GrammarBlog

Mocking Poor Grammar
Since 2007

A noun that is formed from a verb and which describes an action. In English it ends in -ing, eg 'the baking of bread' and 'Smoking damages your health'.

Hide these tips

35 Comments »

1. Ah, you’ve played the ‘it’s OK in an informal setting’ card. What next? Bullying? GBH? It’s all OK so long as it’s done while mingling in a relaxed manner with friends in a light dressing gown away from the public glare.

   Phonetically, it’s fine of course. And I’d say it’s OK to write “there’re” in circumstances where it’s clear you are writing colloquially. The same goes for representing accented pronunciation in the written form. But use of contractions like “there’re” must never, never cross over into proper writing ‘n’ tha’.

   Comment by Paddy — 20th October, 2009 @ 5:32 pm

2. There’re no excuses for writing nonsense like this. It’s not even easier to say.

   I wouldn’t've expected this from a GrammarBlogger.

   Comment by Sinders — 20th October, 2009 @ 11:56 pm

3. Controversial, Moi?

   Comment by Gez — 21st October, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

4. It’s the weak form, innit?

   /ðəегə/

   schwa = /Ə/

   I think

   Comment by Northern Teacher — 13th November, 2009 @ 12:37 pm

5. As a Southern American, I can say that this form is used quite often. I still wouldn’t want to see it in writing, or in formal speech.

   Comment by Browning — 24th November, 2009 @ 9:21 pm

6. ye man me’n'ma homiez use wordz lyk dis all da time init me duno w’uts rong wid spkin using there’re…. but i think dat lere’r is much beta init

   Comment by mc grammar — 14th February, 2010 @ 7:47 pm

7. i’ve said “there’re” in the past and i write it *VERY* infrequently, mostly when texting. the way i enunciate it as if i were saying “therare” with a weakened ‘a’ bridging the two words.

   i can barely see your text fields for my name.

   Comment by me — 17th February, 2010 @ 2:34 am

8. This is ridiculous. You would only contract something to make it easier to say if speaking it or easier to write if writing. This is harder to say and takes the exact number of letters to write as ‘there are’.

   This should never be used.

   Comment by fatherb — 7th April, 2010 @ 9:58 am

9. Seems easy to say in Amurkin English. But I’d recast entirely in formal writing.

   Comment by Michael Farrell — 17th April, 2010 @ 7:07 pm

10. nknknkn

    Comment by yo yo yo — 14th May, 2010 @ 1:59 am

11. testing mic,check check, check, 123 abc, catapiller on me, like as if it could be me, don’t kno wat to say, so im going, is that okay?

    Comment by imyourfather — 14th May, 2010 @ 2:02 am

12. The contraction there’re is similar to the contraction we’re. Same number of characters, no written “economy”. The written language is by definition the written representation of the spoken word, so why not be able to write a word that is used extensively in speech?

    Comment by there're crazy — 25th May, 2010 @ 11:43 pm

13. In this blog post you are pointing out some common mistakes done by the English spoken people. I have also faced this situation sometimes but then my friend has suggested me to try the English Grammar checker tool that will help you in holding good command over English language.I have tried and got success. So, try it once!

    Comment by English Grammar — 31st July, 2010 @ 10:21 am

14. I see no problem with the form of “there’re”, so by all means, use it.

    My pronunciation of “there are”, in every day speech, tends to be “there-ah”. The contraction “there’re” may very well more accurately (phonetically) reflect that pronunciation.

    Of course, I don’t usually use contractions in formal writing. But that depends on the tone I wish to set.

    My advice would be to ignore the sticklers who base their grammar on what scholars agree is appropriate, or what ‘used to be done’. Instead, write in such a way that you can best convey your sentiment.

    Comment by Bill — 6th October, 2010 @ 4:52 am

15. Actually, there’s a situation were its use is required, and it’s the reason I looked it up in this site. If you’re writing fiction then the use of “there’re” is required for most English-speaking characters since real people use this word frequently in informal conversations. Besides, my spell checker didn’t have a problem with it. (Pages)

    Comment by Henry Harris — 21st October, 2010 @ 2:59 am

16. Bill is my frikkin’ hero. God, I thought ‘I’ was a grammar Nazi! Language is no more static than the Earth itself. I encourage good grammar for my children but I draw the line at quibbling about writing something that we say every day.

    And there’re crazy makes a great point; one contraction is acceptable and the other is a slight against God.

    Comment by stldad — 2nd November, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

17. Thank you all! I work as an educational publisher of teaching materials for learners of English and I must say that this blog is a gold mine. By the way, speaking of sticklers, I recommend Eats, Roots & Leaves by Nicholas Waters.

    Comment by Per (from Sweden) — 11th January, 2011 @ 3:34 pm

18. What I find more concerning is the increasing incidence of speakers substituting the contraction “there’s” (“there is” – singular) for “there’re” (“there are” – plural).

