jutfrank
VIP Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2014
- Member Type
- English Teacher
- Native Language
- English
- Home Country
- England
- Current Location
- England
After reading the whole thread again, I'd like to attempt to clear up what I see as a running point of confusion, concerning only there's/there is.
Some people (myself and Declerk are two) are implying that There is a hammer and a screwdriver is correct (grammatically). For these people, there's is merely a contracted form, meant only to represent the pronunciation of there is. There is no difference at all between the two forms other than a phonological difference. A simple way to put this view is that the contracted written form is a way of writing spoken English whereas the uncontracted form is written English. To a grammarian or a logician, there are no differences between any contracted and uncontracted forms in English because these people are unconcerned with phonology.
Other members seem to me to be implying that there are other differences between the two forms, with the suggestion that there's can be used to do things that there is can't. In other words, the difference in form affects the grammar/logic. I don't see how this view can be justified.
I failed to see this way back on the first page of the thread. In post #22, I was so surprised at what GoesStation and Piscean were saying because I apparently misunderstood what they meant. They were not in fact saying that There is a computer and a TV is wrong grammatically, as I came to believe—they were just saying that it's wrong in the sense of being so unnatural as to 'sound' wrong. Is that right, GS and Piscean?
Some people (myself and Declerk are two) are implying that There is a hammer and a screwdriver is correct (grammatically). For these people, there's is merely a contracted form, meant only to represent the pronunciation of there is. There is no difference at all between the two forms other than a phonological difference. A simple way to put this view is that the contracted written form is a way of writing spoken English whereas the uncontracted form is written English. To a grammarian or a logician, there are no differences between any contracted and uncontracted forms in English because these people are unconcerned with phonology.
Other members seem to me to be implying that there are other differences between the two forms, with the suggestion that there's can be used to do things that there is can't. In other words, the difference in form affects the grammar/logic. I don't see how this view can be justified.
I failed to see this way back on the first page of the thread. In post #22, I was so surprised at what GoesStation and Piscean were saying because I apparently misunderstood what they meant. They were not in fact saying that There is a computer and a TV is wrong grammatically, as I came to believe—they were just saying that it's wrong in the sense of being so unnatural as to 'sound' wrong. Is that right, GS and Piscean?
Last edited: