# here has/got



## Caesats

Hi everyone
1 .here has a dog
2.here got T virus
I've seen in "here is..." ,"here" is subject. So I wonder whether those two sentences are correct


----------



## tepatria

Neither of your sentences make sense to me. More context would be helpful. We never start a sentence with a period (*.*).


----------



## Caesats

tepatria said:


> Neither of your sentences make sense to me. More context would be helpful. We never start a sentence with a period (*.*).


I often see some structure like＂here is，here are＂，so I think whether it is possible to use other verbs instead of ＂be＂verbs，by the way，the period is not for the sentence，it 's for number。


----------



## sdgraham

You have no sentences at all, caseats - "here" cannot be a subject.

Neither snippet makes any sense to me, either.

As we _*always*_ tell learners, we need full sentences and context.


----------



## Caesats

sdgraham said:


> You have no sentences at all, caseats - "here" cannot be a subject.
> 
> Neither snippet makes any sense to me, either.
> 
> As we _*always*_ tell learners, we need full sentences and context.


I think that's already a sentence


----------



## e2efour

_Here is_ is not a sentence. If you start with these words, you could have _Here is the bus_ or _Here is 20 dollars.
_As pointed out, neither of your sentences makes sense_. _When you write _Here has a dog_, what do you mean?


----------



## sdgraham

Caesats said:


> I think that's already a sentence



You think wrong. If you can't accept our help, why do you ask questions?


----------



## Caesats

e2efour said:


> _Here is_ is not a sentence. If you start with these words, you could have _Here is the bus_ or _Here is 20 dollars.
> _


Do you mean＂here is＂this phrase is not a sentence or all sentences starting with ＂here is ＂ is not a sentence？


----------



## Florentia52

"Here is" -- by itself -- does not constitute a sentence. It requires an object.

Sentences can start with "Here is…"

_Here is one example.

_To get back to your original question, there are few verbs that can follow "here" at the start of a sentence. "Here has a dog" and "Here got T virus" don't work. "To be," as you've seen, can work. These are also possible:

"Here _goes_ nothing" is a set phrase.

"Here _lived_ the bravest woman I ever met" and "Here _stood_ the old church, before it was bombed to rubble during World War II" are a bit literary and poetic, but they are acceptable sentences.


----------



## Caesats

Florentia52 said:


> _Here is one example._
> "Here _goes_ nothing" is a set phrase.


the above one is a sentence，the under one is just a set phrase，so strange


----------



## variegatedfoliage

Come and go can be used in this way:

"Here comes Fred." (He's walking toward us.)

"There goes the bus." (I just missed it.)

Also:

"There you go again!" (You're doing something that annoys me, like complaining.)


----------



## RM1(SS)

Caesats said:


> the above one is a sentence，the under one is just a set phrase，so strange


It's a set phrase that also happens to be a complete sentence with a subject (nothing) and a verb (goes).  The two phrases given in the OP are not sentences; they lack subjects.


----------



## Florentia52

Caesats said:


> the above one is a sentence，the under one is just a set phrase，so strange



"Here goes nothing" is, as RM1 notes, both a set phrase and a complete sentence.


----------



## Caesats

RM1(SS) said:


> The two phrases given in the OP are not sentences; they lack subjects.


If ＂a dog＂and＂T virus＂are the subjects，then they can covert to＂a dog has here＂＂T virus got here＂
So the OP sentences make no sense。Am I right？


----------



## sdgraham

"a dog has here" makes no more sense than the original.

I suspect you might be using the wrong words, i.e. not what you mean.


----------



## Caesats

sdgraham said:


> "a dog has here" makes no more sense than the original.
> 
> I suspect you might be using the wrong words, i.e. not what you mean.


As RM1 said，in ＂here goes nothing＂ nothing is subject，goes is the verb，so the sentence is ＂nothing goes there＂
But In OP，I don't know how you think about it。 That's just the reason why I think it's wrong


----------



## Forero

_Has_ and _got_ are transitive verbs. Each would need a subject and an object. Is "here" supposed to be a subject, or an object?


----------



## Caesats

Forero said:


> _Has_ and _got_ are transitive verbs. Each would need a subject and an object. Is "here" supposed to be a subject, or an object?


