there/it was (cold)

< Previous | Next >
Status
Not open for further replies.

PaulQ

Senior Member
UK
English - England
There is a dog in the garden.
There are two dogs in the garden.

A dog is in the garden.
Two dogs are in the garden.

A dog is, there, in the garden.
Two dogs are, there, in the garden.
There" refers to "in the garden". "There" is location. And this makes "there" a pronoun.
Quite impossible. Pronouns do not have modifiers as referents.

If "there" refers to"in the garden" and "in the garden" is a prepositional modifier (in this case adjectival), how could this work?
 
  • PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    As it is an adverb, [there] cannot serve as a subject, which accounts for
    There is a dog in the garden.
    There are two dogs in the garden.
    (I suppose there might be some strange grammar that claims that "in the garden" is both singlar and plural.)
     

    yakor

    Senior Member
    Russian
    That is correct. They are not the same thing.
    Please, see #26 and say the difference between them (a terrible cold on the street and the cold on the street)

    We would be much more likely to say "There was a strong, terrible [those adjectives are not really idiomatic "cold" is usually qualified by a relative clause or an adjunct] coldness (in the street)."
    "cold" is usually qualified by a relative clause or an adjunct". What do you mean?
     

    Steven David

    Senior Member
    English Standard American
    There is a dog in the garden.
    There are two dogs in the garden.

    A dog is in the garden.
    Two dogs are in the garden.

    A dog is, there, in the garden.
    Two dogs are, there, in the garden.

    "There" refers to "in the garden". "There" is location. And this makes "there" a pronoun.

    More specifically, "there" refers to some specific place that is in the garden. "There" is a location, and this makes "there" a pronoun, not an adverb.

    ____________

    There is an adverb.
    Where? I don't see an adverb.
    It's right there.
    Where?
    It's in the garden.
    How did an adverb get in the garden?
    Someone must have put it there.
     

    yakor

    Senior Member
    Russian
    If you wanted to point the location, you would add another 'there' and say "There was a bike over there", wouldn't you?
    Sometimes you wanted to point the location, but can't, can you, because the location could be too far to say "over there"?
    -Where there you were two days ago?
    -I don't know, but I remember there was a bike.
    -Where?
    -There where I was.

    Yakor
    'It was a fine day' has nothing to do with 'It was cold on that day'.
    The day of the weak has nothing to do with the state of the weather, it is true.
     

    grassy

    Senior Member
    Polish
    More specifically, "there" refers to some specific place that is in the garden.
    We've been here before, Steve:
    The word "there" refers to, or points to, a place in the cellar where a bike is located. Or, in other words, the word "there" refers to a location in the cellar.
    There is a bike in the cellar.
    So where is the bike located in the cellar, Steven? Behind a bag of potatoes or next to grandpa's old saxophone?
     

    Steven David

    Senior Member
    English Standard American
    I'm having trouble with this :confused: Am I missing some point or are you saying these are good English?

    What would be bad about them?

    Two dogs are, over there, in the garden.

    Both "there" and "over there" refer to some specific place in the garden.

    In both cases, "there" is a pronoun. And in the above sentence, we can see that "there" is the object of the preposition "over". "There" is not an adverb.

    English has, of course, flexible word order sometimes. There is fronting. And English is not always an SVO language 100% of the time, most of the time, yes, but not all the time.

    Two dogs are in the garden.

    Two dogs are, there, in the garden.

    There are two dogs in the garden.

    There, in the garden, are two dogs.

    In the garden are two dogs.

    In the garden, there, are two dogs.

    Again, with "there" referring to some specific place in the garden, we can see that "there" is optional. It is, in effect, extra information in a grammatical sense. This is why it can come in the middle of the sentence. And then it is set off with commas.

    And, again, "there" refers to some specific place in the garden.

    There are two dogs.
    Two dogs are there.

    In the above the sentences, of course, "there" refers to some specific place that the speaker is pointing, which is, also, to say "there" as opposed to "here" where the speaker is located.
     
