[mcdonje]

From a prescriptive grammar standpoint, you're correct. From a descriptive standpoint, I'm not sure how common that contraction is, but I've heard it before and offhand it seems like it gets used in some regions.

Phonologically, it makes sense that it would gain traction as it's a means of avoiding the effort of the 'ere are' vowel combination. It's an addition rather than an elision, but the underlying motivation of saving effort is the same.

[jonny_eh]

One could even argue that "here's" is now an accepted conjugation of "here are".

[LordDragonfang]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/here%27s

>1. Contraction of here is.

>2. (nonstandard) Contraction of here are.

Note this has been listed since at least 2006, based on the history.

[hnhamdani2]

As a non-native English speaker myself, I still find native using contraction on "there's two cats" counter intuitive. Sometimes I use the correct grammar "there are two cats" but then it sounds too formal for the native to heard it. Then I have to adjust with the "wrong" way of saying it.

[zarzavat]

There’s nothing grammatically incorrect about “there’s”. The oversight is in confusing a contraction with an abbreviation. “There’s” is a contraction for either “there is” or “there are” and the precise one is given by context. It is not a mere abbreviation for “there is”.

Written contractions are meant to faithfully represent spoken English, in which people indeed say “there’s” for both the singular and the plural.

[CRConrad]

> “There’s” is a contraction for either “there is” or “there are”

But doesn't con-traction mean "pulling together"? You pull the last letter over towards the first ones, squishing out the ones between. Only there is no 's' at the end of "there are" to pull over next to "there".

So "there's" can't really be a contraction of "there are", AFAICS.

> Written contractions are meant to faithfully represent spoken English, in which people indeed say “there’s” for both the singular and the plural.

Sure, it may be a perfectly valid usage, so it's something... But as matter of terminology, whatever that something is, I don't think it's a contraction.

[dspillett]

The way I've explained the correctness of the plural use to a non-native speaker, is that (to use the cats example) there is one group of cats, the group is singular even though its content is plural, so “there is” is correct, therefore so is the contraction. Not explicitly mentioning the group is just another abbreviation, because it is implicitly understood. This avoids the discussion of whether “there are → there's” is valid in written form (which tends to be more strict than verbal use).

[manigandham]

It's not accepted, it's just common ignorance.

[ludamad]

History does not make much distinction between "language misuse" and "paradigm shifts"

[Spivak]

You dirty language prescriptivist! If English speakers and writers use it, it's correct.

[tomjakubowski]

I accept it

[OJFord]

Er, I'll happily take you up on that argument!

[efdee]

These kinds of arguments literally kill me.

[ropable]

This comment needed a sarcasm tag (I think).

[DwnVoteHoneyPot]

Since we're discussing grammer, when you say "literally", you mean figuratively?

[anchpop]

Grammer conversations are the very pineapple of useless discourse, and I don't see why we don't nip them in the butt. Weather you say "literally" or "figuratively", both are equally understandable for all intensive purposes. So as far as I'm concerned these arguments serve no porpoise and we'd be better off if they faded into Bolivian.

[efdee]

Sir or madam, I upload you.

[jonny_eh]

I would loose any argument with you sir.

[monkeyjoe]

"intents and purposes" ... I think I was saying it your way until at least age 30.

[remedan]

They are using the phrase "literally kill me" as a hyperbole. It is a form of exaggeration. They are not in fact being killed, they are just annoyed. It is a rhetorical device used for emphasis.

The word "literally" has been commonly used for hyperbole in English for hundreds of years. There is nothing grammatically wrong here.

[staticassertion]

The hyperbolic use of "literally" to mean "figuratively" goes back hundreds of years.

> : in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

They justify this in a few places, including

> The "in effect; virtually" meaning of literally is not a new sense. It has been in regular use since the 18th century and may be found in the writings of Mark Twain, Charlotte Brontë, James Joyce, and many others.

edit: HN was loading really weird for me, I didn't see the sibling comment make this point already!

[efdee]

I certainly do. More so, I was referencing the fact that the definition of the word "literally" now also includes "figuratively" in several English dictionaries as an example of a similar language development.

[CRConrad]

> Since we're discussing grammer

Kelsey?

[867-5309]

that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"

[CRConrad]

"Have", obviously. That's the only one that goes with "do", being in the present tense. Otherwise it would be "I did (get them)".

Not that it matters anyway, since "have got" is a weird double-barrelled construct: It means exactly the same as just "have" or "got" on their own, so take your pick.

[867-5309]

"do you have them" and "have you got them" are completely different questions. so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)

[CRConrad]

> "do you have them" and "have you got them" are completely different questions. so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)

If you've got something, you have it. Sure, you could, logically, have got rid of it in the meantime -- but that's ridiculous pedantry; in the GP's context, it's the same question. All that was, though, a side note.

> so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)

The actual question, OTOH, was which of the (implied) original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?" the reply "I do" was in answer to. And as an unambiguous matter of grammar, "I do" is correct in reply to the latter and nonsensical in rey to the former; there, the reply would have been "I did".

So my answer was correct. And that should have been obvious to anyone who knows even the rudiments of English (wich may not include you).

Here, BTW, have some capitals and a full stop: D, S, .

[867-5309]

>If you've got something, you have it. Sure, you could, logically, have got rid of it in the meantime -- but that's ridiculous pedantry; in the GP's context, it's the same question. All that was, though, a side note.

unsure how this little solipsism bolsters your argument or who you're trying to convince. I still contest that it is not the same question. "I do" can follow "do you have?", but not "have you got?". it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got. of course you could have something without getting it, and other playground grammar, but that just detracts

>The actual question, OTOH, was which of the (implied) original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?" the reply "I do" was in answer to. And as an unambiguous matter of grammar, "I do" is correct in reply to the latter and nonsensical in rey to the former; there, the reply would have been "I did".

why bother mixing tenses and rephrasing? you're trying to complicate something simple so you can cleverly unravel it, which is just pointless. the point being: "I do" is an unacceptable response to "have you got them?", and if anything is implied it's "do have got" in the first answer, which again is the point of being nonsense

>So my answer was correct. And that should have been obvious to anyone who knows even the rudiments of English (wich may not include you).

of course it was, for you. obviously

>Here, BTW, have some capitals and a full stop: D, S, .

I made the decision to use those more sparingly when I became a scholar of latin - so that little dig came back to bite you and I relish in your embarrassment. since you muddied the waters, you can help yourself to some spelling corrections for 'rey' and 'wich', plus some extra acronyms and commas as you seem, amongst other things, full of them LMAO GTFO ,,,,,,,,

[saghm]

To be fair, I think "do you have them?" would be more common for a lot of English speakers ("have you got" sounds British to me as an American, but it's possible that this is just a regional American thing). I'm not sure I would either think fast enough to care enough to tailor my automated response to a question like that based on the exact phrasing of the query.

[867-5309]

Americans still use it as a response though, e.g. "You got this!" - "I do!". it's the "I do got" which really bugs me. "I do have" and "I have got" are fine and make sense

[ricardo81]

That sounds like something I would say, a more understandable aspect of Scots, even if it's no richt, ken.

[867-5309]

a speaker of Scots may be excused

[smcnally]

c.f. “It’s raining.” “What's raining?”

[867-5309]

nice one, I'm sure there's a grammatical name for that, maybe in Truss

"She's raining" - "Who is?" - "Mother Nature"

[mbg721]

"This is water!"

[travisd]

I think out loud you'd be more likely to hear "here're your donuts" rather than "here's your donuts"), but when written, here're looks way worse. Language (written, spoken, and otherwise) is interesting and resistant to fitting into nice, neat, tidy boxes.