If ＂here＂is subject ---I don't know why it 's not correct，because ＂here＂is adverb？，but ＂here＂ could be noun 
If ＂here＂is object---As I said ，convert to another sentence。


----------



## sdgraham

Caesats said:


> but ＂here＂ could be noun



if so, please send us a link to a photo of a 'here' or an explanation of what a "here" might be or how a dog can have one.


----------



## Caesats

sdgraham said:


> if so, please send us a link to a photo of a 'here' or an explanation of what a "here" might be or how a dog can have one.


http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/per...o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=
when here is noun，it means this place
I'm curious whether you say ＂this place has a dog＂，or it should be ＂there is a dog in this place＂


----------



## sdgraham

Now we're getting someplace. In other words, I see where you were mislead. 

Just because you can say "We left from here," or "there is a dog here," that does not mean you can say "here has a dog."

It doesn't work that way.

Despite the Princeton reference, the Cambridge folks list "here" (and "there")  as adverbs in this sort of construction. 

See: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/here

That's far more logical to me than calling "here" a noun.

It seems that you've been trying to say "there is a dog here." 

English is difficult. Good luck.


----------



## Caesats

sdgraham said:


> Now we're getting someplace. In other words, I see where you were mislead.
> 
> Just because you can say "We left from here," or "there is a dog here," that does not mean you can say "here has a


Do you say ＂This place has something＂，something could be anything？
I found my dictionarie list：this place has great potential wealth. This place has got a special name.


----------



## Forero

Please remember to begin each sentence with a capital letter and to end it with a period or other appropriate punctuation mark.





Caesats said:


> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/per...o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=
> When here is a noun, it means this place*.*
> I'm curious whether you say "this place has a dog", or whether it should be "there is a dog in this place"*.*


Yes, you can say "This place has a dog", and "Here has a dog" does make sense with that meaning. "Here" can be a subject, in which case it would be a noun or pronoun, and "a dog" is fine as a direct object.

But if you mean "Here is a dog" or "There is a dog here", say what you mean. Don't expect "Here has a dog" to mean the same thing.

"This place got T virus" sounds nonstandard to me. What do you mean by "Here got T virus"? (I don't even understand "T virus".)





Caesats said:


> Do you say ＂This place has something＂，something could be anything？
> I found my dictionarie list：this place has great potential wealth. This place has got a special name.


"This place has great potential wealth" makes sense, but "Here has great potential wealth" sounds odd to me.

Even when "here" is a noun or pronoun, it is not a perfect synonym for "this place". In particular, "here" as subject is difficult to interpret without context. If you come out with "Here has a dog" without supporting context, expect some strange looks.

Most sentences beginning with "Here is" are using "here" as an adverb, not a noun.


----------



## Caesats

Forero said:


> But if you mean "Here is a dog" or "There is a dog here", say what you mean. Don't expect "Here has a dog" to mean the same thing.
> 
> "This place got T virus" sounds nonstandard to me. What do you mean by "Here got T virus"? (I don't even understand "T virus".)


Why do they mean different things？
＂Here got T virus＂ can not mean ＂This place got T virus＂？


----------



## Florentia52

"Here got T virus" and "This place got T virus" are both grammatically incorrect.

We can guess that "This place got T virus" is supposed to mean "This place has T virus" or "This place received T virus." Those sentences still don't make much logical sense, because viruses are carried by people and animals (not places), but at least the writer's intention is clearer.

"Here got T virus" is so grammatically incorrect that we can't even guess what it's supposed to mean.


----------



## Caesats

Florentia52 said:


> "Here got T virus" is so grammatically incorrect that we can't even guess what it's supposed to mean.


Can you analyze this sentence？which part is not grammatical？


----------



## Florentia52

No, I can't analyze it. It's meaningless. If you can explain what you think it means, we might be able to help you understand why it's wrong. As it stands, it's just four words that don't belong together -- or two words and a phrase, although I would hyphenate "T-virus."


----------



## Caesats

Florentia52 said:


> No, I can't analyze it. It's meaningless. If you can explain what you think it means, we might be able to help you understand why it's wrong. As it stands, it's just four words that don't belong together -- or two words and a phrase, although I would hyphenate "T-virus."


I think ＂here＂ in that sentence is a noun，and means ＂this place＂。Is this wrong？


----------



## Forero

Caesats said:


> Why do they mean different things？
> "Here got T virus" cannot mean "This place got T virus"?


