Rachael Starr has a song titled "Till there was you".
Shouldn't it be "Till there were you"? Why did she use it that way?
|
Rachael Starr has a song titled "Till there was you". Shouldn't it be "Till there were you"? Why did she use it that way? |
||||
|
|
First of all, "there were you" would sound completely barbarous spoken to a single individual, unless the singer was in love with and singing to, say, a whole platoon of Marines. Second, this is a song lyric. Normal grammatical considerations do not apply. Consider:
Song lyrics are what they are. Whatever you think is wrong with the phrase "till there was you" — and I don't think anything is wrong with it — you shouldn't get bothered by what you hear in song lyrics, or poems for that matter. |
|||||||||
|
|
Because you is not the subject in the sentence, it's an implied it that is the subject. The you is an object, in the same way as in It was you all along. |
|||||||||||||
|
|
Because 'you' is a singular object. Before this time there was nothing, after it there was...X and in this case X is you. |
|||
|
|
|
In the examples above, you and apples are not an objects, but rather a predicate nominatives. The verb should agree with the predicate nominative. Use were in both cases; with apples because it is plural, and with you because that's that how we conjugate you whether singular or plural. |
||||
|
|
|
I have conjectured on this song title for about forty years. I've maintained that, weird as it sounds, "'Til There were You" would be the grammatically correct title. The subject of the clause is "you," which always takes a plural verb. As for poetic license to mangle the language, yes, the singer or poet is meant to be a character who may or may not use the best grammar. We're discussing, though, pure grammar in this song title, not what a particular character would probably say. |
|||
|
|