Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.indirect.com!bud.indirect.com!stevemac
From: stevemac@bud.indirect.com (Steve MacGregor)
Subject: "there's" vs. "there're"
Message-ID: <D9yAKv.BKy@indirect.com>
Sender: usenet@indirect.com (Internet Direct Admin)
Organization: People Enjoying Tasty Animals (PETA)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 09:34:07 GMT
X-Disclaimer: I'm not overweight; I'm underheight!
Lines: 22

According to Werner Maurer <wmaurer@achilles.net>:

>Or could we simply agree that "there's" is the contraction for both 
>"there is" and "there are"?

  It is in my idiolect.
  Remember that there are such things as "levels of usage".  At one 
level, it can be improper to use contractions at all.  At another level, 
"there are" can be contracted to "there're".  I find that uncomfortable 
to pronounce, and say "there's".  In effect, I treat the "'s" as a 
contraction of "are" as well as of "is" and "has".  But this usage is 
situation-dependent; I would never contract "we are" to "we's", since 
"we're" is not at all uncomfortable for me.
  This is quite similar to using "aren't" as a contraction of "am not", 
in order to ask, "Aren't I?"
  Your milage may vary.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               http://www.indirect.com/www/stevemac/ttt-hejmo.html
            I want to be a non-conformist -- just like all my friends!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