    Last edited:

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    What would be bad about them?

    Two dogs are, over there, in the garden.

    Both "there" and "over there" refer to some specific place in the garden.

    In both cases, "there" is a pronoun. And in the above sentence, we can see that "there" is the object of the preposition "over". "There" is not an adverb.

    English has, of course, flexible word order sometimes. There is fronting. And English is not always an SVO language 100% of the time, most of the time, yes, but not all the time.

    Two dogs are in the garden.

    Two dogs are, there, in the garden.

    There are two dogs in the garden.

    There, in the garden, are two dogs.

    In the garden are two dogs.

    In the garden, there, are two dogs.

    Again, with "there" referring to some specific place in the garden, we can see that "there" is optional. It is, in effect, extra information in a grammatical sense. This is why it can come in the middle of the sentence. And then it is set off with commas.
    I would absolutely never dream of writing "Two dogs are, there, in the garden." unless perhaps the first comma was removed. I might use them in a transcript and indicate the speaker was pointing to a location when saying "there", but with that simultaneous pointing, the listener already knows they are in the garden :eek: . Would you ever write "Two dogs are, in the garden."?
    For me, "There are two dogs in the garden." ALWAYS means two dogs exist in the garden but with no specific additional location communicated (the existential "There is/are").
     

    Steven David

    Senior Member
    English Standard American
    I would absolutely never dream of writing "Two dogs are, there, in the garden." unless perhaps the first comma was removed. I might use them in a transcript and indicate the speaker was pointing to a location when saying "there", but with that simultaneous pointing, the listener already knows they are in the garden :eek: . Would you ever write "Two dogs are, in the garden."?
    For me, "There are two dogs in the garden." ALWAYS means two dogs exist in the garden but with no specific additional location communicated (the existential "There is/are").

    I mean to say that, because "there" is a location, and, in effect, additional information in a grammatical sense, there are a number of word order possibilities. Some possibilities are not very common, and some of them are more common.

    _______________

    Yes, two dogs exist in the garden. However, they are in some specific place in the garden. And that specific place is "there". Where is "there"? "There" is in the garden.

    "There are two dogs in the garden."

    The above sentence is the most typical and usual word order.

    However, this sentence is really fronted. It's fronted because "there" is a location, and it's at the beginning of the sentence. This is not the usual word order for English. It is the usual word order for that type of sentence, however.

    This is the usual word order for English, of course.

    Two dogs are in the garden.

    Two dogs are there in the garden.

    In the above sentence, "there" is after the verb, which is the usual place for words that refer to location and time.

    Again, the following sentence is fronted with location, "there".

    There are two dogs in the garden.

    Two dogs are there. < Normal word order for English SVO or SVC.

    SVC - Subject Verb Complement

    There are two dogs in the garden. < This is the usual word order for this sentence. However, it is not the usual word order for English in general.

    CVSC - PP - Complement Verb Subject Complement - Prepositional Phrase

    At the very least, there's more than one way of understanding this. At the most, there is the way most people often understand this, and then there's the way it really is.
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    I mean to say that, because "there" is a location, and, in effect, additional information in a grammatical sense, there are a number of word order possibilities. Some possibilities are not very common, and some of them are more common.

    _______________

    Yes, two dogs exist in the garden. However, they are in some specific place in the garden. And that specific place is "there". Where is "there"? "There" is in the garden.

    "There are two dogs in the garden."

    The above sentence is the most typical and usual word order.

    However, this sentence is really fronted. It's fronted because "there" is a location, and it's at the beginning of the sentence. This is not the usual word order for English. It is the usual word order for that type of sentence, however.

    This is the usual word order for English, of course.

    Two dogs are in the garden.

    Two dogs are there in the garden.

    In the above sentence, "there" is after the verb, which is the usual place for words that refer to location and time.

    Again, the following sentence is fronted with location, "there".

    There are two dogs in the garden.

    Two dogs are there. < Normal word order for English SVO or SVC.

    SVC - Subject Verb Complement

    There are two dogs in the garden. < This is the usual word order for this sentence. However, it is not the usual word order for English in general.

