There's plurals here.

[upinaballoon]

I expect it has always happened, but I think it is much more prevalent now. I am speaking about the use of 'there's', when it is short for 'there is', being used instead of 'there are' or 'there're'. Have you had earlier threads about this? Here are some of this week's examples from Radio 4:-

1. There's good examples of idioms........... Word Of Mouth, Dr. Gareth Carrol, 8.2.22
2. There's going to be hundreds of thousands of people.......... More Or Less, 9.2.22
3. There's other supply chains...... Today, 10.2.22

4.There's been some real issues......Brandon Lewis, 11.2.22

1. There's some awful people out there......I'm not sure which programme, 11.2.22

Please tell me I'm not the only person VERY tired of what looks like trendy carelessness. (No, I don't sit all day writing them down, but I thought I would gather a few examples and get them off my chest here.)

I think it's sloppy too, OP. You're not alone.

Was that a guest or presenter on your no 2 example? If it was one of the presenters they'll probably apologise if you point it ou, they like to get things right

Sorry, I can't remember if it was a guest or the presenter.

When Covid vaccinations started the presenter of a programme (BBC) said, "There's been something thousands vaccinated this week." Out of nowhere I pick Sue Lawley as an example and suggest that in her day the presenters would have said, "There have been something thousands etc."

Several years ago Ed Balls said to John Humphreys, "There's two issues here, John." That was the first example that registered with me. A little later a guest on Woman's Hour said, "There's nine cupcakes here."

Now I'll have to wonder if I got Woman's Hour right!

What's wrong with 4?

There has been some real issues

There has been one real issue OR
There have been some real issues BUT NOT
There has been some real issues

'There has been some real issues' is ungrammatical. The word 'issues' is a plural, meaning more than one issue, and you need 'have', not 'has'.

Thank you

Playing hob with matching the verb to its noun isn't confined to "there's"; it has started to happen all over the place, and make nonsense every time. I can't at the moment remember the example on the BBC last night which left me muttering "do what?", but which example might be a better phrase there, because they are many.

Would "he has issues" be incorrect?

He has them, so it would be correct. You wouldn't (well, I wouldn't) say "he have issues" and make the verb agree with the plural issues.

You have just made me realise that the errors may happen when people think the verb has to agree with the object of the sentence not the subject. Thank you.

For me, it's a simple failure to shorten "there are" to "there're", if it must be shortened, and saying "there's". It is widespread.

Last week, the nice doctor on an A and E programme was talking about an operation he was going to do on an ankle. He was talking about the care he must take. Forgive me, I don't know whether he first said tendons or ligaments but I shall assume tendons, for the example. He said, " There are tendons and there's nerves etc. etc.", perfectly capable of saying the two words "there are" but dropping into the current laziness a few words into the sentence.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Playing hob with matching the verb to its noun isn't confined to "there's"; it has started to happen all over the place, and make nonsense every time. I can't at the moment remember the example on the BBC last night which left me muttering "do what?", but which example might be a better phrase there, because they are many.

I think people are beginning to use 'is' and 'was' instead of 'are' and 'were'. I'm not talking about dyslexic people who struggled at school. I'm talking woman MP a few days ago, but I didn't hear it too well, so I won't name the name. Please jot down a few examples, Asking. Well, there're (short for there are) pancakes to eat so I must go.

This drives me crackers!

Especially because English is not my first language, so your examples sound offensively wrong to my ears!

I agree with you when it is written down, but not necessarily when people are speaking. There has always been a difference between the two, and we all know what they mean when they say it. People are just taking verbal short cuts.

They is taking shortcuts, is they?

It's shameful. It grates on a nerve that makes me unreasonably angry.

But, I do think that the horse has bolted and we are the ones who will need help adjusting to these idiotic mutations.

@IBelieveInAThingCalledScience

This drives me crackers!

Especially because English is not my first language, so your examples sound offensively wrong to my ears!

