English Grammar Pet Peeves - Page 4

We had scarier ones than that guy running against Obama. The USA probably has the world's largest nuclear arsenal, and one of those awful bushes couldn't even pronounce the word nuclear. W really butchered English, and that's the least of it.

One of my pet peeves in contemporary American English is the verb to impact used to mean to have an impact on.

Pft. I already knew all those. Jajajajaja. My pet-peeve is when people say: "There are a lot...." Shouldn't it be "There is a lot..."? You're making reference to the lot, which is singular. But for some reason, people have made it plural. I wouldn't say, "There are a bundle...." or "There are a bag...."

The other one that I think is funny (though I don't correct people, I'm too polite) is when they say: "Is funny" or something like that because they're translating from the Spanish where you can say "Es chistoso." In English you have to say "It is...." not just "is."

Those are mine!

Could it be because the word "lot" can mean a couple of different things, which is not the same as "bundle" or "bag"? I guess I am one to say "there are a lot"....but I know what you mean by it being singular and therefore the use of "is" is mandated.......

Can this be a case of "mass-erroneous users" of "there are a lot"....??:D:D

My pet peeve is spelling.....I cannot understand why people don't spell words correctly. It irks me to no end!

:p:p

Sorry Poli "To impact" is a perfectly correct transitive verb; it's in the Oxford English Dictionary.

I personally usually employ "To affect" in places where others would probably use "Impact" but it's not wrong.

It's actually quite correct to say 'There are a lot of people' when 'a lot of' is being used as the equivalent of the determiner 'many'. Here it specifies a quantity, and substituting 'many' will not change the meaning of the sentence one bit:
'There are many people.'

On the other hand, if you gather the people into a group, 'lot' can be used to denote the collective. Then, 'lot' becomes the subject instead of the 'people', and it's quite correct to say 'There is a lot of people.' Substituting 'group' will not change the meaning of the sentence one iota:
'There is a group of people.'

I agree that to impact is a valid verb. Until recently to have an impact upon was often used in place of it with the exception of the field of medicine (colons and molars, etc.). What impact does the newish use or the verb to impact have on me? Not much, but it irks me just the same. I never want to be impacted, and I will do what I can to avoid it. I would much rather things have an impact on me, than for them to impact me. I have a high fiber diet:lol:

A Lot
 

Yup. There are different sources that will tell you different things. I read an interesting one the other day where someone said that because saying "there are a lot" was a such a common error, it become proper in the end. That actually happens a lot more than people think. In a lot of Latin America, for instance, "vose" became a kind of dialect even though if you look at the language, the real "voseo" should be "vosotros." So we're all going to have to agree to disagree. I'm sticking to "there's a lot." It sounds more natural in English.

PS Remember that we're refering to the lot, not the "of people" in "There is a lot of people," which is why it should be singular. :-)

Lots of love,

usariodelforo

i agree. There are lots and there is a lot. Both of these seem informal.

Wait a minute --- I am confused now.

Lots is adding to the description of "people"

There are lots of people that go shopping everyday. (dropping lots would still be "are")
There are people that go shopping everyday.
(people = more than one)

There is a group of people that is going shopping today.
There is a group that is going shopping today.
(group = just one group)

BUT.........

There is a lot of people that go shopping everyday.

Why?

Because it is incorrect. It should be

There are a lot of people who go shopping everyday.

(That's what I would say)

I love grammitcal puzzlements, but I think a lot of people like a gaggle of geese is singular. I think the use of are is suboptimal grammar . You can say there are lots of people and be safe.

There are lots of people on the street today.
There is a lot of people on the street today.

Look, there's a gaggle of geese.
Look, there are gaggles of geese.

Is this not logical?:thinking:

If 'a lot of people' is singular, then

A lot of people is stupid :bad:
A gaggle of geese was crossing the road :good:
:thinking:

That's true. English gets fuzzy. Sometimes the grammar is unfathomable.

It seems to me that the confusion lies in not really knowing the grammar.


Maybe this video will help.

The following sentences are ALL acceptable English, but only the last one is grammatically correct.

There's a lot of people in the street. (31,800,000 Google hits)
There is a lot of people in the street. (8 Google hits)
There are a lot of people in the street. (15,400,000 Google hits)

The first one is by far the most popular, although it's grammatically wrong. Most Americans say it this way and would claim that they're correct. They even make up grammar rules to support it (like saying that 'lot' is the subject), but the simple truth is that most Americans will say "there's" for BOTH a singular and a plural subject, whether the phrase contains 'a lot of' or not.
That's simply how the language is used by quite a few people.

Is it wrong to use "there's" with a plural subject? When taking a grammar test, most definitely. Otherwise, it sounds quite natural and is the way most of us speak. ;) :eek: When in Rome, ... :rolleyes:

By the way, I've had to train myself to use "there are" with a plural subject (and I always associate 'a lot of' with 'many'), but I still catch myself slipping up and using "there's" with a plural subject. ;)

Wow. There's a lot to learn.