch to "there are" if they're not
using the contraction.

In any case, it is an idiomatic format, and there's no reason to assume that
the verb must agree in number with the object (or do you call it the subject).
I'd have a hard time believing that "there" is a noun.

--
Joe Keane, amateur linguist
jgk@osc.com (uunet!amdcad!osc!jgk)