That is a thing I do find worrying: English is said to be a hard language to learn, though I'm told it's not as bad as Finnish or Hungarian, and anything which makes it harder because it's not keeping to the usual practice surely isn't a good thing.

upinaballoon
"Playing hob with matching the verb to its noun isn't confined to "there's"; it has started to happen all over the place, and make nonsense every time. I can't at the moment remember the example on the BBC last night which left me muttering "do what?", but which example might be a better phrase there, because they are many."
I think people are beginning to use 'is' and 'was' instead of 'are' and 'were'. I'm not talking about dyslexic people who struggled at school. I'm talking woman MP a few days ago, but I didn't hear it too well, so I won't name the name.
Please jot down a few examples, Asking.

It's hard, because I don't usually have a pen to hand if I am listening to the radio in bed, but one comes back to mind:

"With new events comes new ways to bring freedom" must surely need come instead of comes: the events and the ways are both plural, so the only thing "come" agrees with is "freedom", and that can't be right.

“There’s”, where technically it should be “there are”, is acceptable in spoken English, but not in written. I used to teach English to foreigners, and even the textbook explained this in the first lesson.

"There're" is horrible to say. I know "there are" doesn't take much longer to say but can't say I've never noticed "there's".

Just looked it up and found this which makes sense:

'Here's my guess:

Contracting "there is" to "there's" usefully reduces the number of syllables.

Contracting "there are" to "there're" wouldn't. So it isn't done.

If I reach for a shorter way to say "There are some in the closet", my mind produces "They are in the closet" (favouring utility over accuracy).

Obviously it would help to know how you pronounce each of "there are" and your "there're". Perhaps we should both study IPA for a few minutes?'

english.stackexchange.com/questions/12865/is-therere-similar-to-theres-a-correct-contraction

Another couple:
on the radio, "The facts and surrounding circumstances leads me to conclude"
the header for a flyer through the door, "Has The Covid - 19 Lockdowns Made Your Carpets & Upholstery Dirty & Stained?"

These are why I think it is all verbs, at random. Or it are all verbs.

[quote SwedishEdith]"There're" is horrible to say. I know "there are" doesn't take much longer to say but can't say I've never noticed "there's".

Just looked it up and found this which makes sense:

'Here's my guess:

Contracting "there is" to "there's" usefully reduces the number of syllables.

Contracting "there are" to "there're" wouldn't. So it isn't done.

If I reach for a shorter way to say "There are some in the closet", my mind produces "They are in the closet" (favouring utility over accuracy).

Obviously it would help to know how you pronounce each of "there are" and your "there're". Perhaps we should both study IPA for a few minutes?'

english.stackexchange.com/questions/12865/is-therere-similar-to-theres-a-correct-contraction[/quote]
I find it easy to say, but I sound my r. It might be more difficult in another accent ?

I find it easy to say, but I sound my r. It might be more difficult in another accent ?

I am non-rhotic. Draw and drawer sound the same.

"There're" just sounds like "there".
In my accent, "there" would sound like the word "air" without the "r" sound, with "th" at the front.

It sound like I am saying "There shoes in the wardrobe" when I try to say "There're shoes in the wardrobe".

Even "They're in the wardrobe" sound like "There, in the wardrobe".

There/Their, They're, There're, all are the same to me.

I probably wouldn't contract it as "There're". I would just say "there are" or, yes, "there's", or even just say "they are in the wardrobe" if the item has already been named.

I know it's incorrect to use "there's" but it just comes out.

It will of course, grate on people.

Similarly, my V's sometimes sound more on the "F" side.
"Do you haf it?"
Another reason why me saying "You could've done it yesterday" sound like I am saying "could of". I am not, I am using the contraction but my Vs can be very soft and F like.

I know that probably irritates people, too.

This is gloriously confused, from an American newspaper:

"The convoy, which is burning through enormous amounts of fuel at a moment when the energy market is in chaos due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, are camped near Maryland"

Is it a convoy, or are they a convoy? The writer really ought to decide on one or the other for one sentence.

For some reason, though other grammatical errors make me grind my teeth, this one doesn't bother me. I'm often guilty of using "there's" incorrectly myself (though I'm aware I'm doing it).

I do hate it when things like "the government" or "the media" are pluralised though. "The government is" sounds so much better than "the government are".

And from the World Service this morning, "The Deputy Prime Minister, Dominic Raab, say that ...."

I think the reason it makes me wince is that it is absolutely without any reason whatever, so it is just carelessness; and if people on a news programme don't care, can I trust them to get the news right either?