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?
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
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.
"It ain't necessarily so." — Ira Gershwin, Porgy and Bess
"I'm gonna love you till the stars fall from the sky — for you and I!" — Jim Morrison, Touch Me
Alone on an aeroplane / Fall asleep on against the window pane / My blood will thicken — Thom Yorke, The Bends
"We jammin'" — Bob Marley, "Jamming", Catch a Fire
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.
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.
I have also thought about this phrase for many years. The proper grammatical way would be "till there were you", but it sounds artificial. "It's I" sounds artificial to some people, but it is correct. "It's me" sounds colloquial, and for this song, I would go with artistic license and sounding colloquial.