    CVSC - PP - Complement Verb Subject Complement - Prepositional Phrase

    At the very least, there's more than one way of understanding this. At the most, there is the way most people often understand this, and then there's the way it really is.
    OK, I think you ignored my issue about existential (as very distinct from a “fronted” location) and location use of there, but I won’t belabour the point again.
     

    Steven David

    Senior Member
    English Standard American
    OK, I think you ignored my issue about existential (as very distinct from a “fronted” location) and location use of there, but I won’t belabour the point again.

    I might have overlooked it but not on purpose. To me, "there" is a location. "There" tells us that something exists, and, in this way, it is existential there. However, existential there is also a location. In other words, I (and others) don't see any difference between the two. They're the same. With "there", or existential there, at the beginning of a sentence, "there" fronts a sentence, and it affects the rest of the word order in a sentence.

    Starting a sentence with "there" causes the subject and the verb to change places.

    There are two dogs in the garden.

    (not fronted: Two dogs are in the garden.)

    "Two dogs" is the subject in the above two sentences.

    A comma makes a difference.

    There, two dogs are in the garden.

    The same "there" is in the above two sentences.

    Here are two dogs in the garden.

    Would you say there's a such thing as "existential here"? It's a question that occurs to me, though I can't say I've ever heard the term.
     
    Last edited:

    yakor

    Senior Member
    Russian
    my mistake. I deleted it. I quoted the post#96 of David's
    There are two dogs in the garden.

    "There", more specifically, refers to a place in the garden. No, "there" is not an adverb.

    There is a pronoun, and "there" refers to a location.
    "There" is in the garden and "dogs" are in the garden. According to your point of view it would be possible to say
    -"There" with dogs is in the garden.
    -There and dogs are in the garden.))(two subjects(nouns) are in the garden)
    There Is an adverb. There=in the garden or somewhere there.
    There are dogs in the garden. (existential "there"=on the area (in any place) of the garden)
    One couldn't just say "there are dogs" without mentioning some place anyhow.
    -Where are the dogs, in the garden, of course?
    -Yes, they are there. (there is an adverb, not the pronoun).
     

    Steven David

    Senior Member
    English Standard American
    > One couldn't just say "there are dogs" without mentioning some place anyhow. <

    I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that particular type of sentence.

    It certainly is possible, and someone could say something like that. It's a question of what information is understood.

    We had better not go back into that forest.

    Why not?

    There are wolves.

    Yes, there are many things.

    Do you hear that?

    Yes, they are howling.

    There are wolves. Yes, there are.
     

    yakor

    Senior Member
    Russian
    There are two dogs in the garden.

    "There", more specifically, refers to a place in the garden. No, "there" is not an adverb.
    If the phrase(prepositional phrase) refers to a place then this phrase is an adverbial. If one single word refers to a place then this single word is an pure adverb.
     

    SevenDays

    Senior Member
    Spanish/AE
    This thread is all over the place, so apologies if this has been stated already. The "there" in

    There is a dog in the garden

    plays a syntactic function (that of "subject"). This "there" is added by a syntactic transformation process, which takes a sentence such as

    A dog is in the garden

    and produces:

    is a dog in the garden

    by doing subject-auxiliary verb inversion. However, this is ungrammatical (auxiliary "is" ends up with no subject), and so syntactic there is added to restore grammaticality (this "syntactic there" is also know as "dummy there"):

    There is a dog in the garden

    A dog is in the garden
    and There is a dog in the garden have the same meaning, but the "There" construction is generally preferred; at the very least, it's more expressive. (Because "there" also carries a general sense of existence, some call it "existential there").

    Crucially, this "there" is unstressed, and is therefore different from the locative adverb "there," which can be stressed. You can have both in the same sentence:

    There is a dog there in the garden

    The first "there" is unstressed (syntactic "there," marking the subject of the auxiliary).
    The second "there" is stressed (locative adverb "there").

