usage - Can altering the syntax of a sentence, without in any way changing the diction used in describing the subject itself, change the subject's number?

There have been debates raging both here and on ELL about this, but the question has, to this point, been focused solely on expletive constructions with compound subjects. This is not intended to ask that very same question.

I'd like to clarify that I'm asking about a much broader range of constructions, and, more specifically, the nature of subjects themselves; and that I'm strongly questioning that the tenet of basic Subject-Verb agreement is variable and therefore not applicable to all sentence constructions.

In other words, I'm asking: how, if ever, can a plural subject be considered or be treated as a singular subject; how can a subject's number vary without rephrasing subject itself; and while there is room for variation in number with mass and/or collective nouns, how can this variation occur with ordinary, countable nouns?

To keep all things parallel, I'm both excluding compound subjects that, separately, agree in number and restricting this to only compound subjects joined by and (or as well as, along with, etc.).

I'm making this distinction to rule out examples that could be based on elision--e.g., there's a bat and there's a ball on the table could potentially be elided to there's a bat and ball on the table.

In each of the following examples, the subject is exactly the same and is plural, which to me suggests that, in each and every set, only 2 and 3 can be technically correct (i.e., in formal English). I think that most would regard the fourth option to be completely incorrect in all examples. And I know that many would say that, in the first (i.e. expletive) set, number one could also be correct. That particular line of reasoning is what I'm inquiring about.

Here are the expletive possibilities I'm starting with:

1. There is a bat, three balls, and a glove on the table.





2. There are a bat, three balls, and a glove on the table.




3. There are three balls, a bat, and a glove on the table.




4. There is three balls, a bat, and a glove on the table.

Active voice:

1. A bat, three balls, and a glove is on the table.


2. A bat, three balls, and a glove are on the table.



3. A bat, a glove, and three balls are on the table.


4. A bat, a glove, and three balls is on the table.

Inverted sentences:

1. On the table is a bat, three balls, and a glove.


2. On the table are a bat, three balls, and a glove.


3. On the table are three balls, a bat, and a glove.



4. On the table is three balls, a bat, and a glove.

Passive voice: (note: As Peter Shor correctly indicates, is lain is not a passive construction.) I specifically used to lie incorrectly intentionally because it's closer to my other sentences semantically. I meant to say The items are/have been lying on the table, rather than The items are/were laid on the table. While the latter, in all bold type is technically the proper passive construction, the former is a closer match to the thoughts being expressed in the other examples:

1. On the table is lain a bat, three balls, and a glove. On the table is laid a bat, three balls, and a glove.


2. On the table are lain a bat, three balls, and a glove. On the table have a bat, three balls, and a glove been laid.


3. On the table are lain three balls, a bat, and a glove. On the table were laid a bat, three balls, and a glove.


4. On the table is lain/is lying three balls, a bat, and a glove. On the table was laid a bat, three balls, and a glove.

Interrogatives using Subject-Auxiliary inversion:

1. Is a bat, three balls, and a glove [they] there on the table?


2. Are a bat, three balls, and a glove [they] there on the table?


3. Are three balls, a bat, and a glove [they] there on the table?


4. Is three balls, a bat, and a glove [they] there on the table?

I have fixed these questions to indicate the way in which there functions in expletives and to demonstrate the actual subject based on the Subject-Auxiliary inversion used to form questions.

In all of these examples, the subject is not at all changed, and in only one set (passive) was it necessary for me to change the verb. In fact, in all but the passive set, I've done nothing but remove there from the sentence.

I've always been instructed that while revising the sentence so that the item in the list nearest the verb is in agreement with the verb is preferred, it's perfectly fine to say A bat, three balls (-or- a ball), and a glove are on the table.

Is there something, that I am perhaps missing, that makes the first in each set acceptable? Any source(s) that indicate that syntax dictates number would be particularly appreciated.

Answer

The easy answer is, no. None of the first sentences are correct, except for the first sentence in the first set.

This I have seen and heard regularly. The rest of the sets, numbers 2 and 3 are correct.

Edited: 11 December, 9:25pm EST

I have searched and searched, but have not found a single source that will allow for any wiggle room under the Most High Law of Subject-Verb Agreement. There is never considered a subject, so the subject is, of course, the collection of objects on the table, and regardless of how they are listed, it is a plural subject. I have no grammatical foot to stand on, hence Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation applies.

However, in usage, I will plead my case to Psycholinguistics, wherein research has generated theories in abundance about the architecture and mechanisms of sentence comprehension. At what point in reading does information become available to the reader? Issues such as "modular" versus "interactive" processing have caused heated theoretical rifts in the field.

Sentences are read in separate modules with which the reader interacts. but which have limited interaction with each other. While I generally hold to an interactive theory of sentence processing, in this case I am admitting that the modules are not playing well together at all. In an effort to avoid tedious squabbling, one grabs hold of the first module and deals with its behavior, whilst allowing the others to run amok. Admittedly this is poor parenting on the whole, but what's a person to do? One can listen to the cacophony only so long before becoming overwhelmed.

I place some of the blame on the misbehaving modules. Perhaps it is genetic, as a module does not come into a sentence as a tabula rasa. If the modules would cooperate and line up nicely, there would be little problem.

I summarize that the allocation of attention and the misbehavior of the modules makes this an impossible situation, one that defies the Most High Law. I throw myself on the mercy of the Court.

John Q Public is the Judge.