"There is a computer and a TV."

[Phaedrus]

Sinclair implies this principle in the words I have underlined:

I'm glad you gave that reference, Piscean. The Collins Cobuild book will be the next addition to my grammar-book collection.

I couldn't resist checking Visser's historical syntax, one of my most exotic grammar references. When I did, came upon this:

"That the inverted order may not—as is often done—be looked upon as the cause or occasion of the use of the singular form of the verb on the—psychologically untenable—assumption that the speaker when he begins a similar sentence is not yet aware of the exact nature of the subject, is disproved by the great number of examples in the two preceding section which do not show inversion and yet have the verb in the singular. For the same reason the use of the singular verb in utterances opening with there—of which there are numerous instances, even in Pres. D. English—can not exclusively be attributed to this front position of there. In this connection the following statement by the grammarian J. Earle (The Philology of the English Tongue 4th ed. 1887 p. 560) is worth citing: 'Nothing is plainer, for example, that this, that two or more subjects united by 'and' form plurality, and should logically have a plural verb; and therefore the following is logically right:--"Mr. Jenkins's house was about a mile from Mr. Benson's; it was delightfully situated; there were a beautiful lawn and canal before it, and a charming garden behind." (Mrs. Trimmer, Fabulous Histories, ch. X) No one hardly would write so now-a-days: it offends from excess of logic.'"

- Visser, F. Th. (1963). An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Volume 1, p. 73. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

It says "There is" not "There's" is this an example of AmE?

No. It's an example of sloppy English.

 

[Phaedrus]

"There is a computer and a TV in my room."

I think it is worthwhile to note that, in a sentence like this one, one can postpone the second conjunct and, in so doing, render the singular verb unfaultable:

There is a computer in my room, and a TV.

That sentence may contain "Stripping"; many would deem "and a TV" to be a reduction of a second independent clause: and [there is] a TV [in my room].

Unfortunately, that solution will not work in all cases. Specifically, it does not seem to work when the referents of the two conjuncts are acting as a pair:

(i) A man and a woman are walking on the beach.
(ii) There is a man and a woman walking on the beach.
(iii) There are a man and a woman walking on the beach.
(iv) ? There is a man walking on the beach, and a woman.

Whereas, in the first three examples, there is the sense that they are walking together, the fourth example seems to convey that they are walking separately.

 

[Rachel Adams]

I think it is worthwhile to note that, in a sentence like this one, one can postpone the second conjunct and, in so doing, render the singular verb unfaultable:

There is a computer in my room, and a TV.

That sentence may contain "Stripping"; many would deem "and a TV" to be a reduction of a second independent clause: and [there is] a TV [in my room].

Unfortunately, that solution will not work in all cases. Specifically, it does not seem to work when the referents of the two conjuncts are acting as a pair:

(i) A man and a woman are walking on the beach.
(ii) There is a man and a woman walking on the beach.
(iii) There are a man and a woman walking on the beach.
(iv) ? There is a man walking on the beach, and a woman.

Whereas, in the first three examples, there is the sense that they are walking together, the fourth example seems to convey that they are walking separately.

Now "is" is part of present continuous. Would it be unnatural to shorten it to "There's" as in my original sentence? "There is a computer and a TV in my room."

 

[Rachel Adams]

It isn't in Phaedrus's sentence.

"There is a man walking in in the beach, and a woman." I thought is present continuous. But what is it?

 

[GoesStation]

"There is a man walking [STRIKE]in in[/STRIKE] on the beach, and a woman." I thought [STRIKE]is[/STRIKE] that was the present continuous. But what is it?

The present continuous is BE + [present participle]. I think you can tell us what tense your sentence uses.

 

[jutfrank]

I think it is worthwhile to note that, in a sentence like this one, one can postpone the second conjunct and, in so doing, render the singular verb unfaultable:

There is a computer in my room, and a TV.

