There is or there are

[dixiematic]

What is correct:
1. There is a lot of musicians...
or
2.There are a lot of musicians....

I would appreciate the explanation. I am not a native english speaker.

Regards
Dixiematic

 

[Turkbear]

Hi,
I believe that the general rule is:

If the object of the verb is plural you should use are.

There is only one way to travel.
There are many ways to travel.

But, it can get confusing where the object's singular or plural status is determined by the modifier of the object, like in the case you posted.

Perhaps Cajun can post the definitive response.






To Paraphrase:"The Help you get is proportional to the Help you give.."

 

[Andrzejek]

If you skip 'a lot of' you are left with:
1. There is musicians...
or
2.There are musicians....

Number 2 would be my choice.

Have fun.

---- Andy

 

[CajunCenturion]

The phrase of the day is "expletive construction".

The rule is that the subject and the verb should agree in number. Singular subjects call for singular verbs and plural subjects mandate plural verbs.

The confusion here is figuring out what is the subject. Normally, the subject comes before the verb (subject-verb construction), but sentences that begin with "there are" or "there is" use a different construction. These sentences use an expletive construction and "there" is not the subject, but rather, a pronoun which references the true subject which lies elsewhere in the sentence.

In your case, it looks like 'musicians' is the subject and since it's plural, you should use a plural verb. There are a lot of musicians...

I would avoid expletive constructions whenever possible.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[karluk]

I can't think of any way to use the phrase "a lot of ..." without meaning more than one. So I would always say "There are a lot of musicians."

I agree with Turkbear, though, that things can get confusing. If I may be permitted to change the subject a little, I have never really understood the rule for whether "number of ..." takes a singular or plural verb. According to the following link, it depends on whether the exact wording uses a definite or indefinite article. When saying "the number of ...", a singular verb is correct. For example

"The number of musicians is increasing, as more and more graduate from school."

But when saying "a number of ...", a plural verb must be used. For example

"A number of musicians are talented enough to play that difficult piece."

I am a native English speaker and both of these examples sound right to me. But when I analyze what I'm saying, I'm at a loss to explain why one is singular and the other plural. Both sentences are talking about more than one musician.

http://languageandgrammar.com/2008/11/06/the-number-of-versus-a-number-of/

 

[karluk]

So, getting back to the subject of this thread, I suppose it would be possible to construct a sentence using "the lot of ..." that would require a singular verb. For example

"The entire lot of scofflaws deserves to be rounded up and punished."

Whereas changing the phrasing to "a lot of ..." would be plual. For example

"A lot of those scofflaws deserve to be rounded up and punished."

Pretty weird, if you ask me. "The entire lot" refers to more scofflaws than "A lot of those scofflaws", yet it is singular while "a lot of" is plural.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> "The entire lot of scofflaws deserves to be rounded up and punished."
That could be either singular or plural depending on context. Does 'lot' has a specific meaning or is it a quantifier? That question can only be answered in context. If 'lot' is the subject, (i.e. the scofflaws have been grouped together into lots), then it's singular and would call for a singular verb. In that case 'of scofflaws' is a prepositional phrase. If you remove the prepositional phrase, the sentence becomes: "The entire lot deserves to be rounded up and punished." You're talking about a specific lot.

However, the subject could also be 'scofflaws', which is plural, and therefore calls for a plural verb. In that case, 'entire lot of' is a quantifier and if removed, the sentence becomes: "The scofflaws deserve to be rounded up and punished." Either could be correct, depending on context.

One test that you can do is substitute "many" or "all" for the phrase that may be a quantifier. For example, is the sentence, "All the scofflaws deserve to be rounded up and punished." semantically equivalent to "The entire lot of scofflaws deserves to be rounded up and punished."? If All = The entire lot, then scofflaws is the subject. If not, as would be the case if they were grouped into lots, then lot is the subject.

In any event, the rule is the same: Singular subjects require singular verbs and plural subjects require plural verbs. Find the subject, determine its number, use the corresponding number for the verb.

