# There is - there's - or there are with plural noun.



## roniy

I have heard this sentence a couple of time but I am not certain if it is correct grammaticaly :

" There is kids "
*There is + plural* 

and I have also seen :

*There are +plural *

Is the first one worng grammaticaly ????


Thanks.


----------



## JLanguage

roniy said:
			
		

> I have heard this sentence a couple of time but I am not certain if it is correct grammaticaly :
> 
> " There is kids "
> *There is + plural*
> 
> and I have also seen :
> 
> *There are +plural *
> 
> Is the first one worng grammaticaly ????
> 
> 
> Thanks.


 
The first one is incorrect. More commonly people say, 
There's...[plural noun], but this is also incorrect.


----------



## Aupick

The first one is definitely wrong, although it sometimes creeps out of people's mouths because we haven't necessarily decided, when we choose our verb, what the rest of the sentence will be, or else we change our minds, and we can't be bothered going back to correct the verb.


----------



## roniy

Ok I understand it 
Thank you two


----------



## gian_eagle

So... *there's + plural* it's a bad use of grammar, right?


----------



## bizcocho

There is + singular noun
There are + plural noun
This rule applies to every noun that I can think of ...in English anyway!

I hope it helps!


----------



## gian_eagle

Yes, that explanation is right.

The main discussion was of why some people write or speak by using "there's people, there's books, there's problems...etc".


----------



## Hakro

gian_eagle said:
			
		

> Yes, that explanation is right.
> 
> The main discussion was of why some people write or speak by using "there's people, there's books, there's problems...etc".


"There's people" is explicable because people is singular.


----------



## gian_eagle

> "There's people" is explicable because people is singular.


 
Is it "*there is people*" o "*there are people*"?


----------



## Ratona

We say "there are people" because the noun implies a plural (more than one person)

When speaking we often use there's + plural because we are lazy and there is not a shorter form of "there are"


----------



## gian_eagle

oky doky, got it! So both forms could be acceptable.


----------



## judkinsc

gian_eagle said:
			
		

> oky doky, got it! So both forms could be acceptable.



Not grammatically.  But there's no chance you won't be understood.


----------



## Garou

And what should be used in this case:
'There is/are a book and a crayon'. Those are two things (plural) or two single things?


----------



## TrentinaNE

Garou said:
			
		

> And what should be used in this case:
> 'There is/are a book and a crayon'. Those are two things (plural) or two single things?


There are. As a quick check, try turning it around: A book and a crayon are there.



> We say "there are people" because the noun implies a plural (more than one person)


Yes, indeedy, Merriam-Webster defines people as a plural, and we do say "there are people."


----------



## panjandrum

This thread is wandering close to an old familiar topic here - singular and plural in relation to collective nouns (rather like people).

There are AE/BE differences, and there are areas of disagreement and ambiguity.

In BE, we are not entirely consistent


----------



## timpeac

The tendency to use "there is" for everything is quite widespread in some parts. I know that I sometimes catch myself having done it when I read an email through before sending for example, so I'm sure I must do it in speech too. I notice it a lot in London speech too.


----------



## JediMaster

In conversational speech, "there's" might be acceptable because many people are too lazy to use the correct verbs.  But if there are plural books on the table, and I want to use a contraction, I'll probably say "There're some books on the table," and kind of make my own contraction by running the words "there are" together.


----------



## Jake32

I have a question for you. I have my doubts in regard to this example:

"On the table there is/are a pen and a pencil". I don't know which form to choose. Should I go with the singular or plural form in this case? There are two items on the table, but my Longman Dictionary has somewhat indicated that I should choose the singular form.

Please help me!

Best regards

Jake32


----------



## maxiogee

Jake32 said:


> I have a question for you. I have my doubts in regard to this example:
> 
> "On the table there is/are a pen and a pencil". I don't know which form to choose. Should I go with the singular or plural form in this case? There are two items on the table, but my Longman Dictionary has somewhat indicated that I should choose the singular form.


