We was/ We were

[evilpeta]

there're is not a word. It is merely some backwoods patois...

it isn't a word per se, it's a contraction, and it's is by no means incorrect. just like "we" and "are" makes "we're", "there" and "are" makes "there're". it is just not used that often in english. constantly being replaced by the contraction "there's" and, most of the time, incorrectly.

There's many coins in my pocket.
There're many coins in my pocket.

if you know which one is correct, you are on the right path my friend.

hint: the second sentence

the pronunciation is the main reason why people tend to avoid this contraction. try and pronounce "there're" without making it sound funny.

[XemnasXD]

in proper english there're is never used. You would simply write there are. However, people pronounce and incorrectly say there're often, its not hard to say or imagine in use. You'd only have to google the word for further proof of just how incorrect it is so i won't go into further detail. As i said...backwoods patois....

[evilpeta]

contractions are of informal use. noone would ever, or should never, use contractions in any formal/academic work. also, contractions such as "there're" do exist. look into it.

if you're talking about academic/formal english then every contraction is "wrong", as in, don't use them or it will make you look bad since there're no equivalent contractions on any other language as far as i know.
the contractions themselves are correct, and there's nothing wrong in using them in informal english.
(including the infamous "there're" you seem to dislike)

note: internet isn't always right

[XemnasXD]

In english contractions like they're/can't/don't/wouldn't/shouldn't/etc are all considered real contractions. There're is not. Thats the way i was taught english and thats what the internet seems to agree with. The only one who seems to be in disagreement of this is you. Now english is a tricky language because of all the rules, all the exceptions to these rules, and the influence informal speech has on the language but There're is up there with Ain't as far as actual words are concerned. I don't think you'll agree with me so like b4, this will be my last word on the topic...

[evilpeta]

i agree on the informal part, and that's exactly what i meant. you mentioned proper english as in academic english, then contractions shouldn't even be talked about.
now that i recall, i wasn't even taught "there're" in English class at my school. then again, my English teacher surely must've been a United States college dropout or something, i mean, who the hell leaves the US to teach in Ecuador. lol
either way, it's a neverending discussion, i've looked into some books/websites that mark "there're" as valid, at the same time some renouned exams like the TOEFL mark "there're" as invalid, since toefl is into a more academic/formal field, using there're on a formal paper is out of the question. there are plenty of websites about the subject and it's inconclusive.
some points as to why it's inconclusive? informal english isn't based on gramatical correctness, but rather on styles of expressoin. also, how you were taught english, where you were taught, etc. all that influences the different styles of expression, and in no way can you mark contractions as incorrect in informal speech. ironically, USING contractions is informal ITSELF.
/peace out

[takolin]

We was is for black gangsters and wiggers.

What annoys me the most is their/they're and your/you're. In my own language I got annoyed to **** by hun/hen which could either mean them and their.
Literally what these fucktards are saying is "I'm going to their."

I get annoyed by:

People who mess up: noemen en heten
And people who don't understand the difference between than and as.


We were btw