    A presenter on the ABC morning news (Australia) just did it and it drives me nuts. The contraction “there’re” has almost completely disappeared from spoken English here in Australia.

    I find the “there’re” contraction easy to pronounce even if it is not as easy as “there’s”. I have used “there’re” all my life, however, in the written word I have only used the contraction when quoting an actual utterance.

    Comment by John — 11th January, 2011 @ 10:03 pm

19. Okay, I understand that there’re might be a part of speech, but is it acceptable in formal writing? On a final exam paper for an English class, for example? Or should the word be best left for speaking and citing quotes?

    Comment by Crystal — 4th February, 2011 @ 9:32 pm

20. The things you have discussed about grammar blog.This kind of important information’s. Really am interested.

    Comment by graduate recruitment consultant jobs — 21st February, 2011 @ 6:01 am

21. You should all really go fuck yourselves for being this serious about this. Really? You made the jump from “there’re” to GHB. WOOOOOW!

    Comment by TangoAlpha — 22nd February, 2011 @ 6:18 am

22. There’re is not only acceptable in informal writing and dialogue, it is usually preferable. Which is more appropriate: “Look out! There’re the lions!” or “Look out! There are the lions!”

    ?

    And Tango Alpha, you would never dare to say that to my face. Show up at my gym; I dare you. I’ll show you serious.

    Comment by John Mayer — 10th March, 2011 @ 9:58 pm

23. I can understand how it would be harder to say for some English-language accents, but I’m pretty sure that at least 99% of Americans who learned English as their first language would find it easier to say “there’re” since we have a rhotic /r/ rather than a trill or flap, which may or may not be the standard pronunciation in parts of the UK (can’t really speak on it since I have negligible experience there – two days in London and a suburb)

    Comment by c.red — 27th May, 2011 @ 7:32 am

24. *maybe ‘rhotic’ wasn’t the right terminology to use, I’m not sure what to call the american ‘r’

    Comment by c.red — 27th May, 2011 @ 7:37 am

25. This is fun! You people are very ironic when talking to one another. I laughed a lot with you! It´s very interesting to hear both positions: those who stick to grammar (= correct use of language) and those who legitimate vernacular English claiming that language is in constant change. I really think one should try to achieve correctness; otherwise appropriate linguistic forms will be blotted out by less and less informal language (which always tends to be rather inaccurate).
    I have to say I never saw “there´re” in writting productions.

    Comment by Gabriela — 30th June, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

26. erratum: “… otherwise appropriate linguistic forms will be blotted out by more and more informal language features (which always tend to be rather inaccurate)

    Comment by Gabriela — 30th June, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

27. erratum: “… linguistic forms will be blotted out by more and more informal language features

    Comment by Gabriela — 30th June, 2011 @ 3:25 pm

28. “I’d've” is another example. As in:

    “I think I’d've gone with the foie gras.

    Comment by Grammar Monster — 15th July, 2011 @ 10:55 pm

29. “I’d've” is another example. As in:

    “I think I’d've gone with the foie gras.”

    Comment by Grammar Monster — 15th July, 2011 @ 10:55 pm

30. Well, “duh.” I’d be mortified if I happened upon *any* colloquial articulation in an otherwise professional piece of writing.

    However, there is a simple worldly fact that many book-thumpers around here the globe love to forget: language is not defined by what is written in a book, nor is it defined by the stylistic “hijinks” of a painfully elitist group of grammar nazis (myself included).

    That is not to say people like Sarah Palin can just make up new words whenever it piques their fancy.

    Comment by Xunnamius — 13th August, 2011 @ 8:14 am

31. Aww, my sarcastic “scratch” tags were removed from around the word “here.”

    *sad (troll) face*

    Comment by Xunnamius — 13th August, 2011 @ 8:23 am

32. It’s very very simple. If you wish to use correct English grammar, never ever use there’re.

    Anyone that needs to justify the use of “there’re” in the English language, is only trying to cover up their own bad grammar.

    Comment by Englishman — 18th August, 2011 @ 3:50 am

33. Outrageous! How rebellious! To use a harmless, innocuous, charming little contraction, a logical extension of an existing trend, it’s simply unacceptable! I’m sorry, but this constitutes an abuse of the English language.

    Comment by Myrrh — 26th October, 2011 @ 2:03 am

34. Anything wrong with this?

    “They’re going to the zoo, aren’t they? Yes, they’re.”

    Comment by Aussie — 7th November, 2011 @ 6:02 am

35. In answer to an earlier question which I didn’t see answered (“is it acceptable in formal writing? On a final exam paper for an English class, for example?”, Crystal), contractions of any sort are almost never considered appropriate in formal writing. Good to note that they’re almost always preferable for dialogue.

    Comment by Nathaniel — 3rd January, 2012 @ 9:15 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment