|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-21-2007, 12:53 PM
How often do people say, "there's loads"?
Seems a bit odd. But stuff like "your/you're" and "there/they're/their" drives me insane. I correct it at every opportunity. It's so basic yet so many people get it wrong... 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-22-2007, 05:11 AM
You'd be surprised. I have to correct my parents, most of my friends, and even several of my English teachers on that one. I even had a long debate online about whether using "there's" with a plural subject colloquially is acceptable. IMO, it isn't because it breaks grammar rules. Plus, the "authority" on proper usage of the English language continues to say that the appropriate existential phrasing with a plural subject is "there are", and hence "there're."
Everyone complains that it's hard to say "there're" out loud. I agree. That's why I say "there are" when I speak.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-22-2007, 05:43 AM
HAHAHA! Aww man I feel sorry for all you non-English speaking people out there! haha even those of us that do speak English slip up sometimes! But you got to think of it this way: If you live in a place like America, there are soooo many nationalities! With that many different people in one country, ofcourse things are gonna get jumbled up!! But yeah, it can be hard if you're not used to it... haha my friend's mom is assyrian and she grew up in Iraq. She didn't know what global was! hahaha it was hilarious trying to explain it to her!
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-22-2007, 07:22 AM
True, true. I have a friend who was born in California, but her parents are both from--I think--Beijing. Hence, her English vocabulary is very small for someone her age. I find myself constantly explaining what words mean (and differentiating words--last time, it was 'ambivelant' and 'omnipotent'). It's a lot of fun listening to her speak Mandarin with her mum, though ^_^
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-23-2007, 03:23 PM
LOL Don't feel sorry, English can be mastered in a short amount of time without too much difficulty. I feel sorry for you guys who have to study verb tenses, whose existence you didn't know of because they are not used in English, when learning any other language
 I think it's fine to say "there's" instead of "there're" in coloquial speech; and believe me, some English-speaking people do write 'were' when they mean to say 'where' and they don't even realize the mistake they're making. Quote:
 Quote:
everything is relative and contradictory ~
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-23-2007, 04:57 PM
Shortcuts might be "acceptable" but after reading many posts here where that type of language is used, it's becoming the standard, and that worries me. How many times have I said "I don't understand what you mean," and the writer replied "That's what happens when I write fast,"? It's a forum. There is no need to "write fast" and what is the point if your meaning is lost?
In my opinion it is not OK to say "there's" to replace "there are". It's lazy. Are we in so much of a hurry we can't say what we mean? How much time is wasted when your meaning is misunderstood? How you speak (and write) reflects on you, and in a forum like this, that is all we have. I would be lying if I said I didn't have a low opinion of some posters simply because they can't put three words together that are grammatically correct and spelled properly. Everyone makes mistakes, of course, but to purposely put the responsibility of comprehension on the reader, rather than take it as the writer, is lazy and insulting.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-23-2007, 05:06 PM
"Talking lyke diz" makes people sound less intelligent >_< When I used to go to school, there were a few boys in my English class who, when they were writing essay's, accidently wrote "u" instead of "you" and "ur" instead of "your" o_O
And I hate it when people dont use punctuation. There's some members on JF who dont, and its hard to understand what they're saying..its not hard to put a few commas or full stops in there somewhere ;| I dont have a problem with things like "there's" (since I use that myself) and when people use "there" instead of "their". I have much bigger things to be annoyed about..like..lack of punctuation
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-24-2007, 12:21 AM
"Who here is a grammar nerd?"
*raises hand sheepishly* I gotta rap on this "there's vs there're" issue again, I'm afraid n_n;;; . Even though English is pretty slim on verb conjugation as far as Indo-European languages go, we DO have rules for conjugating verbs. "Be" (to be) does conjugate. It goes to "are" for second person aspect and also for plural number. It goes to "is" for third person aspect and also singular number. Then, it goes to "am" for first person aspect with singular number. Verbs agree with the subject that they modify, hence talking about "loads of people", a plural subject, requires that the verb "to be"* be conjugated to "are" because of the plural number. So, when you use the existential phrase "there [to be]" in the case of "loads of people", you would say "there are." Since we English speakers love contractions, the grammatically correct word is "there're," not "there's". For those reasons, I can't accept it when people say "there's" with a plural subject, even in colloquial speech. It doesn't seem lazy to me, actually. To me, and I mean no offense to anybody, it seems ignorant and apathetic. *This is for those who are starting out learning English: "To be" is roughly equivelant (sp?) to "desu" (or "estar/ser" if you've studied Spanish at all). But, "there [to be]" is more equivelant to the "aru/iru" verbs. To me, saying "there's" for a plural subject would be like a gaijin using "irimasu" for something inanimate (like a coin or a bowl). "There's trees" approximates to "Neko ga arimasu" in grammatical correctness.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-24-2007, 02:57 AM
Quote:
And Amnell: I like you very, very much xD
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
