I would like to share with Forum readers my answer to an English-usage question that may sound too elementary for comfort, but one that actually requires a rather complicated answer. It was asked in 2011 in Jose Carillo’s English Forum by a member who goes by the username Sky.
Sky’s question:
“Are native speakers of English correct when they say the following sentences: (1) ‘There’s only five classes on the second floor.’ (2) ‘There’s many students not attending their classes.’ (3) ‘There’s only two classes I got today.’?
“Maybe I’m just not used to it? Maybe I missed out this lesson at school? I’m really confused on this matter.”
Here’s my answer to Sky:
The three sentences you presented are using what’s called in English grammar as the
anticipatory “there” clause, which means a clause introduced by the expletive “there.” By definition, an expletive is a word that occupies the position of the subject or object of a verb in normal English word order and anticipates a later word or phrase that supplies the needed meaningful content. In such sentence constructions, “there” points to the notional subject, usually a noun phrase of indefinite character, to give more weight or emphasis to it.
(Similar to this construction are sentences that use the
anticipatory “it” clause, where the notional subject that follows is a nominal clause, as in “
It is hard to justify his lackluster sales performance.”)
Now, the conventional rule for sentences with an anticipatory “there” clause is that the verb after the expletive “there” should be singular or plural depending on whether the notional subject that follows is singular or plural, as in “
There is a fly in my soup” and “
There are three flies in my soup.” However, when the subject consists of two or more nouns compounded by the conjunction “and,” there are divergent schools of thought on whether “there is” or “there are” should be used.
Some grammarians prescribe that “there is” should be used when the subject consists of two or more indefinite nouns in singular form, as in “
There is apple and orange in our orchard back home”; to them, it just doesn’t sound right to say “
There are apple and orange in our orchard back home.” Other grammarians prescribe that “there is” can be used even for a compound subject for as long as the component nouns are notionally singular together, as in “
There is fame and fortune for young people who can sing exceedingly well.” They argue that to use “there are” in such situations would yield such an awkward-sounding sentence, “
There are fame and fortune for young people who can sing exceedingly well.”
I think those grammarians have a valid point. Indeed, the problem with anticipatory “there” clauses is that they often put grammar and notion in irreconcilable conflict. So then, with all things considered, are the three anticipatory “there” sentences you presented at the outset grammatically correct and acceptable?
My answer is a categorical “no.” Those sentences are flawed both grammatically and notionally, so the correct thing to do is to replace their anticipatory “there is” with “there are,” as follows: (1) “
There are only five classes on the second floor.” (2) “
There are many students not attending their classes.” (3) “
There are only two classes I got today.”
Colloquially, some native English speakers do tend to use the anticipatory “there is” regardless of whether what follows is a singular or plural subject or a compounded one. One justification offered for this bias is that in day-to-day speech, the speaker’s mind is normally not on the alert on whether the subject of a statement about to be uttered will be singular or not, so the singular “there is” becomes the default anticipatory phrase. With the benefit of hindsight, though, we should avoid the obvious subject-verb disagreement in such sentence constructions when they are put in writing.
This essay, 740th of the series, first appeared in a slightly revised form in the column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in the March 21, 2011 issue of The Manila Times
, © 2011 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