That sentence may contain "Stripping"; many would deem "and a TV" to be a reduction of a second independent clause: and [there is] a TV [in my room].

I don't see why you'd want to understand this in terms of grammar rather than in terms of meaning. The speaker is extremely likely to mean that there are two things in his room. Still, it is possible, given the right context, that the TV is somewhere other than in his room.

Unfortunately, that solution will not work in all cases. Specifically, it does not seem to work when the referents of the two conjuncts are acting as a pair:

(i) A man and a woman are walking on the beach.
(ii) There is a man and a woman walking on the beach.
(iii) There are a man and a woman walking on the beach.
(iv) ? There is a man walking on the beach, and a woman.

Whereas, in the first three examples, there is the sense that they are walking together, the fourth example seems to convey that they are walking separately.

Sentence (iv) could mean that they are both walking together, or that they are walking separately, or that the woman is not walking at all. The meaning comes much more from the context of the utterance than from the syntactic form of the sentence.

 

[Phaedrus]

I don't see why you'd want to understand this in terms of grammar rather than in terms of meaning. The speaker is extremely likely to mean that there are two things in his room. Still, it is possible, given the right context, that the TV is somewhere other than in his room.

I don't see how, barring cases of linguistic insanity, you could find a context in which you could see the speaker of There is a computer in my room, and a TV as implying in his assertion that the TV is anywhere other than in his room.

It is the syntax of the sentence that interests me, not the meaning, which I already understand. What I thought would be of interest to Rachel is the sheer possibility of that sentence, which means the same thing as the one she asked about but obviously needs a singular verb:

*[strike]There are a TV in my room, and a computer.[/strike]

Sentence (iv) could mean that they are both walking together, or that they are walking separately, or that the woman is not walking at all. The meaning comes much more from the context of the utterance than from the syntactic form of the sentence.

I'm talking about the most plausible meaning. Yes, they might be walking together. However, if they are, then, in so far as the sentence There is a man walking on the beach, and a woman is concerned, their walking together is a sheer coincidence. Compare:

There is a teacher in the library, and a student.

Wouldn't it be a coincidence, from the standpoint of that sentence's representation of things, if the student turned out to be a student of that teacher?

 

[jutfrank]

I don't see how, barring cases of linguistic insanity, you could find a context in which you could see the speaker of There is a computer in my room, and a TV as implying in his assertion that the TV is anywhere other than in his room.

I don't want to argue this point too much, or overcriticise your interesting observations. I just wanted to give my point of view for the sake of the discussion. I think I could come up with a context that's perhaps not insane.

It is the syntax of the sentence that interests me, not the meaning, which I already understand.

My point was just that there are different meanings to understand. I thought that's what you were getting at when you observed that two similar forms are likely to be understood in very different ways. My response was to say that this is because the meaning comes primarily not from the syntax but from the context.

What I thought would be of interest to Rachel is the sheer possibility of that sentence, which means the same thing as the one she asked about but obviously needs a singular verb:

*[strike]There are a TV in my room, and a computer.[/strike]

Yes, this is interesting to me too. I think the unacceptabilty of that sentence tells us more about what could be going on in the head of someone who were to utter it than about any syntactic rules.

I'm talking about the most plausible meaning.

Okay, but I don't think I agree that your interpretation is the most plausible. My first reaction to your sentence was that the woman was not walking at all. In fact, I imagined that the speaker was pointing at two thematically unrelated photographs—one of a man walking on a beach, and one of a woman.

 

[Rachel Adams]

The present continuous is BE + [present participle]. I think you can tell us what tense your sentence uses.

Present progressive:shock: but Piscean said it isn't.

 

[Rachel Adams]

There is a present progressive form in #1.
There is no present progressive form in #2 or #3.

What part of speech is the ing form in two and three?

 

[Rachel Adams]

Now that many leading grammarians have given up on the distinction between gerunds and present participles, I would simply call it an -ing form.