Hiya Jake,
That's a really good question.

My gut feeling is as follows (but I wouldn't be surprised to see a grammarian contradict me, and cite rules to back it up.)…

If you are going to retain the two instances of *"a"* in the sentence then I would recommend you use the plural, as you are treating the pen and the pencil as separate items. If you leave out the second one I would recommend using the singular, as that treats them as a singular item…

"On the table there are *a* pen and *a* pencil".
"On the table there is *a* pen and pencil".

I hope this help you.


----------



## Jake32

Hey Maxiogee!

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm very grateful! I think I'll try to look at it from that perspective.

I hope to exchange grammatical issues with you again in the near future.

Have a nice evening!

Jake32


----------



## Jake32

Ok!

Thanks!


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Jake32 said:


> Hey Maxiogee!
> 
> Thanks for the quick reply. I'm very grateful! I think I'll try to look at it from that perspective.
> 
> I hope to exchange grammatical issues with you again in the near future.



Bear in mind that Maxiogee, virtually by his own admission, appears to have made that 'rule' up on the spot. I would always use "there's" in both instances; if you need a reason, then I'd say it's because we process sentences linearly and if a singular noun is coming up it's natural to say "there is" in English, even if it turns out that there are several individual items.


----------



## Jake32

I'm not a native speaker. I'm from Denmark, and I needed some info on this issue for a paper. Thank you very much for your help. I will certainly keep your instructions in mind.

I have another question. I was reading an extract of a fairytale and it said "once upon a time there were a king and a queen". Shouldn't it be "there was a king and a queen"? - especially if you look at it from your perspective!

Jake32


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Jake32 said:


> I'm not a native speaker. I'm from Denmark, and I needed some info on this issue for a paper. Thank you very much for your help. I will certainly keep your instructions in mind.
> 
> I have another question. I was reading an extract of a fairytale and it said "once upon a time there were a king and a queen". Shouldn't it be "there was a king and a queen"? - especially if you look at it from your perspective!
> 
> Jake32



You have to keep the 'register' in mind. "There was" would be OK (probably the most common version to pass people's lips) in speech, but "there were" undoubtedly sounds more 'elegant' to most people. If I was writing a fairy tale, I'd use "there were". 

My point was there's nothing necessarily illogical about having 'there is' before a following plural noun. Many languages have the equivalent of 'there is', and even in English there are difficulties: few would say "look, there are the police!" even when they probably say "the police are coming".


----------



## Jake32

Thank you very much. I really appreciate your help on this issue. Now I can sleep better at night. 

This is actually my first visit to this forum, and I must say that I'm rather impressed with the quality of the replies that I've been given. This is a great way to discuss grammatical difficulties that one might encounter during the day. I'm sure that I will "knock on your door" again in the near future. If that's ok with you, of course!

Thanks again for everything. Now it's time for me to hit the "sack".

Best regards Jake32.


----------



## KatrinaIan

One note -- there is/there are can be used with a combination of objects -- in this case, it is the first object mentioned whic determines if it will be is or are. Here is an example of what I mean:
There is a table and 4 chairs.
or the same idea:
There are 4 chairs and a table.
Hope this helps.
KatrinaIan


----------



## mplsray

Ratona said:


> We say "there are people" because the noun implies a plural (more than one person)
> 
> When speaking we often use there's + plural because we are lazy and there is not a shorter form of "there are"


 
Economy of effort is not the same as laziness, which is a moral failure.

There _is_ another short form of _there are,_ and it is likely the reason that people say _there's_ (not _there is_) as one of the short forms of _there are._ The other short form of _there are_ is _there're._ I expect that it was a reaction against the rather strange _there're_ that led people to substitute _there's._ This is reminiscent of the rejection of the question tag _amn't I?_ in favor of _aren't I?_ And like that construction, _there's_ used with a plural subject is indeed used in speech by many standard speakers, including me.


