|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 27, 2008 19:33:05 GMT
I say "there's three" as well. Why? That's just the way my language works. I wouldn't say it's incorrect, I'd say it's informal. Isn't a lot of our informal speech incorrect, technically?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 27, 2008 19:59:58 GMT
Or as we say, "idiomatic".
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 27, 2008 20:49:12 GMT
I think, after analyzing the statement that was made, that I would actually choose to say, "There is three"! (i.e. The number of them was one, but is now three.)
Tone
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 27, 2008 20:55:25 GMT
Isn't a lot of our informal speech incorrect, technically? I prefer not to look at it that way. Correctness is determined by the context and the audience. Language appropriate for informal conversation is not appropriate for formal letters, and vice versa. If correctness is some sort of fixed unchanging ideal that most speech is at variance with, then it's not a very helpful notion. It's all to do with register.
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Jun 27, 2008 20:57:05 GMT
I didn't realise the past 5 or so replies where focused on my post! I had to go back and re-read the thread. I didn't mean to spark a debate, but now I have, good I suppose?
At the time, Pete, I didn't mean anything. I wrote it as I would say it. I often do that in many of my posts. I know many of you carefully check each post. I find if I do that, it detracts from what I'm trying to learn by mixing with your good-selves.
Looking back on the post, I probably meant "there are three", however, I would still say it in speech as "there is there, there's three". If I was to correct posts, I would have probably, after extensive checking, written (wrote?) "there're".
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 27, 2008 21:05:08 GMT
I know many of you carefully check each post. I'd love to know if that's true. I don't check my posts, and (as we have an edit function) I sometimes post without previewing and then change any typos I notice in the resultant post. Keep up the off-the-cuff posts, Vadim. Much better!
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 27, 2008 21:09:31 GMT
Isn't a lot of our informal speech incorrect, technically? I prefer not to look at it that way. Correctness is determined by the context and the audience. Language appropriate for informal conversation is not appropriate for formal letters, and vice versa. If correctness is some sort of fixed unchanging ideal that most speech is at variance with, then it's not a very helpful notion. It's all to do with register. Well, as you say, that's the way you prefer not to look at it. I prefer to look at it that the plural, present tense of the verb "be", in any person (and in early twenty-first-century English) is "are", not "is". "Three" is plural; so "There's three", while it may be acceptable in informal conversations - depending upon the audience - is definitely not correct . Whether that concept is helpful or not is irrelevant to its accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 27, 2008 21:22:58 GMT
Well, as you say, that's the way you prefer not to look at it. I prefer to look at it that the plural, present tense of the verb "be", in any person (and in early twenty-first-century English) is "are", not "is". But you're assuming what you want to prove. You're making a claim about English grammar that can be demonstrated to be false. I can provide evidence that your prescription is not how English really behaves: there's has been used with plural subjects for the past 500 years. I'm not saying that your prescription isn't logical, or that it isn't a rule that many people want to follow, or that it is not part of formal English usage. I'm just saying that it is not an accurate description of English grammar.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 27, 2008 21:25:41 GMT
Well, as you say, that's the way you prefer not to look at it. I prefer to look at it that the plural, present tense of the verb "be", in any person (and in early twenty-first-century English) is "are", not "is". But you're assuming what you want to prove. You're making a claim about English grammar that can be demonstrated to be false. I can provide evidence that your prescription is not how English really behaves: there's has been used with plural subjects for 500 years. I'm not saying that your prescription isn't logical, or that it isn't a rule that many people want to follow, or that it is not part of formal English usage. I'm just saying that it is not an accurate description of English grammar. I believe we're arguing from different premises. I prefer mine. I'd accept "... it is not an accurate description of English usage", but, as far as grammar goes, it can't be correct. As a matter of interest, would you accept "there's three" in informal writing (rather than in speech)?
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 27, 2008 21:35:01 GMT
I believe we're arguing from different premises. I prefer mine. I'd accept "... it is not an accurate description of English usage", but, as far as grammar goes, it can't be correct. We mean different things by "grammar". To me, "grammar" is the rules that describe how speakers produce and comprehend utterances. I'm guessing that your definition is something like "the rules that tell us how we should use the language." As a matter of interest, would you accept "there's three" in informal writing (rather than in speech)? I probably wouldn't notice it.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 27, 2008 21:40:59 GMT
I believe we're arguing from different premises. I prefer mine. I'd accept "... it is not an accurate description of English usage", but, as far as grammar goes, it can't be correct. We mean different things by "grammar". To me, "grammar" is the rules that describe how speakers produce and comprehend utterances. I'm guess that your definition is something like "the rules that tell us how we should use the language." As a matter of interest, would you accept "there's three" in informal writing (rather than in speech)? I probably wouldn't notice it. I should probably learn Esperanto.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 27, 2008 22:06:42 GMT
I should probably learn Esperanto. Mi ne komprenas. Mia kusenveturilo estas plena je angiloj.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 27, 2008 22:43:38 GMT
I should probably learn Esperanto. Mi ne komprenas. Mia kusenveturilo estas plena je angiloj. Sell the hovercraft. Eat the eels. Unu lingvo neniam estas sufiĉa
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 28, 2008 0:09:20 GMT
I think, after analyzing the statement that was made, that I would actually choose to say, "There is three"! (i.e. The number of them was one, but is now three.) Tone Tone, I agree that "the number of them is three" is correct, because we are referring to "the number", singular. But the correct version of the phrase used is "there are three", because whatever we are referring to, there are three of them.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 28, 2008 0:15:07 GMT
Correctness is determined by the context and the audience. Language appropriate for informal conversation is not appropriate for formal letters, and vice versa. If correctness is some sort of fixed unchanging ideal that most speech is at variance with, then it's not a very helpful notion. Goofy, I cannot agree with this statement. I think you (and others) are conflating the concepts of correctness and appropriateness. Language does have a set of rules, even though those rules change over time. The phrase "there's three" might be acceptable or, indeed, appropriate, in speech but it is still incorrect. And however appropriate it may be when said, in written English it is just plain wrong.
|
|