    Because the first "there" is unstressed, it can be contracted; that way, we quickly get to the meaningful part (the noun phrase "a dog"): There's a dog there in the garden.

    Back to There is a dog in the garden. I call "there" syntactic there (or dummy there) for its syntactic function ("subject") and because the word "there" itself has no meaning (other than a general sense of existence). It should be noted, however, that some call this "there" a pronoun precisely because it functions as "subject." But this has problems; for example, because syntactic there lacks meaning, we can't say There and dogs are in the garden. In actuality,"There" is added when the transformation process described above leaves "is" without a subject.

    By the way, I wouldn't be surprise if in There is a dog there in the garden, some would call the second "there" an intransitive preposition rather than a (locative) adverb.

    You gotta lot terminology.
     

    Steven David

    Senior Member
    English Standard American
    If the phrase(prepositional phrase) refers to a place then this phrase is an adverbial. If one single word refers to a place then this single word is an pure adverb.

    In many other people's thinking, yes. But not in my thinking and not in the thinking of others, as well.

    Prepositional phrases are not "adverbials".

    Prepositional phrases, for the most part, tell us where and when something exists in space and time.

    __________

    "There" is an adverb, anyway, "There"couldn't be wolves.
    There are many things that are not possible to get.
    "There" is an adverb too? meaning "in the reality"

    No, "there" is not an adverb. "There" is always a location, and "there" always refers to a location. This makes "there" a pronoun.

    This is really another thread or discussion. However, we have to define "adverb". I don't work from the same definition of adverb that many other people do. This is not "my definition", by the way. It's other people's definition, as well.
     

    yakor

    Senior Member
    Russian
    These differences apply according to whether the “thing” or the existential there is the grammatical subject of the verb:

    1)The bike is in the cellar :tick: Is it? No it isn’t!
    2)A bike is in the cellar :thumbsdown: Is it? No it isn’t!
    3)There is a bike in the cellar :thumbsup: Is there? No there isn’t!
    What do you mean out here by
    These differences apply according to whether the “thing” or the existential there is the grammatical subject of the verb:
    Why is the second sentence is wrong?
    And why do you use the question "is it?" instead of "isn't it?"
     

    yakor

    Senior Member
    Russian
    In many other people's thinking, yes. But not in my thinking and not in the thinking of others, as well.

    Prepositional phrases are not "adverbials".

    Prepositional phrases, for the most part, tell us where and when something exists in space and time.
    First, i didn't say that every prepositional phrase is an adverb. It could be an adjectival too.
    "Prepositional phrases, for the most part, tell us where and when something exists in space and time." Yes it is so. It is the adverbial or the adjectival phrase.
     

    yakor

    Senior Member
    Russian
    No, "there" is not an adverb. "There" is always a location, and "there" always refers to a location. This makes "there" a pronoun.
    To point the location is one of the function of the adverb.
    I never heard that the pronoun could be the adverb by itself.
     

    Steven David

    Senior Member
    English Standard American
    First, i didn't say that every prepositional phrase is an adverb. It could be an adjectival too.
    "Prepositional phrases, for the most part, tell us where and when something exists in space and time." Yes it is so. It is the adverbial or the adjectival phrase.
    1) I know that you didn't say that. And I did not mean to say that this is what you said. However, this calls to mind a question. How do you distinguish between prepositional phrases that are adverbial and not adverbial?

    What I mean to say is that prepositional phrases that tell us location and time are never adverbial.

    _________________

    To point the location is one of the function of the adverb.
    I never heard that the pronoun could be the adverb by itself.
    1) That's what many people say, but it's not what all people say. And I disagree with what many people say.

    Adverbs do not tell us location and time. Location phrases and time phrases tell us location and time. Location words and time words tell us location and time. These are all nouns or noun phrases, not adverbs. Or some are prepositional phrases.

    2) Yes, I agree. A pronoun cannot be an adverb. I have not heard of that either.

    __________

    This thread is all over the place, so apologies if this has been stated already. The "there" in

    There is a dog in the garden

    plays a syntactic function (that of "subject"). This "there" is added by a syntactic transformation process, which takes a sentence such as

    A dog is in the garden

    and produces:

    is a dog in the garden

    by doing subject-auxiliary verb inversion. However, this is ungrammatical (auxiliary "is" ends up with no subject), and so syntactic there is added to restore grammaticality (this "syntactic there" is also know as "dummy there"):

    There is a dog in the garden
    I understand and know what you mean. However, I have a couple questions, and I'm just curious what you would say.

    Would you consider that the verb "is" keeps its subject, which is "a dog"?And that the inversion relies on "there" coming at the front of the sentence? Without "there", we have no inversion, and the inversion cannot exist without "there" unless, of course, we want to send this to be a question.

    After these questions, I would then say, once again, that "a dog" is the subject of the sentence in all cases with or without "there" and regardless of where "there" is located in the sentence.

    The ideas of "dummy subject" and "syntactic there" go with the traditional, structural, Latin language based approach to analyzing and explaining English grammar.
     
    Last edited:

    Forero

    Senior Member
    From the OED:
    Grammatically, there is no difference between “There comes the train!” and “There comes a time when, etc.”; but, while in the former there is demonstrative and stressed, in the latter it has been reduced to a mere anticipative element occupying the place of the subject which comes later.
    I have to disagree with this. The grammar is obviously different:

    Does there come a time when ...?:tick:
    Does there come the train?
    :cross:

    Existential there is not about location:

    It was long ago that there lived a man named Rasputin.
    It is now that there lives a man named Vladimir Putin.


    And its purpose is not always to delay the "real subject":

    It was many and many a year ago,
    in a kingdom by the sea,
    That a maiden there lived whom you may know ....
    [Edgar Allan Poe]
     

    SevenDays

    Senior Member
    Spanish/AE
    I understand and know what you mean. However, I have a couple questions, and I'm just curious what you would say.

    Would you consider that the verb "is" keeps its subject, which is "a dog"?And that the inversion relies on "there" coming at the front of the sentence? Without "there", we have no inversion, and the inversion cannot exist without "there".

    After these questions, I would then say, once again, that "a dog" is the subject of the sentence in all cases with or without "there" and regardless of where "there" is located in the sentence.

    The ideas of "dummy subject" and "syntactic there" go with the traditional, structural, Latin language based approach to analyzing and explaining English grammar.
    The verb "be" is an auxiliary verb, not a lexical verb. The implication of this is that "be" doesn't assign thematic/semantic roles, such as "subject." "Be" introduces grammatical notions, such as tense and grammatical person, that are needed when a predicate isn't a lexical verb (lexical verb = verb with intrinsic meaning). So, in She happy, the predicate is an adjective, but syntax rejects this, so we need to add auxiliary "be" to indicate tense and third person: She is happy. With an auxiliary in place, we can do inversion and ask a question: Is she happy? This is crucial. Of course, I can add another verb to "She happy" (She seems happy), but I can't do inversion and ask a question, at least not in modern English (Seems she happy?) because "seems" is not an auxiliary verb.

    Auxiliary "be" does other things too; it forms passive constructions (was eaten) and progressive constructions (is eating).

    Now, English is a S-V-C language (Subject-Verb-Complement); it's a linear structure. Whatever appears in the "S" slot gets the tag "subject:" A dog is in the garden (A dog = subject); Behind the couch is where the dog sleeps (Behind the couch = subject). If nothing appears in the "S" slot, syntax demands that you add something to function as subject (i.e., your dummy subject). That's why, if you start with a dog is in the garden and change it to is a dog in the garden, leaving an empty slot to the left of the verb, the addition of "There" as subject becomes a necessity: There is a dog in the garden. And that's not surprising, because "is" doesn't assign a noun phrase such as "a dog" as its subject, inversion or no inversion. Verbs that do assign thematic roles can't do inversion to form questions (A dog plays in the garden ~ Plays a dog in the garden?). As a result, to form a question, we need to introduce an auxiliary verb, in this case auxiliary"do" (Does a dog play in the garden?).

