How's things?

[Glizdka]

Is "How's [plural noun]?" acceptable? I think it might be like how it is with "There's [plural noun]", technically ungrammatical, practically correct and natural.

[emsr2d2]

Yes, it's very much like "There's" before a plural noun. It works in the contracted form but not uncontracted. The full form is "How are things?" You'll hear that, along with "How're things?" and "How's things?" They're all acceptable in casual, everyday speech.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Yes, although I wouldn't call it "practically correct." I'd call it incorrect but practical.

Sometimes function beats form.

(And I hate that we can't say trumps anymore!)

[Glizdka]

Is it because 're is harder to pronounce, and adding -s/'s to words happens a lot in this language?

[emsr2d2]

"'re" isn't hard to pronounce for native speakers, so no.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Is it because 're is harder to pronounce, and adding -s/'s to words happens a lot in this language?

It's not hard to pronounce -'re, but nonetheless, I think you're exactly right. It's not a matter of what's easy. It's a matter of what's easier. There's and how's are easier to say than there are and how are, so we substitute them, especially in conversation.

In American English, we don't write there're or here're because, spoken, they sound the same (or very nearly the same) as there are and how are.