I just looked up "T virus", and I think it should probably be "the T virus", but I still don't know what you mean by "this place got".

Do you mean "got", past tense of "get"? Do you mean "caught", "has got", "is experiencing an outbreak of" or what?


----------



## Florentia52

No, I agree with sdgraham that "here" is an adverb in this type of construction. And, as you have been told repeatedly in this thread, in a sentence like this, there are only a few verbs that can follow "here." "Get/got" is not one of them.

I can not think of any grammatically correct sentence in English that would begin "Here got.."


----------



## Andygc

Caesats. "Here" can be a noun, but that doesn't mean that "here" can act in the same way as any other noun. Not all nouns can have a dog. In almost every sentence in which it is used, "here" is an adverb, not a noun.

"You would rather not leave here till to-morrow morning." "Here" is a noun. It means "this place".
"There is a dog here." "Here" is an adverb. It means "*in* this place" Note the difference in meaning.
"Here is a dog." "Here" is an adverb. It means "in this place".
"There is a dog in this place." "In this place" is an adverbial phrase. This place does not have a dog, it is where the dog is.

"A dog has here" and "Here has a dog" are wrong because we never use "here" as a pronoun.

"A dog has a ball" -> "A dog has it".
"A dog has this kennel" -> ("A dog has this place") -> "A dog has here" 
"This police station has a dog"  -> ("This place has a dog") -> "Here has a dog" 


PS I should add that in sdgraham's "We left from here", "here" is a noun, but "from here" is an adverbial phrase.


----------



## Caesats

Andygc said:


> "Here has a dog" are wrong because we never use "here" as a pronoun.


I saw in#23，Forero said this is acceptable。How come？


----------



## Andygc

Caesats said:


> I saw in#23，Forero said this is acceptable。How come？


I don't know. I don't agree.


----------



## sdgraham

"Here has a dog" is total nonsense.

I suggest you review flogging a dead horse


----------



## Forero

Caesats said:


> I saw in#23，Forero said this is acceptable。How come？


I have to disagree with those who say _here_ is always an adverb and never means "this place".

I did say that "Here has a dog" does make sense once you explain that "here" should mean "this place", but I also said that "Here has a dog" does not work outside of supporting context and that "Here has a dog" does not mean "Here is a dog" or "There is a dog here."

I will add that supporting context for such a sentence is hard to come by, so I doubt you can get any better answers than you already have unless you can produce your own supporting context.

Andygc's context with the police station almost works. I would not blink an eye at "This place has a dog", but I would understand that to mean that the police at "this place" have a dog, not "this place" itself.

When would you want to say that here, the place itself, has a dog? Can you think of a situation in which "Here has a dog" makes sense? Can you, for example, say such a thing in your native language and mean something other than "Here is a dog" or "There is a dog here" or "the people here have a dog"? If not, don't expect to be able to use "Here has a dog" in English either.

I hope this helps.


----------



## e2efour

_Here has a dog_ would only work for me if _Here_ is the name of a person.


----------



## Andygc

Andygc said:


> I don't know. I don't agree.


I should have been more specific for clarity. I do not agree that "here" can be used as a pronoun.


----------



## Caesats

Forero said:


> I have to disagree with those who say _here_ is always an adverb and never means "this place".
> 
> I did say that "Here has a dog" does make sense once you explain that "here" should mean "this place", but I also said that "Here has a dog" does not work outside of supporting context and that "Here has a dog" does not mean "Here is a dog" or "There is a dog here."
> 
> I will add that supporting context for such a sentence is hard to come by, so I doubt you can get any better answers than you already have unless you can produce your own supporting context.
> 
> Andygc's context with the police station almost works. I would not blink an eye at "This place has a dog", but I would understand that to mean that the police at "this place" have a dog, not "this place" itself.
> 
> .


I’m wondering whether this place can have a dog. If this place is a grassfield，full of animals，rivers，can this place have a dog ？
In other words，“this place has a dog”   is not the same as “there is a dog in this place” ？That’s why you said  “here has a dog” doesn’t mean “here is a dog” ？
I don’t know why “this place..." is not the same as "there is...",please tell me


----------



## e2efour

_This place has a dog(?) => In this place is a dog
Here has a dog => Here is a dog

_Your problem seems to be that you are saying _have_/_has_ instead of _is/are.
I have two computers in the house.
There are two computers in the room.
_


----------



## Caesats

e2efour said:


> _ In this place is a dog_


This sentence sounds meaningless，doesn't it？


----------



## e2efour

I wouldn't call it meaningless since you could find many sentences like _In this garden is a large statue.
_But _In this place has a dog_ would certainly be meaningless.


----------



## Forero

Caesats said:


> e2efour said:
> 
> 
> 
> _In this place is a dog_
> 
> 
> 
> This sentence sounds meaningless，doesn't it？
Click to expand...

Not at all. English word order is sometimes rather flexible. In particular <Adverb of place> <verb> <subject> is possible in English when we want to emphasize the adverbial of place.

In fact, I think it is the fact that this word order is possible that necessitates contextual support for _here_ as a subject.





Caesats said:


> I’m wondering whether this place can have a dog. If this place is a grassfield，full of animals，rivers，can this place have a dog ？
> In other words，“this place has a dog”   is not the same as “there is a dog in this place” ？That’s why you said  “here has a dog” doesn’t mean “here is a dog” ？
> I don’t know why “this place..." is not the same as "there is...",please tell me


There are various meanings the word _has_ can have, but "there is" is not one of them.

We might say "This place has a dog in it", because _has_ might mean something like "contains" or "includes".

But if we say "This place has a dog" without "in it", we normally mean someone in this place has a dog. Besides, "This place has a dog" is not something we normally say without contextual support.


----------



## Caesats

e2efour said:


> I wouldn't call it meaningless since you could find many sentences like _In this garden is a large statue.
> _


But sentences like this，there is no subject，＂in this garden＂ is just adverbial phrase。


----------



## Andygc

Caesats,  Forero wrote





> English word order is sometimes rather flexible. In particular <Adverb of place> <verb> <subject>


Did you understand that?
_
{In this garden} {is} {a large statue}. That is
{adverb of place}  {verb} {subject}._


----------



## Caesats

Andygc said:


> Caesats,  Forero wroteDid you understand that?
> _
> {In this garden} {is} {a large statue}. That is
> {adverb of place}  {verb} {subject}._


Got it。I found in your post#31，you said："This police station has a dog" -> ("This place has a dog") 。Forero's opinion looks a little different from you


----------



## Caesats

Forero said:


> There are various meanings the word _has_ can have, but "there is" is not one of them.
> 
> We might say "This place has a dog in it", because _has_ might mean something like "contains" or "includes".
> 
> But if we say "This place has a dog" without "in it", we normally mean someone in this place has a dog. Besides, "This place has a dog" is not something we normally say without contextual support.





Forero said:


> "This place has great potential wealth" makes sense， "Here has great potential wealth" sounds odd to me.


 Does this still need “in it”？，if without “in it” the meaning is different？ “here has great...” is not grammatical？


----------



## Andygc

Caesats. Please stop writing sentences that start "here has ...". We can only continue to tell you that we do not use "here" as a noun or pronoun to provide the subject of such sentences. If a sentence starts "here" followed by a verb, "here" is being used as an adverb. It may be possible to find a sentence where "here" is the subject, but that would be a rarity. Please accept that "Here has something" is wrong. If we want to say "This place has something" we say "This place has something". We *do* *not* say "Here has something".


----------



## velisarius

Caesats said:


> I often see some structure like＂here is，here are＂，so I think whether it is possible to use other verbs instead of ＂be＂verbs，by the way，the period is not for the sentence，it 's for number。



Other verbs maybe, but not "has".

Here sits a dog
Here stands a dog
Here lies a dog

those are a few that spring to mind.


----------



## Andygc

velisarius said:


> Other verbs maybe, but not "has".
> 
> Here sits a dog
> Here stands a dog
> Here lies a dog
> 
> those are a few that spring to mind.


But, Caesats, in all of those sentences "here" is an *adverb* and it is *not the subject of the sentence.*


----------



## Caesats

Andygc said:


> But, Caesats, in all of those sentences "here" is an *adverb* and it is *not the subject of the sentence.*


I got this，those are inverted sentences ，"a dog" is subject，"sits and other verbs" are predicates.


Andygc said:


> If we want to say "This place has something" we say "This place has something".


 But Forero said this need "in it",what do you think? Can you answer#46 question about "this place has great..." ?


----------



## Andygc

Caesats said:


> But Forero said this need "in it",what do you think? Can you answer#46 question about "this place has great..." ?


No, that's not what he said.





> We might say "This place has a dog in it", because _has_ might mean something like "contains" or "includes".
> 
> But if we say "This place has a dog" without "in it", we normally mean someone in this place has a dog.


He also said 





> "This place has great potential wealth" makes sense


There must be an unimaginably large number of sentences that could be written starting "this place has ..."
"This place has no windows."
"This place has walls but no roof."
"This place has great potential."
"This place has a strange scent of grilled fish."
I agree with Forero that "This place has a dog" is likely to mean that somebody in the place has a dog, simply because places don't own dogs, but people do.
Whether or not we need "in it" depends on what we are intending our sentence to mean. We only need "in it" if we particularly want to say that something is inside it. For example, we might prefer to say "This place has 25 dogs in it" rather than saying "This place has 25 dogs".


----------



## Forero

Caesats said:


> Does this still need “in it”？，if without “in it” the meaning is different？ “here has great...” is not grammatical？


"In it" is hard to explain, but it does not work with "here". Even when _here_ is legitimately used as a subject meaning "this place", we would not use _it_ to refer back to it.

"I am not from here" is a perfectly good sentence in which "here", for me, would mean "Houston, Texas". This _here_ fits my concept of a pronoun since it takes the place of the proper noun "Houston, Texas" in the same way that "me" takes the place of the proper name "Forero" in "That gift is not from me". But _here_ is not a personal pronoun. It has to refer to a location, not a person.

I would call "here" a subject in this context:

_Houston has a lot to offer. There is no need to travel to Timbuktu for ..., since right here is the best place in the world for ...._

For me, "right here" in this context means "this very place" (= "Houston, Texas"), not "in this very place".

Similarly, I could accept, in the same context, "Right here has the best climate in the world." But there is a world of difference in my mind between a place having its own climate and the mysterious concept of a place having its own dog.


----------



## Caesats

Andygc said:


> I agree with Forero that "This place has a dog" is likely to mean that somebody in the place has a dog, simply because places don't own dogs, but people do.
> Whether or not we need "in it" depends on what we are intending our sentence to mean. We only need "in it" if we particularly want to say that something is inside it. For example, we might prefer to say "This place has 25 dogs in it" rather than saying "This place has 25 dogs".


If something is natural,then the place can have it.If something looks man-made，then it looks like people have...,right?


----------



## Forero

Caesats said:


> If something is natural,then the place can have it.If something looks man-made，then it looks like people have...,right?


It is not that simple, but you may be on the right track. Dogs, for example, are generally not man-made.

Try looking at the many definitions of _have_ to see what fits.


----------



## Caesats

Forero said:


> I would call "here" a subject in this context:
> 
> _Houston has a lot to offer. There is no need to travel to Timbuktu for ..., since right here is the best place in the world for ...._
> 
> For me, "right here" in this context means "this very place" (= "Houston, Texas"), not "in this very place".
> .


Normally ,we see "right here" is used as adverbial phrase. But in this context,"here" becomes noun,"right" becomes adjective.Is this right?


----------



## Andygc

In "I am not from here" I'd describe "here" as a noun, not a pronoun, but I understand your point of view. Grammatically it doesn't matter, because it functions as a noun in a sentence. As for "right here", I see that as a noun phrase in "right here has the best climate in the world, meaning exactly what you say - and it needs to be the complete phrase. However, "right here is the best place in the world for ..." is just the normal inverted sentence form as used in "here is a book", and "right" is an adverb modifying the adverb "here".


----------



## Forero

Caesats said:


> Normally ,we see "right here" is used as adverbial phrase. But in this context,"here" becomes noun,"right" becomes adjective.Is this right?


I don't know, but though for me "right here" and plain "here" can both be either adverbial or nominal, "right here" seems to be easier to accept as a subject.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

I think there's a consensus that the original question has been answered. This thread has started to drift from its initial remit. It is now closed. 

Thank you for your contributions. 

Beryl, mod.


----------

