There're and there's

[Rachel Adams]

Hello

Would non-rhotic speakers pronounce 'there're' and 'there's?' as /ðəz and /ðərə/?

 

[GoesStation]

You'd have to put the words into sentences to know.

 

[Rachel Adams]

You'd have to put the words into sentences to know.

For example There're books on the table. There's a book on the table.

 

[Tarheel]

There's never any good reason for me to use there're.

 

[Rachel Adams]

There's never any good reason for me to use there're.

Why is it so unpopular? Do native speakers find it ungrammatical?

 

[Tarheel]

If you want to say "There are" it is easy to do so. However, when you try to make a contraction out of it you produce something that is almost unpronounceable. Contractions exist for a reason. They exist for ease of pronunciation and ease of communication.

 

[GoesStation]

Why is it so unpopular? Do native speakers find it ungrammatical?

There're books on the table is perfectly grammatical. It's just hard to say, so we nearly always replace there're with the "ungrammatical" but easy-to-say there's. (This is ungrammatical in that it's a contraction of there is, and you can't use a singular verb with a plural noun. The fact that nearly all native speakers say there's anyway means we have a natural grammatical rule that there's​ can agree with a plural noun.)

 

[Rachel Adams]

It's not at all hard to say for speakers of non-rhotic varieties.

Is it (there's books)less common in British English?

 

[jutfrank]

I would pronounce there's either as Piscean has transcribed it in post #4 (/ðeəz/) or as /ðez/.

In standard BrE pronunciation, there're would be pronounced as /'ðeərə/, rhyming with carer, but with a somewhat weaker stress on the first vowel.

In both words, the first vowel is not quite a schwa, in that it is not unstressed, but is still relatively weak.