    This is English syntax, not Latin.

    If you still want to call "a dog" subject in There is a dog in the garden, you'd have to call it logical subject or semantic subject (or something along those lines) to differentiate it from the syntactic subject (the "There" introduced by the process known as There insertion).
     

    PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    As a result, to form a question, we need to introduce an auxiliary verb, in this case auxiliary"do" (Does a dog play in the garden?).
    In fact, we do not, and up until about the 15th century, the periphrastic "do" was unknown. Ciurrently, we do do this but that is a convention, that is not universally applicable to all verbs.
    Interesting. That said, I would acknowledge that we live in two different grammar states.
    I may live in yet a third... There may be points to commend others but, for the most part, there is more than a whiff of Procrustes about them. :D
     

    yakor

    Senior Member
    Russian
    1) I know that you didn't say that. And I did not mean to say that this is what you said. However, this calls to mind a question. How do you distinguish between prepositional phrases that are adverbial and not adverbial?

    What I mean to say is that prepositional phrases that tell us location and time are never adverbial.
    The book (which one?)(that is) on the table is not mine.(on the table-the adjectival)
    The book is (lies) (where?) on the table. (on the table)-adverbial.

    _________________
     

    Steven David

    Senior Member
    English Standard American
    The book (which one?)(that is) on the table is not mine.(on the table-the adjectival)
    The book is (lies) (where?) on the table. (on the table)-adverbial.

    _________________

    That's one way of understanding this.

    Here's another.

    The book < Identifies and points to "book" - "the" definite article - A word is either an adjective or not an adjective. Words are not "adjectival". "The" is a determiner. It contributes to identifying a word that comes after it. "The" doesn't describe a word that comes after it.

    The book is "on the table". < Prepositional phrase that tells us location - There is nothing "adverbial" about this.

    __________

    As I said before, this comes down to how someone defines "adverb".
     

    yakor

    Senior Member
    Russian
    1) I know that you didn't say that. And I did not mean to say that this is what you said. However, this calls to mind a question. How do you distinguish between prepositional phrases that are adverbial and not adverbial?

    What I mean to say is that prepositional phrases that tell us location and time are never adverbial.

    _________________



    1) That's what many people say, but it's not what all people say. And I disagree with what many people say.

    Adverbs do not tell us location and time. Location phrases and time phrases tell us location and time. Location words and time words tell us location and time. These are all nouns or noun phrases, not adverbs. Or some are prepositional phrases.
    Prepositional phrases that tell us locational and time - are circumstances. I make difference between adverbs and circumstances.
     

    yakor

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Location words and time words tell us location and time. These are all nouns or noun phrases, not adverbs. Or some are prepositional phrases.
    "on the river" is not a noun phrase. "Noun phrase" is not an adverbial. It could be a subject, object (of the verb or preposition) OR complement. The same to only nouns+ function as an adjectival.
     

    Steven David

    Senior Member
    English Standard American
    "on the river" is not a noun phrase. "Noun phrase" is not an adverbial. It could be a subject, object (of the verb or preposition) OR complement. The same to only nouns+ function as an adjectival.

    That's right. Noun phrases are not adverbial.

    I did not say that prepositional phrases are noun phrases. I would reread my post.

    Back to nouns and noun phrases

    There are location words and location phrases that are noun phrases. And there are time words and time phrases that are also noun phrases.

    A prepositional phrase is just that: a prepositional phrase. Most of the time, prepositional phrases tell us where something is in space or time. However, prepositional phrases do not affect our perception of a verb, an adjective, or an adverb. So prepositional phrases are not adverbial.
     

    DonnyB

    Sixties Mod
    English UK Southern Standard English
    This thread has drifted a long long way from its initial starting point of "there/it was cold" and as a result it now lacks the clear focus needed to produce a useful discussion for our forum. I'm therefore now closing it.

    Thanksd to everyone for their contributions, which I hope Yakor has found useful.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    < Previous | Next >
    Top