Thread: What's with `there`s in `There are people out there who there's just nobody for them`

P.S. Regarding the сокращение of "is" and "has" to 's -- yes, this is correct and common. Just off the top of my head, here are some classic song lyrics:

"There's a place for us -- somewhere a place for us!" (i.e., "there is a place") -- 1956
"There's got to be a morning after ("there has got to be", meaning "there must be") -- 1973
"She's got it, yeah baby, she's got it" (i.e., "she has got it", meaning "she has it") -- 1968

However, in a sentence like "She has beautiful eyes," the word "has" CANNOT be contracted to 's -- at least, not in normal US English (though it was possible in old-fashioned UK English, I think).

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

P.S. Regarding the сокращение of "is" and "has" to 's -- yes, this is correct and common. Just off the top of my head, here are some classic song lyrics:

"There's a place for us -- somewhere a place for us!" (i.e., "there is a place") -- 1956
"There's got to be a morning after ("there has got to be", meaning "there must be") -- 1973
"She's got it, yeah baby, she's got it" (i.e., "she has got it", meaning "she has it") -- 1968

However, in a sentence like "She has beautiful eyes," the word "has" CANNOT be contracted to 's -- at least, not in normal US English (though it was possible in old-fashioned UK English, I think).

I can't actually think of any sentence with "has" as the main verb (not "has got "/"has gotten" or anything like "has seen" etc.), where that contraction would be possible.

PS. It might have to do with the fact that making such a contraction would bring in certain ambiguousness in a lot of cases. Consider "he's a slave", for instance. Now, is he free or not? =))

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I can't actually think of any sentence with "has" as the main verb (not "has got "/"has gotten" or anything like "has seen" etc.), where that contraction would be possible.

Not in any variety of English spoken today, I think. But I've seen British-made movies set in "the old days" (say, before WW2) where you would hear constructions like:

"I've three apples, you've some cheese, and he's a loaf of bread."

Of course, the third part of the sentence sounds ambiguous and funny -- "he HAS a loaf of bread", or "he IS a loaf of bread"? -- and as Eric says, I think this ambiguity may explain why, in today's English, you can't contract "have" or "has" when they're the main verb (only when they're functioning as auxiliary verbs). Instead, we'd say either: "I have three apples, you have some cheese, and he has a loaf of bread" or "I've got three apples, you've got some cheese, and he's got a loaf of bread." (The second variant sounds more informal and colloquial.)