Shouldn't verbs in "there was" clauses agree with the number of the subject?

[Joe Carillo]

Question from dantreys (March 23, 2010):

Hi, Joe! An opinion writer in one of the major broadsheets wrote an article yesterday that contained this sentence:

“There was once a time when there was more than one exchange existing all at the same time.”

I feel a bit queasy about the sentence because something tells me the correct verb right before “more” should be “were” since it refers to “more than one exchange,” which, notionally, is a plural subject. What do you think?

Thanks and good day!

Danny

My reply to dantreys:

“There was once a time when there was more than one exchange existing all at the same time.”

The sentence above, Danny, is an example of a construction that uses the so-called “anticipatory ‘there’ clause” twice. The pronoun “there” is, of course, the anticipatory subject in each case. In such constructions, “there” carries little or no independent meaning but simply points forward to the notional subject which is placed later in the sentence for reasons of end weight or emphasis. In the particular sentence above, the notional subject is the noun phrase “once a time” for the first anticipatory “there” and “more than one exchange” for the second anticipatory “there.”

Now, your question is: Since the operative verb “was” refers to “more than one exchange,” which is a plural subject, shouldn’t that verb take the plural form “were” instead to ensure subject-verb agreement?

My personal preference is to use the singular “was” rather than “were”; in effect, I’m saying that the use of “was” by the broadsheet’s opinion writer is grammatically correct. This is the descriptivist position in a usage that continues to be debated until today, a position explained by one of its proponents as follows: “Since the ‘there is’ combination is followed in the great majority of sentences by a singular subject, it has become a standard way of introducing a subject, whether singular or plural, another example of the victory of usage over logical grammar.” I might also add here that in American English, when a compound subject follows the verb in a “there is” construction, the verb very often takes the singular form, as in this sentence: “There is shame and dishonor in being found to be unfit for public office.” See and feel how badly that sentence sounds when “there are” is used instead: “There are shame and dishonor in being found to be unfit for public office.”

The prescriptivist position, on the other hand, recommends that after the expletive “there,” the verb is singular or plural according to the number of the subject that follows. This is the position you have taken; you are more comfortable constructing that sentence as follows: “There was once a time when there were more than one exchange existing all at the same time.” It looks and sounds a little bit awkward to me, but I’m not saying that it’s grammatically wrong. So long as you are consistent with the usage and you know and can explain your position about it, I don’t think there should be any problem.

Having said that, however, let me say that English teachers of the traditional bent discourage the use of the expletives “there is” (and “it is” as well) among students, arguing that this usage fosters lazy thinking. My own position is that expletives are tolerable when used sparingly and judiciously—perhaps no more than once or twice every one or two pages of the standard manuscript page. But when the anticipatory “there” is used twice in a row in the same sentence, as in the case of that opinion writer’s sentence, the resulting construction is decidedly awkward and convoluted. So, as an editor, I always suggest to my clients to routinely avoid "there is" constructions because of its needless and oftentimes confusing complexity.

Indeed, we can actually eliminate the second anticipatory “there” clause in that opinion writer’s sentence by reconstructing it as follows: “There was once a time when more than one exchange existed all at the same time.” And although the folksiness would admittedly be lost, we can actually make this bare-bones version of that sentence with both anticipatory “there” clauses dropped: “One time, more than one exchange existed all at the same time.”

At any rate, some writers prefer take recourse to the anticipatory “there” clause to make their writing sound folksy and informal. This is intended to make the exposition or narrative sound more spontaneous; indeed, it’s meant to give the reader the feeling that the writer is talking off the cuff and isn’t really on the alert about what should follow in what he or she is saying (and that being the case, he or she really won’t be bothered with ensuring perfect subject-verb agreement and such grammar things). When the writer overuses the anticipatory “there” clause in an essay or novel, however, I would get the nagging feeling that here, indeed, is one more lazy thinker whose laziness has gotten out of hand and is about to ruin what would otherwise be a good expository or narrative performance.

So I say, too much of anticipatory “there” clauses is bad for the health of anybody’s prose.

[Joe Carillo]

Forum member dantreys posted this note to my Personal Messages account this morning:

Dear Joe,

As always, your explanations are such a beauty to behold.  Not only do they have a way of unraveling seemingly confusing subjects, they also impart other rich grammar lessons in the process.  For instance, your suggestion to eliminate the anticipatory "there"  is a good one.  Indeed, it is a neat way to shorten a sentence without losing its elegance, and people in my position who must send volumes of written messages to so many co-workers daily would love to find ways to use fewer words yet retain clarity of the message.

With warm regards.

Thanks for the compliment, dantreys! I greatly appreciate it.

[BenK]

Okay, you posed this question on Twitter earlier today: "Which is correct? 'There (is, are) shame and dishonor in being found to be unfit for public office.' Are you sure?" My vote, and I think the consensus, was that "is" is preferable, correctness or lack of it notwithstanding, because "are" in this instance would sound awkward.

The rule of agreement says that the sentence should use "are" for plural subjects (indicated by "and"), and "is" if the subjects are singular (which they would be if the sentence said "shame or dishonor"). But this seems to be one of those acceptable rule-bendings that must drive non-English speakers crazy when they're trying to learn the language. "There are shame and dishonor..." just sounds weird. It's kind of the same convention that uses "an" as an article before nouns beginning with a vowel; there's no logical grammatical reason for doing that, it just "sounds better", and consequently is now an actual rule.

"Shame" and "dishonor" are intangible subjects, as well; they are not entities, they're states of being, and they're similar in nature. I suppose one could technically experience shame or dishonor, but since they are not distinctly different states, we naturally think of them as complementary -- in other words, the subjects are not "shame" and "dishonor", but a singular subject "shame and dishonor".

But here's a question for you, Joe: Isn't that a tautology?

[Joe Carillo]

Your vote hit the nail right on the head, BenK! The preferred American English usage for that anticipatory “there” construction is, indeed, “There is shame and dishonor in being found to be unfit for public office,” with the verb in the singular form “is” rather than the plural “are.” What we have here is a case of notional agreement trumping grammatical agreement, and the justification for this preferred usage—as I indicated in my reply to the original question raised about it—is that since the anticipatory “there is” combination is followed in the great majority of sentences by a singular subject, it’s desirable to make it a standard way of introducing that subject, whether singular or plural. Of course, as you pointed out, another good thing going for this preference is that it sounds much better than its decidedly very awkward-sounding plural version, “There are shame and dishonor in being found to be unfit for public office.”

We will actually encounter many such instances in English when the notional sense of unity between two subjects actually prevails over grammatical agreement. In such cases, the compound subject— although strictly speaking plural in form—takes the singular form of the verb: “Her name and telephone number is scribbled on the address book.” “The long and the short of it is that we got married.” “Bread and butter is their staple breakfast.” “My better half and only love is with me today.” “Once law and order totally breaks down, the social fabric crumbles.” “In modern societies, health and safety is always a major primary concern.”

You raised the question, though, as to whether the compound subject “shame and dishonor” is a tautology, meaning that it’s a needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word. Although the nouns “shame” and “dishonor” are indeed synonymous in the sense of “a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute,” I don’t think their use as a compound subject in this particular instance is needless repetition. On the contrary, this is purposive and functional repetition for emphasis, certainly not a tautology in the same league as “frozen ice,” “dilapidated ruins,” “4:30 p.m. in the afternoon,” and “Mark Twain’s recently discovered autobiography of his own life.” I think you’ll agree with me that “shame and dishonor” is comparable to “law and order” and “health and safety” as compound terms whose component terms are so closely related that they can be taken as a unit, thus needing a verb in the singular form.