Paddington Bearadded a note 6 years ago

"To be, or not to be" :):):)

Should be "there're events/sevens"...

что-то мы недопонимаем - слишком часто это повторяется в интернете и по разным поводам

"There's sporting events, there's shows and events and community happenings at all of our schools. "
"'There's sporting events, student activities that the school puts on, and students get really cool deals downtown Milwaukee! There's tons of fun shops and food places to go try out! "
...

Grumbler, you got it! A mistake of language repeated a thousand times in the papers or internet blogs spreads like cancer and slowly becomes a new norm.
Sadly, the English language standards across the world have fallen so much, that no one notices poor wordings or simple grammar mistakes any more... We can only shake our heads... The language is decaying. That's about it.

It’s not decay and it’s not incorrect. It’s a comparison in which both elements are “collectivized” into simple units regardless of their number to make for a “black and white” effect that sounds very natural to the native speaker. For example, someone caught with prescription medication on a plane that prohibits traveling with “drugs” can state that “there’s drugs and then there’s drugs“ meaning prescription medications are one thing and illegal substances are another. This type of statement carries an intonation that leaves no doubt as to what the speaker means. That sign is correct.

“There are drugs and then there are drugs“ can carry a completely different meaning, and would probably be said by someone who just tried the best drug of their life. But even here, the speaker can choose to collectivize both parts of this statement for added effect with the same meaning.

Like many people, I simply believe that modern faults of usage have two causes: indifference or rebellious recklessness, spurning rules; and half study, which finds specious justification for forms that are not really sound.
Others are free to believe anything they want: that the Earth is flat, etc... It is their right to do so, and I totally respect their beliefs.

Gotcha 👍🏼

So if you were referring to things in categories, it would be incorrect to say that under the food group of fruits and vegetables THERE’S legumes, tubers, and herbs?

Because in this case, if you used THERE ARE it would imply that under these food groups there is an actual pile of legumes, the scattering of tubers, and a bunch of herbs. Does that make sense to you? Or is it OK with you if we refer to categories as singular, collective units without sounding idiotic?

What this sign (and this pattern) mean is: Consider the category "Sporting Events" and then compare that to the category "Sevens" - there's no comparison! Similar, one could refer to a particularly good dancer at a party and say "There's (a category of people who aren't afraid to get up and dance called) dancers and then there's (a category of people who are exceptionally talented called) DANCERS!" This distinction clicks instantly in the native's mind and there's no question what the speaker means, who, consequently doesn't sound ungrammatical or uneducated, but on the other hand eloquent and emphatic.

Also, as a native and a language professional, I find it somewhat irresponsible to throw the phrase "specious justification" around, which in essence implies that people (like me) who use the THERE'S...AND THERE'S pattern are ignorant and ungrammatical - I am neither. There is a linguistic justification for that pattern and usage and I am well aware of it, as are others who would use this pattern. This is just another reason I have gotten away from this site - non-natives being prescriptive and preaching rules, rules, rules always leave a bad taste in my mouth, and they do themselves a disservice in perfecting their English.

Thank you, Uly, for the explanation of this interesting aspect of the English language )

Anytime, doll! I'm glad you found it useful 😉

Just for the fun of it, I asked 14 educated Canadians, my dear co-workers, whether they would share your opinion or not. Ironically, the answer is "NO". Every single one commented on the poster as "appalling, stupid, wrong, not making much sense". One language, two realities.

Anyway, thanks for reminding me that English is my third language, and it shouldn't be really my concern how the language evolves or decays. It's my pleasure to leave it for the natives to butcher or dissect the language the way they like. I am quite happy to take a back seat, have a big bag of popcorn and enjoy the show.

http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/there-are-plurals-and-then-theres-plurals

just read another example:
There’s clues all around you trying to tell you what you should be doing with your life, but you’ll miss them if you’re not paying attention.
but here I'm afraid that it's not the "there's and there's" case?
http://ayotheauthor.com/ultimate-guide-discovering-natural-talents-strengths/

and for the poster - could it be a difference between Canadian English and American English in terms of correctness of usage?

talking about decays and evolution of languages - it's a good old argument of what changes are right and what changes are wrong; who is the "author" of a language - the speakers / the people - those who create the changes in a language, or the scholars / academia - those who make the changes "legitimate"?

What he/she calls decay is actually a linguistic phenomenon that she and her Canadian friends can’t explain because everyone is not a linguist. Being a native speaker of language doesn’t make you a linguist. But I assure you that of those 14 Canadians he/she consulted, all of them have used this type of expression and don’t even realize it, let alone why. As a professional editor, it’s my job to screen language meticulously as it comes through. I live and breathe the English language and have been doing so for decades. The “Monty Python reality“ is actually this website.

Oleg, Americans and Canadians speak almost identically. The example you gave, “there’s clues,” is incorrect agreement because it doesn’t refer to a category, although it’s common and acceptable in an informal register, as my article suggests.

Language is a living, evolving thing. A couple of years ago, the form “themself” would be considered unconscionable, but now it’s actually justified with the increased use of THEY as a singular gender-neutral pronoun. This is called evolution, not decay. What of people who say походу instead of похоже? It may not sound nice, but it is language - everyone understands it and it has become a part of the lexicon whether you like it or not.

Many thanks Uly!

Anytime Oleg!