"There is a computer and a TV."

[Rachel Adams]

Isn't it wrong to use "is" if I have two nouns? I wanted to start with "are" but there is an indefinite article and a singular word so I wasn't sure.


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

From "English File" by Christina Koenig.

 

[emsr2d2]

Native speakers tend to go with "There's" at the start of such a sentence. We use "There are" before a plural noun, more than one plural noun, or a plural noun followed by singular nouns.

There's a computer and a table in my room.
There are two computers in my room.
There are two computers and three tables in my room.
There are two computers, a table and a desk in my room.

"There is" sounds unnatural to me in the first. That's probably why we contract it to "There's" which, in BrE at least, can serve as "There is" and "There are".

 

[PaulMatthews]

Isn't it wrong to use "is" if I have two nouns? I wanted to start with "are" but there is an indefinite article and a singular word so I wasn't sure.

"There is a computer and a TV in my room." From "English File" by Christina Koenig.

What does your book say?

 

[PeterCW]

Native speakers tend to go with "There's" at the start of such a sentence. We use "There are" before a plural noun, more than one plural noun, or a plural noun followed by singular nouns.

There's a computer and a table in my room.
There are two computers in my room.
There are two computers and three tables in my room.
There are two computers, a table and a desk in my room.

"There is" sounds unnatural to me in the first. That's probably why we contract it to "There's" which, in BrE at least, can serve as "There is" and "There are".

I would probably use "There's" when speaking in all those example but in written English I would use "There is" or "There are" as appropriate. I would never use "There's" in writing except as reported speech.

 

[Rachel Adams]

What does your book say?

It doesn't have answers. I mean answer key.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Native speakers tend to go with "There's" at the start of such a sentence. We use "There are" before a plural noun, more than one plural noun, or a plural noun followed by singular nouns.

There's a computer and a table in my room.
There are two computers in my room.
There are two computers and three tables in my room.
There are two computers, a table and a desk in my room.

"There is" sounds unnatural to me in the first. That's probably why we contract it to "There's" which, in BrE at least, can serve as "There is" and "There are".

Sorry, but I didn't understand your last sentence. You said "There's" can serve as "There is" and "There are." Do you mean in the first sentence "There is" serves as "There are"?

 

[GoesStation]

Do you mean in the first sentence "There is" serves as "There are"?

Yes — but only "there's" is natural.

 

[Rachel Adams]

It's There's, not There is that can function as There are.

Oh, interesting. It's not even mentioned in the book. That's why it's not wrong to use it when we have two or more nouns. Because usually it is "There is an apple on the table" but "There are two apples on the table." But as it functions as "there are" I can also say "There's two apples on the table."

 

[Rachel Adams]

You probably won't find it in any book. It was emsr2d2's explanation of why, in a sentence like "There ___ a computer and a TV in my room", we can use There are or There's, but we don't normally use There is.

I see. If I have a singular word "There is a cat in the room." Is "there's" more natural than "there is"? or a plural noun: "There are cats in the room." Is "There're" more natural than "There are." In such cases too. I am asking because I was completing exercises in "English Grammar in Context" by Simon Clarke. There are no short forms.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Contractions are always more common than full forms in normal speech.
There're is not a recognised contraction in writing, though it's common enough in speech.
The form that is 'correct' in those exercises is the form Mr Clarke accepts.

Yes, I understand that but is the case emsr2d2 was talking about the only case when "there is" is unnatural? In speech as you said "There's" is more common but in writing?
Is for example, "There is a woman in the hall" less natural than "There's a woman in the hall." In writing.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I see. If I have a singular word "There is a cat in the room." Is "there's" more natural than "there is"? or a plural noun: "There are cats in the room." Is "There're" more natural than "There are." In such cases too. I am asking because I was completing exercises in "English Grammar in Context" by Simon Clarke. There are no short forms.

Well, then:

Conversationally, many or most English speakers often say there's instead of there are simply because it rolls off the tongue much more easily.

It's a shortcut. That doesn't make it strictly grammatical, and it doesn't make there are incorrect or unnatural.

So in conversation you can say either "There's a computer and a TV" or "There are a computer and a TV." Both are fine.

Personally, I go both ways conversationally, depending on how careful I'm being at the moment, and in writing I use there are.

It's you're choice, as long as you know the difference. (And it looks like you do.)

Since your exercise doesn't offer contractions (short forms), I'd use are, not is.

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes, I understand that but is the case emsr2d2 was talking about the only case when "there is" is unnatural? In speech, as you said, "There's" is more common but what about in writing?
Is, for example, "There is a woman in the hall" less natural than "There's a woman in the hall" no full stop here in writing?

Note my corrections, mainly to your punctuation, above.

 

[tzfujimino]

I don't want to make things complicated, but may I ask a question?

There's a computer and a table in my room.

Would you use 'was' or 'were' if the sentence above were in the past?

There was a computer and a table in my room.

There were a computer and a table in my room.

 

[jutfrank]

Would you use 'was' or 'were' if the sentence above were in the past?

was

 

[tzfujimino]

was

Would it be safe to say that 'the principle of proximity' is applied there? My guess is that you choose to say "was" because of the following "a".

 

[jutfrank]

Would it be safe to say that 'the principle of proximity' is applied there? My guess is that you choose to say "was" because of the following "a".

Yes, some might say that.

I'm not a fan of the proximity principle. I don't think it explains anything. If you're going to say that I chose to use was because the complement NP is singular (I assume that's what you mean), then yes, okay, but since this is a there-be sentence, I'd analyse the logic of the sentence as a conjunction of two propositions:

P1: There is a computer

conj.: and

P2: [there is] a TV

 

[jutfrank]

Yes — but only "there's" is natural.

It's There's, not There is that can function as There are.

Would you two please clarify what you're saying? Do you mean to say:?

There's a computer and a TV. :tick:
There is a computer and a TV. :cross:

Really?

 

[jutfrank]

Yes.

So how about this?:

There are a computer and a TV. :?:

 

[jutfrank]

There are a computer and a TV in my room is fine.

Euch! I'm really surprised you'd think so.

Could other native speakers please offer their judgements?

 

[probus]

was

I too would use was there but of course that doesn't make were incorrect. Learners are well-advised to use there were in the plural even though native speakers often do not.