there's a couple of them can walk and chew gum

[audiolaik]

Hi,

The following excerpt has been taken from the book I'm now reading (The Touch of Ghosts, by John Rickard):

I hear there's a couple of them can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Context:

After giving some lectures to rookie recruits in Boston, some policemen and ex-FBI agents meet and exchange comments on each other's profession. (First the main character -- in a humorous way, I'd say -- describes the guy who utters the words in question)

What bothers me is the part in bold. Is there something missing? To me, it's who, but, of course, I might be unaware of some grammar rule. Is it an example of colloquial speech? (I know, we educated people....


)Thank you!

A&AJnr


PS It's good to be back. I've seen some changes here....

 

[Enquiring Mind]

You are right, audiolaik. It's colloquial, and "who" (or also "that") is missing.

 

[audiolaik]

Thank you, Enquiring Mind, for your prompt reply. By the way, is this (wrong) omission of relative pronouns common in British English?

 

[Loob]

Hi audio - welcome back!

Here's a thread from yesterday on a similar construction: it is a lack of NOUN could be to blame.


I see this type of omission of a subject relative pronoun as on the borderline between standard and non-standard English. I use it from time to time myself - though not in writing.

 

[audiolaik]

Loob, I knew you'd spring up with a relevant thread! Thank you!

 

[George French]

This is pure colloquial English.. The person speaking is being extremely rude about the intelligence of the recruits. So grammer rules etc. are in the dustbin...

GF..

Some of them are capable of doing two things

1. a couple of them can walk and
2. chew gum

at the same time. Wow! They are on the ball......

 

[Enquiring Mind]

You will hear it when people are speaking colloquially and when there's little risk of the sentence being misunderstood, but as Loob says, you wouldn't write it.

 

[entangledbank]

The key is the existential there's introducing it. This has been discussed multiple times here: the book rule is that a subject relative marker can't be omitted, but in fact colloquially (so colloquially that we wouldn't call it standard English and wouldn't say it's okay to write it) the relative marker can be omitted after an existential there's.

The classic example is the Kirsty MacColl song 'There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis.'