What's difficult in sentences that begin with 'there is' and 'there are', is that identifying the subject can be tricky because the sentence is not in subject-verb order. The subject is behind the verb.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[randy700]

"The [red]entire lot[/red] of scofflaws deserves to be rounded up and punished."
Only ONE entire lot. Singular


"A lot of those [red]scofflaws[/red] deserve to be rounded up and punished."
MORE than one scofflaw. Plural


Randy

 

[flyboytim]

I hear that there is a lot of musicians at the slave auction this afternoon, comprising one violinist, a french horn player and a saxophonist, and also a birdsong imitator going cheap!

 

[hjgoldstein]

Simplify...There are many musicians

It is time for pacifists to stand up and fight for their beliefs.

 

[dixiematic]

Thank you, gentlemen, for your answers. I was using the wrong form 50 years simply by an analogy to the cases like
a heap of tyres WAS there...
a collection of objects IS an object...
a series (!) of data IS stacionary...
a group of students WAS approaching....
a sequence of events WAS unpredictable...
a node of wires IS...
a set of elements IS empty....
an array af integers is defined...

and I am quite sure that at school we learned the wrong form but, again, it was 50 years ago.
From now on I am using " a lot of "+ plural of the object.
Regards
Dixiematic

 

[CajunCenturion]

dixiematic - if it were only that simple. There are quantifiers and then there are collective nouns.

The examples provided above are examples of collective nouns. Collective nouns can be either singular or plural, but generally, collective nouns are singular and would call for a singular verb when the collective noun is the subject of the sentence. Remember, the only noun that determines whether the verb is singular or plural is the subject noun. No objects play a role in determining the correct verb form. Only the subject controls the verb.

The problem with 'a lot of' is that you don't know whether 'a lot' is a quantifier for the following noun, or that 'lot' is a collective noun, without understanding the context. Consider the following two sentences.

A lot of people ARE smart.
A lot of people IS smart.

Which is correct?

Now, consider these two examples:

A lot of antiques ARE being sold at the auction.
A lot of antiques IS being sold at auction.

Which is correct?

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[drlex]

I was taught in English that some collective nouns can be both singular and plural - e.g. the Government, the Cabinet, Committee - with the choice determined by the verb.
"The Cabinet are divided" on one hand; "the Cabinet is united" on the other.
Is it the case that collective nouns in U.S. English do not consider the verb and as such, are treated as plural?

soi là, soi carré

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> with the choice determined by the verb.
It's the other way around. The noun controls the verb.

That being said, the reader/listener will use the verb to understand the intent of the writer/speaker. Let's look at your two examples.
The Cabinet are divided. The writer is intending for you to view the Cabinet as separate individuals, each with their own opinion if you will. The writer will know to use a plural verb because the writer is thinking of the cabinet as plural individuals.
The Cabinet is united. The writer is intending for you to view the Cabinet as a single entity, with one opinion. The writer will know to use a singular verb because the writer is thinking of the cabinet as singular.

That being said, from our perspective as the reader, we learn the intent by seeing which verb he used. So while the choice is made by the noun, the interpretation is made clear by the verb, if that makes any sense.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[SantaMufasa]

A method that I have found useful in determining the correct verb conjugation (whether the conjugation should be singular or plural) is to momentarily substitute the subject with an appropriate pronoun, either it (singular) or they (plural). Example:

[b]Manchester United[/b] is a member of the Premier League.
[b]It[/b] is a member of the Premier League.

[b]Manchester United[/b] are travelling to London for a match.
[b]They[/b] are travelling to London for a match.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
“People may forget what you say, but they will never forget how you made them feel.

 

[drlex]

CC,
I'm aware of the distinction; the question is whether NA English in general also makes such. Does SM's example, distinguishing between a single entity and a group of people hold good for American grammar?

soi là, soi carré

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Is it the case that collective nouns in U.S. English do not consider the verb and as such, are treated as plural?
No, that is not the case. Collective nouns may be either singular or plural, and as such, dictate verb number.

==> Does SM's example, distinguishing between a single entity and a group of people hold good for American grammar?
Yes, it does.


--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[drlex]

Thanks - I appreciate your answer. Most of my colleagues aren't fussed about spelling, let alone grammar and the finer pleasures of vocabulary.

soi là, soi carré