4

I read in a book:

There were lots to do on the farm: feeding the hens, collecting the eggs, going on a hay ride, visiting the ducks.

To me it seemed odd, that it should have been "There was lots to do"—but it was explained that this was the backward existential and was therefore correct. This seemed outmoded to me.

My question is: "There were lots to do" vs "There was lots to do...": is the backward existential still used?

NOTE: I believe this is not a duplicate of this or this as we're asking a question about the general usage of the backward existential in a particular situation.

Community
  • 1
hawkeye
  • 2,598
  • 4
    I fail to see how this is a use of the subjunctive. My money's on There was lots to do – Tushar Raj May 06 '15 at 12:47
  • 2
    Lots is a quantifier and means much/many. It is singular if the noun phrase it quantifies is singular, and plural if it's plural. Since the NP it quantifies is an infinitive verb phrase, it's automatically singular, like a subordinate clause. Not that it matters, really. Backwards agreement with existentials is a dying feature of English, and most native speakers would say or unhesitatingly understand There was lots to do just as easily as There was lots of things to do. And in conversational speech, the first two words would be deleted anyway. – John Lawler May 06 '15 at 17:16
  • 1
    @JohnLawler That looks an awful lot like an answer. – DCShannon May 07 '15 at 02:28
  • 2
    "There were lots to do, but that was the landscaper's problem." -- referring to units of land. I don't know whether anyone else would make that connection, but for me, lots (as opposed to lots of) maps more readily to that meaning. – keshlam May 07 '15 at 03:30
  • That sounds like a British farmer talking. You hear a lot of that in some British speech. – Lambie Jan 12 '23 at 23:19

3 Answers3

2

'lots' can be singular or plural depending on what the speaker is talking about.

eg We'd better get started. There is lots to do. (i.e. a great deal, much, uncountable)

Are there any sandwiches left? Yes, there are lots in the fridge. (i.e. a great number, many, countable)

Michael
  • 21
  • 2
0

In this specific case, some might see it as a backwards existential problem, but looking at it from a broader perspective, it can simply be a problem of whether you want to acknowledge the plural.

To clarify, lots is plural. Some might take that literally and use were before it, but others might see this as a kind of colloquialism or "just something we always say," so plurality is overlooked and was is used.

Adam
  • 1,940
0

There were lots of chores to do. A great stylist recognizes & avoids or cures the potential problem caused by the ambiguous quantifier.

David B
  • 1
  • Hello, David B, and welcome to English Language & Usage. Your advice may be helpful to a writer who is trying to decide how to express the idea that there were many things to do; but in spoken English, people say things like "There was lots to do" all the time—and in my experience native English speakers rarely if ever say "There were lots to do." So with regard to explaining why English favors the former expression over the latter, your answer isn't especially on point. Please consider supplementing your current answer with a discussion of the two phrases that the OP asks about. – Sven Yargs May 23 '15 at 05:08