Thank you. I see. I hope I am not asking about something that has already been covered but in examples #2 and #3 which are different from my original sentence do you use "there's" or "there is"?

 

[emsr2d2]

I'd use "There's".

 

[PaulMatthews]

What part of speech is the ing form in two and three?

Verb; what else could it be?

[2] and [3] have progressive aspectuality (as opposed to progressive aspect).

 

[Rachel Adams]

I was rereading this thread. If it says that in informal style "there's" is used instead of "there are" does it mean that in all three examples below a native speaker would use " there's" or "there are"? "There is" unnatural however it is used here.

"As a rule, the number of the verb following there depends on the number of the notional subject. [footnote:] However, in an informal style there's is often used instead of there are. [end of footnote]

e.g. There were a host of problems to be solved.
There are two people in there.

When the notional subject consists of two conjoined NPs there is proximal concord:

There is a hammer and a screwdriver in the car.
There is a hammer and two screwdrivers in the car.
There are two screwdrivers and a hammer in the car."

- Declerk, Renaat (1991). A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English, p. 269. Kaitakusha, Japan.

 

[jutfrank]

[2] and [3] have progressive aspectuality (as opposed to progressive aspect).

This is an interesting new distinction for me. Could you briefly explain the difference, please?

 

[emsr2d2]

When the notional subject consists of two conjoined NPs there is proximal concord:

There is a hammer and a screwdriver in the car.
There is a hammer and two screwdrivers in the car.
There are two screwdrivers and a hammer in the car."

- Declerk, Renaat (1991). A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English, p. 269. Kaitakusha, Japan.

I can see the logic there but it doesn't change the fact that [most] native speakers would use "There's" not "There is" in the first two.

 

[Rachel Adams]

I can see the logic there but it doesn't change the fact that [most] native speakers would use "There's" not "There is" in the first two.

I copied each example into my notes. I hope I have summarised correctly.

A singular noun with a singular noun:

1. "There is a hammer and a screwdriver in the car."

A singular noun with plural nouns:

2. "There is a hammer and two screwdrivers in the car."


Plural nouns with a singular noun:

3. "There are two screwdrivers and a hammer in the car."

Plural nouns with plural nouns:

4. "There are computers and two desks in my room."

Plural noun with singular nouns:

5. "There are two computers, a desk, and a sofa in my room."

In each of these most native speakers would use either "there's" or "there are" but not "there is".

"There's" informal but it is preferred. In #3, #4, and #5 "there 's" but not "there is" is used because, "there's" is preferred.

 

[jutfrank]

I can see the logic there but it doesn't change the fact that [most] native speakers would use "There's" not "There is" in the first two.

The written form there's is just a way to show the contracted pronunciation. Native speakers would utter the contracted form in all cases, not just this.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I was rereading this thread. If it says that in informal style "there's" is used instead of "there are" does it mean that in all three examples below a native speaker would use " there's" or "there are"? "There is" unnatural. However, it is used here:

"As a rule, the number of the verb following there depends on the number of the notional subject. [footnote:] However, in an informal style there's is often used instead of there are. [end of footnote]

Look again. That says there's, not there is. There is would be unnatural and wrong.

e.g. There were a host of problems to be solved.

There are two people in there.

We don't know how many people are there. A host of means many: There were many problems to be solved.

When the notional subject consists of two conjoined NPs there is proximal concord:

There is a hammer and a screwdriver in the car.
There is a hammer and two screwdrivers in the car.
There are two screwdrivers and a hammer in the car."

In ordinary conversation I'd say There's or there are. If I wanted to be more formal, I'd only use there are.

There are times when the idea of proximal concord is useful, but those don't seem like great examples to me.

(Yes, I could have said There's times. But to me it would look too casual. Others will disagree. I promise. But no one will like There is times!)

- Declerk, Renaat (1991). A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English, p. 269. Kaitakusha, Japan.

That's this boy's opinion.