The Grammarist has an opinion on this issue, writing that the difference between the two is as follows:
The verb shine has two main definitions: (1) to emit light (intransitive), and (2) to cause to gleam by polishing (transitive). As an intransitive verb (definition 1), shine makes shone in its past-tense, perfect-tense, and past-participle forms. As a transitive verb (definition 2), it makes shined.
He says that the following are incorrect uses:
- But the one that shined the brightest was simply topped with a perfect beurre blanc and a touch of caviar. [The Atlantic]
- What’s more, one of the numbers reflected light differently when Smith’s headlights shined on it. [Winnipeg Free Press]
The following are correct uses:
A 13-year-old boy needed hospital treatment after a laser pen was shone in his eyes in Eastwood. [BBC News]
A return trip to the store shone the light on what I needed: Leeks. [Denver Post]
Shearer doesn’t look like he belongs ensconced in dark-green leather and spit-shined oak . . . [Washington Post]
- They shined the marble. [National Post]
So if the verb is intransitive, you should use shone. If it is transitive, you should use shined. In your examples:
The light shined all throughout the night.
Here, shine is intransitive, since you're not talking about shining the light on something. So it may actually be better to say "the light shone all throughout the night".
In your second example, "He shined the light on the ball throughout the night" this is actually correct because the verb is transitive.
Prescriptivists like the Grammarist would say that no, you can't use shone transitively. However, in the argument that people could still understand a transitive shone, you could use it. It is up to you which side you'd want to take on this.
You may add interaction with negation to your list of restrictions.
The second verb is in the plain form, as is evident when we test with be: We always try and be/*are helpful.
Negation
One property to add to your list of restrictions is interaction with negation.
There is an extensive discussion of try and in Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, where, in addition to some of the restrictions you have already listed, they also note the following:
A negative may precede try and, but if a negative follows try, to is used:
... when you are on your moorings, don't try and get into her—Peter Heaton, Cruising, 1952
Not to try and keep either a diary or careful income tax records —And More by Andy Rooney, 1982
Try not to take her out shopping —nurse quoted in McCall's, March 1971
The second verb is in the plain form
Here is the relevant discussion from CGEL (p. 1302), which includes some other interesting observations.
(b) Try/be sure and V
[32] PLAIN FORM + PLAIN FORM PLAIN PRESENT + PLAIN FORM
i a. Try and not be so touchy. b. We always try and do our best. [try]
ii a. Be sure and lock up. b. [not possible] [be sure]
This is very different, semantically and syntactically, from the ordinary use of and. Note first that, unlike the clausal coordination We always try and we do our best, [ib] does not entail that we do our best. Secondly, this idiomatic construction is syntactically restricted so that and must immediately follow the lexical base try; this means that there can be no inflectional suffix and no adjuncts: She always tries and does her best and We try hard and do our best can only be ordinary coordinations. There are two forms that consist simply of the lexical base: the plain form, as in [ia], and the plain present tense, as in [ib]. But the verb following and is always a plain form, as is evident when we test with be: We always try and be/*are helpful. In spite of the and, therefore, this construction is subordinative, not coordinative: and introduces a non-finite complement of try. And can be replaced by the infinitival marker to, and being slightly more informal than to. Be sure works in the same way as try, except that the lexical base of be is only the plain form, so this time there is no plain present tense matching [ib]: We are always sure and do our best is not possible as an example of this construction (and unlikely as an ordinary coordination). Because the construction is subordinative, the across the board restriction does not apply: This is something [that you must try/be sure and remedy].
Other constructions in which and replaces a possible to
Relevant to your discussion with John Lawler, Webster's Dictionary of English Usage also says that
Quite a few commentators lump try and with other constructions in which and replaces a possible to. Go and is the oldest of these, dating back to the 13th century. It has always been respectable in speech and casual writing... Unlike try and, go and can be inflected, as in these constructions: ... and he went and sat on a stone —Kay Cicellis, Encounter, March 1955... Come and is also old, and equally respectable... Be sure and is also frequently encountered.
There are a few other verbs that turn up with and where to could have been used:
He didn't have to stop and think about his answer—Elmer Davis, But We Were Born Free, 1954
And you can tell your daddy that someday I'll be President of this country. You watch and see —Lyndon B. Johnson, quoted in Sam Houston Johnson,
My Brother Lyndon, 1970
If you want to write, start and write down your thoughts —Leacock 1943
They also mention take and (Homer was courting a second time to get him a good wife and a home-keeper for his children, when he took and fell off the church-house roof —Maristan Chapman, The Happy Mountain, 1928)
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English also mentions up and (He up(ped) and punched me in the nose).
Best Answer
Not only is your second sentence correct, it is the more commonly used.
A question has a weight, it does not have several weights.
Therefore, with multiple questions, each has a (singular) weight.
Therefore, each question may have an equal weight.