Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blacknomi |
Great topic! Here're my four cents.
That the majority of the 'Usage Panel' rejects 1) and 2) is understandable given the traditional rules of the grammar, but not necessarily an indication that those sentences are
ungrammatical. Examples 1) and 2) follow a regular pattern, and for descriptivists that is in itself an indication of grammaticallity; i.e., a rule is being observed.
For the traditionalist, the subject of an existential 'There' clause is what appears to be the verb's object, also known as the logical subject, and so the verb agrees in number with its apparent object. In 1), 'reasons', a plural noun, is the logical subject, and in 2b) 'things', a plural noun, is the logical subject, so the verb should be plural 'are', not singular 'is':
Traditional grammar
1a) *There's a couple of good reasons for going.
1b) There
are a couple of good
reasons for going.
2a) *There's only three things you need to know about this book.
2b) There
are only three
things you need to know about this book
In addition, that the entire Usage Panel rejects 1a), yet 21% of that Panel accepts 2a) has to do with the word 'only', which expresses 'just one of'; i.e., (i) There
is just
one of three things you need to know about this book. Cf. the ungrammaticality of (ii) *There
are just
one of three things you need to know about this book.
In other words, 21% of the Panel sees (2a) as (i), whereas 79% of the Panel see (2a) as (ii), and hence the difference in grammaticality judgements:
Usage Panel Grammaticality judgements: Divided
2a) There's only three things you need to know about this book.
(i)
There's just
one of three things you need to know about this book.
(ii) *
There's only three
things you need to know about this book.
Example (i) is deemed acceptable because the logical subject 'one' agrees in singular number with the verb. Example (ii) is deemed unaceptable because the logical subject 'things' does not agree in number with the verb. In short, 2a) has more than one semantic interpretation, and hence the divided panel.
For non-traditionalists, logical subjects don't come into play. It doesn't matter if the word(s) that follow the verb are singular or plural in number because "There's" is viewed as a fused form (e.g., singular:
There's one reason; Plural:
There's four reasons. Cf. the ungrammaticality of the non-fused form: *
There is four reasons.) That is, it's not likely that a speaker who uses "
There's four reasons" will also use *"There
is four
reasons". "There is" and "There's" are subject to different rules, and speakers do in fact known that--albeit innately--and the reason a speaker uses both "There
are four
reasons" and "
There's four reasons"; they both follow a regular rule.
Non-traditional grammar: fused form
1a)
There's a couple of good reasons for going.
2a)
There's only three things you need to know about this book.
Non-traditional grammar: non-fused form
1b) *There
is a couple of good reasons for going.
2b) There
is only three things you need to know about this book.
Example 1b) is ungrammatical. The speaker assumes that 'a couple' a singular quantifier, is the logical subject. Example, 2b) is grammatical if 'only' is interpreted as 'just one of'.
As for 3) and 4), the Usage Panel is divided. For half the panel, 3) and 4) are unacceptable because the
logical subject is plural (it conists of two nouns), so the verb should also be plural.
3) *In each of us there
's a dreamer and a realist.
3a) In each of us there
are a dreamer and a realist.
4) *There
's a gas station on the left and a grocery store on the right.
4a) There
are a gas station on the left and a grocery store on the right.
For the other half of the Panel, 3) and 4) are acceptable, and acceptability is based on structural interpretation: The conjunction 'and' alters the structure of the logical subject. The subject can be interpreted as one phrase or as two separate phrases:
One Noun phrase [
a dreamer and a realist]
Two Noun phrases [
a dreamer] and [
a realist]
For those who interpret the logical subject as two noun phrases, joined by 'and', adding in '
there is' after 'and' provides a singular verb for each
logical subject:
3b) In each of us there
's a dreamer and
there's a realist.
4b) There
's a gas station on the left and
there's a grocery store on the right.
In short, the Panel is divided because 3) and 4) have more than one structural interpretation. (See, 2a) above. re: 'only' ~ just one of as having more than one semantic interpretation.)
In sum,
Traditional grammar: the verb agrees with the logical subject
3a) In each of us there
are a dreamer and a realist.
3b) In each of us there'
s a dreamer and there'
s a realist.
4a) There
are a gas station on the left and a grocery store on the right.
4b) There'
s a gas station on the left and there'
s a grocery store on the right.
Non-traditional grammar: "There's" is fused.
3) In each of us
there's a dreamer and a realist.
4)
There's a gas station on the left and a grocery store on the right.
What do you think? 
Linear Mode
