Agreement in Expletive and Presentational Clauses

You know from syntax/existential-sentences that Icelandic builds there is / there are clauses with the dummy það and an indefinite noun, and that the verb is plural when the noun is plural. This page takes that fact apart and asks the question a C1 learner should ask: what exactly is the verb agreeing with, and why? The answer is not obvious from the surface, because the visible first element — það — is grammatically singular, yet the verb can be plural. The verb is reaching past the expletive to a lower noun, the associate, and agreeing with it. Once you see that this "skipping" of the dummy subject is the same mechanism that lets a quirky-subject verb agree with its low nominative object, two phenomena that look unrelated collapse into one. (For the construction's two-subject structure and the Transitive Expletive, see complex/expletive-and-transitive-expletive; for agreement oddities generally, complex/agreement-subtleties.)

The associate controls agreement, not the expletive

In a presentational clause the finite verb agrees in number (and person) with the associate — the post-verbal nominative noun that names what is being presented — and never with það. The expletive is grammatically third-person neuter singular, so if it controlled agreement every such clause would have a singular verb. It does not. Watch the verb track the associate:

The diagnostic is the minimal contrast between the last two. Það *voru margir (plural verb, plural associate) versus Það stóð maður (singular verb, singular associate): the only thing that moved the verb between singular and plural was the *associate, while það sat unchanged at the front in both. So the agreement controller is unambiguously the lower noun. Það is a placeholder occupying the subject slot for word-order reasons (Icelandic is V2 and the prefield must be filled); it carries no number features that the verb cares about.

The associate is nominative

A second fact follows from the first and is just as important: the associate is in the nominative case. This is not a coincidence — it is why it can control agreement. In Icelandic (as generally), the finite verb agrees with a nominative argument; the associate is the nominative element the verb finds when it looks past the expletive. So in Það komu þrír menn, the phrase þrír menn is nominative (þrír, nom. masc. pl., not accusative þrjá; menn, nom., not the dative mönnum). The associate is, in effect, the real nominative subject of the clause — it has just stayed low while það holds the high slot.

The vanta example is the instructive one, so dwell on it. vanta "lack, be missing" assigns accusative to its single argument — mig vantar peninga "I lack money." In a presentational Það vantar þrjár skrúfur, the argument þrjár skrúfur is therefore accusative, not nominative. With no nominative anywhere in the clause, the verb has nothing to agree with and falls back to default third-person singular vantar — even though "three screws" is plural. Compare Það komu þrír menn, where koma lets its argument be nominative, the verb finds it, and agreement is plural. So whether the verb agrees at all depends on whether there is a nominative associate; the case of the associate is the deciding factor, and it is set by the lower verb, not by the expletive.

Why English speakers get this wrong

English there-clauses have a notorious weak spot exactly here. Colloquial English happily says "There's three men outside" with a singular 's — agreement with the dummy there rather than with the associate. Prescriptive English wants "there are three men," but the singular is everywhere in speech, so English speakers carry a real instinct to leave the verb singular and matched to the dummy. Transferred to Icelandic, that instinct produces \Það kom þrír menn — a clear error. Icelandic does *not tolerate the colloquial singular: the verb must reach past það to the associate, giving plural komu. The cure is to ignore það entirely when choosing the verb form and look only at the associate's number — and, before that, at the associate's case, to know whether there is a nominative to agree with at all.

The unifying insight: this is the same agreement as with quirky subjects

Here is the C1 payoff that competitors miss. The "skipping" you see in expletive clauses — the verb ignoring the high element and agreeing with a low nominative — is the very same mechanism that operates in quirky-subject clauses. Recall a dative-subject verb like líka "like" or leiðast "be bored": the subject is a quirky dative (mér), and the theme is a nominative that sits lower. The verb agrees not with the dative subject but with the low nominative theme — exactly the long-distance reach we just saw past það.

Set the two side by side. In Mér líka þessir skór, the high subject position is filled by the dative mér, which cannot control agreement (it isn't nominative), so the verb reaches down to the nominative þessir skór and goes plural. In Það komu þrír menn, the high subject position is filled by the expletive það, which cannot control agreement either (it carries no number for the verb), so the verb reaches down to the nominative þrír menn and goes plural. The high element differs — a quirky dative in one, a dummy in the other — but in both the verb bypasses a non-agreeing high subject and agrees with the low nominative. That is one rule: the finite verb agrees with the nominative argument, wherever it sits. Seeing the expletive associate and the quirky theme as two faces of the same long-distance agreement is precisely the kind of unification that turns a list of facts into understanding.

A subtle point: agreement can weaken at a distance

Honesty requires a caveat. With a clearly nominative plural associate, full plural agreement (Það komu þrír menn) is the norm and the safe target. But Icelandic does show some variation when agreement reaches across intervening material or when the associate is a quantified or coordinated phrase — speakers sometimes accept (or even prefer) default singular in marginal cases, and judgements can differ. This is a genuine grey area in the syntax literature, not a clean rule. For the cases this page drills — Það komu þrír menn, Það voru margir, Það hafa margir kvartað — the plural is required and uncontroversial; treat those as fixed, and be aware that at the edges (heavy, distant, or unusual associates) native judgements soften.

Common Mistakes

The signature English-transfer error: agreeing with the dummy (as in colloquial "there's three men") instead of with the associate.

það is singular, but it never controls the verb; margir möguleikar is plural, so the verb is plural eru.

No nominative in the clause means no agreement; the verb defaults to singular. Don't pluralise a verb whose argument is accusative.

The associate is the (low) nominative subject; it takes nominative form, and that is exactly why the verb can agree with it.

In a compound tense it is still the associate that the finite auxiliary agrees with — plural margir → plural hafa.

Key Takeaways

• The finite verb in an expletive/presentational clause agrees with the associate (the post-verbal nominative noun), never with það: Það komu þrír menn (pl.), Það stóð maður (sg.).
• The expletive það is grammatically singular and a pure placeholder; it carries no features the verb agrees with. The verb reaches past it.
• Agreement needs a nominative associate. Verbs that present a nominative (koma, vera, sitja) agree with it; quirky verbs that assign accusative/dative (vanta) leave no nominative, so the verb stays default singular (Það vantar þrjár skrúfur — singular verb, plural object).
• The unifying insight: this "skip the high element, agree with the low nominative" is the same mechanism as quirky-subject agreement (Mér líka þessir skór — plural verb agreeing with the low nominative theme). One rule: the verb agrees with the nominative argument, wherever it sits.
• English speakers transfer colloquial "there's three men" and wrongly leave the verb singular; the fix is to ignore það and read the associate's number — after checking its case.