----------



## barbaria

*There's + plural*: wrong grammatically.


----------



## mplsray

barbaria said:


> *There's + plural*: wrong grammatically.


 
But right idiomatically, at least in informal standard usage, whether spoken or written.

The Usage Panel of the current edition of the _American Heritage Dictionary_ tends to be more conservative than I am on English usage. But even they accept some usages of _there's_ followed by a plural subject.


----------



## Jake32

Thanks to all of you for helping me out on this one. This is a great forum. I hope to get the chance to discuss grammatical issues with you guys again in the future. 

Take care!

Best regards 
Jake32


----------



## ebreshea

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> You have to keep the 'register' in mind. "There was" would be OK (probably the most common version to pass people's lips) in speech, but "there were" undoubtedly sounds more 'elegant' to most people. If I was writing a fairy tale, I'd use "there were".
> 
> My point was there's nothing necessarily illogical about having 'there is' before a following plural noun. Many languages have the equivalent of 'there is', and even in English there are difficulties: few would say "look, there are the police!" even when they probably say "the police are coming".



Wow this thread is really old.  I hope I can clear it up though if anyone stumbles upon this like I did.  

I would have to disagree with you gwrth.  This is my first visit to this site, I hope you don't mind my input.

In order for "were" or "are" to make sense, it must be followed by a plural noun.  What's special about using "and" is you imply connecting the beginning of the sentence to whatever follows the "and".  It's up to the reader/listener to determine which parts of the sentence you're connecting.  This might sound confusing, let me give an example:

"Once upon a time there was a king and a queen."
Translates to: "Once upon a time there was a king and there was a queen."

or
"There is a book and a pencil on the table."
Translates to: "There is a book and there is a pencil on the table."

Notice that even though there are multiple subjects, each noun is singular.  You wouldn't say "There are a book on the table", any more than you would say "There are a book and a pencil on the table".  As a native english speaker, you can usually tell when these just don't sound right.  Here's another example:

"I am a lover and a poet"
NOT
"I are a lover and a poet"

Hope this helps somebody, if anyone ever reads it


----------



## ali7772016

*<Thread merged with an earlier thread. Nat, Moderator>

There …………water, tea ,orange juice and coffee.
(a) are
(b) is
I think both of them are OK
What about you?*


----------



## Barque

Only "is" is correct. I'll let someone else explain why.


----------



## natkretep

I think _are_ is theoretically possible because 'water, tea, orange juice and coffee' constitutes four items and is logically plural.

However, there is a tendency is speech to use _there's_ regardless of number. If someone was offering me a drink, I can only imagine _there's_ being used. 'What would you like? There's water, tea, orange juice and coffee.'


----------



## ali7772016

so great,thanks


----------



## Mattterhorn

Added to this thread. Nat, Moderator
Hello
I’m watching the German series Dark dubbed into English and I’ve heard the sentence “there is lots of other children there”
I think it should say “there are”, shouldn’t it?
I wonder if this is common even if it is ungrammatical, or maybe I got my grammar all wrong.
Could anybody clarify this?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## grassy

It's common, especially with the contraction: _there's lots of other children there_.


----------



## entangledbank

It's normal with the contraction, as grassy says, but sounds wrong as two words _there is_.


----------



## Andygc

Mattterhorn said:


> I think it should say “there are”, shouldn’t it?


Yes. You are right, it is wrong, "lots" is plural. "There's" is a red herring; it is an entirely standard but illogical contraction that can mean "there are".


----------



## billj

You are right.

For agreement purposes, "there" takes on the number of the displaced subject. In _There are lots of other children there_, "children" is plural, so it follows that the verb should be the plural "are".

As previously mentioned, in present tense declaratives with reduced "is", many speakers always treat "there" as singular: they say _There’s lots of other children there._


----------



## Mattterhorn

Actually, they say it contracted. I didn’t think it made any difference.


----------

