Q:

Using "there're" to abbreviate "there are"

Possible Duplicate:
Is “there're” (similar to “there's”) a correct contraction? 

Since using there's for a plural object would be incorrect, would it be possible to use there're to abbreviate there are?
e.g.

I've been told there're many different ways to solve this problem.

A:

There's no special "watchdog" likely to come knocking on the door in the middle of the night if you use it, but it's relatively uncommon (witness that thin blue line at the bottom of the chart)...

On the other hand, there're over 400,000 instances, and it is more common than it was...

In short, there're doesn't have anything like the "accepted status" of there's, so if you want to be beyond reproach, avoid it. But don't feel you're completely alone if you insist on using it.
Personally, I wouldn't criticise the usage, but it's not something I'd normally (ever?) do myself.

A:

It's not incorrect, but it's difficult to say /'ðɛrər/, with two /r/s in a row, so mostly nobody does. The purpose of a contraction is to make things easier to say, not harder.
This difficulty is one of the forces that has led to widespread use and acceptance of there's as an unchanging existential idiom, like Es gibt in German, Hay in Spanish, Il y a in French, Yeʃ in Hebrew, etc.
Another is the fact that, if you think about it, number agreement contributes nothing to the meaning in this idiom, and should not appear at all, since the subject is there, which is a dummy noun that means nothing and is neither singular nor plural by logic, so by convention it should be singular. 
That's good enough for nobody as a subject, too: Nobody is coming, even though it's neither singular nor plural, and even though it may represent many individual people and their individual decisions.

A:

In rapid speech, there are will come out as something like /ðɛərə/ (rhyming with ‘tear a’). A writer who wants to give some idea of the actual speech of the participants in a dialogue may choose to represent it as there’re, but otherwise the contraction would not, I suspect, normally be found in formal prose.

