This is from the song ‘‘happier”.
I know that there's others that deserve you.
Shouldn't it be there're?
-
Also see “There is a pair of kidneys” vs “There are pair of kidneys”.– Em. ♦Jun 6, 2018 at 9:39
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
It's a common mistake, even amongst natives.
It grates, but they continue to do it.
Personally, I think is has now reached "no fix" status. People will continue to do it whatever you tell them; that's how language evolves, much to the dismay of those who wish it didn't, on occasion.
The most irritating one was the Toys Я Us advert...
"There's millions says Geoffrey, all under one roof..."
which ran for decades.
answered Jun 6, 2018 at 9:25
-
This use of singular There is with a plural has been in use for quite a long time (books.google.com/ngrams/…) and should be understood not as a mistake in number agreement but a kind of existential expression.– TᴚoɯɐuoJun 6, 2018 at 12:45
-
Though number agreement is factors greater in usage. Anyway, I think my 'no fix' status is true, whether I like it or not ;) Jun 6, 2018 at 13:14
-
Well put, it has reached that status. And there are times where the singular instead of the plural sounds really, really terrible. Other times, it's fine. "There's draft bills before Congress, which [etc.]'. Uggh. "There's" is not yet "Il y a" but perhaps it will be one day. For now, high-register speakers should know the difference or get a salary or power cut. Ha ha ha.– LambieJun 6, 2018 at 14:33
-
I shall file it in my pet hates drawer. The only one in higher position is "would of" instead of "would have" :/ Jun 6, 2018 at 14:38
Yes, but these are song lyrics. Poetic licence applies, and the lyricist probably thinks there's sounds better than there're.
-
It is definitely easier to sing "there's" than "There're". Further, the lyricist has to fit the words into the existing score. "There're" would require an additional note (or more likely an additional quarter-note), which may not have been available.– JamesJun 6, 2018 at 15:54