# there/it was (cold)



## yakor

Hi! Could _it _sometimes be used instead of "_there_"? For example,
-When we came into the room, there was cold.(When we came in to the room,  it was cold.)
-There was a fine day, and we went to walk on the street. (It was a fine day, and we went to walk on the street.)


----------



## KHS

In most cases, I would NOT use "there" in your sentences.  *It* is required. (I'm not sure why you seem to think "there" is the prefered use.)

I could construct a possible context for "there," but as a general rule, use "it."


----------



## yakor

There were two persons on the street.... It was two persons on the street. (Is there  much a difference between them? Is it much a difference for understanding the main point?)


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

"There" is a true 'dummy' subject, and does not stand in for anything:
There were two people on the street (= two people were on the street.)
There is a sign on the door (= a sign is on the door.)

"It" does not work that way, and instead replaces an actual word or concept:
When we entered the room it was cold (=_the room_ was cold)
It was a fine day (=_The day _was a fine day.)


----------



## yakor

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> "It" does not work that way, and instead replaces an actual word or concept:


It is cold today. What does "it" replace in this sentence?


----------



## KHS

Although for that sentence, I could say, "the weather," you're right that "it" does not always replace something that we would typically replace it with.  However, with "there," a noun is normally on the other side of the verb, and that noun controls the subject/verb agreement of BE.  With "cold," you have an adjective (although "cold" can be a noun, it is an adjective in "It was cold") in that position.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

yakor said:


> It is cold today. What does "it" replace in this sentence?


You would know that through context.  If you were lowering yourself into a swimming pool, you would probably mean "the water is cold today."  If you were a restaurant manager who was having a conversation with a health inspector about the contents of a refrigerator that had failed an inspection yesterday, you probably mean "the food in the refrigerator is cold today."  If you walk out of your house on a July morning and see frost on the grass and say this sentence, you probably mean "the weather is cold today" -- but in each case, you have a definite idea of what "it" may be.  The same is not true of "there" when it is used as a dummy subject.


----------



## KHS

To be fair, GWB, there is the possibility of "It is raining today."


----------



## PaulQ

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> "There" is a true 'dummy' subject, and does not stand in for anything:
> There *were* two people on the street (= two people were on the street.)
> There *is* a sign on the door (= a sign is on the door.)


There is only one "there" in English and it is an adverb (basically demonstrative) with the broad meaning of meaning "At that point/place". As it is an adverb, it cannot serve as a subject, which accounts for
There *is* a dog in the garden.
There *are* two dogs in the garden.


----------



## yakor

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> "It" does not work that way, and instead replaces an actual word or concept:
> When we entered the room it was cold (=_the room_ was cold)
> It was a fine day (=_The day _was a fine day.)


It was cold, when we entered the room. (it doesn't replace the room. Just the fact that "it was cold in it"  or , maybe,  we were feeling the cold, possibly the room was warm, but we didn't feel it)

What is the difference between
-When he came into the room, it was a big noise.
-When he came into the room, there was a big noise.


----------



## lingobingo

The difference is that the first one is wrong — unless the pronoun “it” has an antecedent that you haven’t shown. It’s not a dummy it.


----------



## yakor

Could "it" 


lingobingo said:


> It’s not a dummy it.


Yes, but could "it" means the same fact of his coming? I hope you get what I mean.


----------



## lingobingo

I don’t get what you mean.


----------



## london calling

yakor said:


> Yes, but could "it" means the same fact of his coming? I hope you get what I mean.


"It" cannot refer to his entering the room in your sentence, if that's what you mean.


----------



## yakor

lingobingo said:


> The difference is that the first one is wrong — unless the pronoun “it” has an antecedent that you haven’t shown. It’s not a dummy it.


Thank you.


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> Hi! Could _it _sometimes be used instead of "_there_"? For example,
> -When we came into the room, there was cold.(When we came in to the room,  it was cold.)



It's a question of what they mean, not a question of whether one can replace the other. So, no, "it" cannot replace "there" without changing the meaning. They mean two different things:

... there was cold. < Cold existed in the room.

... it was cold. < The condition of the room was cold. The room was in a cold state. 

The more likely phrase is "it was cold". However, given some context, I cannot say that "there was cold" is impossible. It would be a question of context and how a speaker views "cold" in a room.

A note about this clause:

... there was cold.

"There" refers to a location, and that location is "the room". The subject of this clause is "cold".

... cold was there.

... there was cold.

The location word "there" sometimes comes at the beginning of the sentence, before the verb, which is where the subject usually or normally goes.


----------



## london calling

Steven David said:


> The more likely phrase is "it was cold". However, given some context, I cannot say that "there was cold" is impossible. It would be a question of context and how a speaker views "cold" in a room.


I can think of no context where I could say "There was cold".


----------



## yakor

Thank you for your answer, David.


----------



## Steven David

You're welcome, yakor.


----------



## yakor

london calling said:


> I can think of no context where I could say "There was cold".


There was strong, terrible cold (on the street)


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> There was strong, terrible cold (on the street)



 Yes, that works. 

We should use "a" indefinite article before "strong", however.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

yakor said:


> It was cold, when we entered the room. (it doesn't replace the room. Just the fact that "it was cold in it"  or , maybe,  we were feeling the cold, possibly the room was warm, but we didn't feel it)



As Steven noted above, there is an understood referent for "it".  While you don't want to accept that "it" refers to the room, you must admit that at very least "it" refers to the atmosphere/condition/temperature of the room.


----------



## Steven David

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> As Steven noted above, there is an understood referent for "it".  While you don't want to accept that "it" refers to the room, you must admit that at very least "it" refers to the atmosphere/condition/temperature of the room.



Yes, exactly. That is what I say, as well. "It", then, refers to the condition or the state of the room, in other words.



yakor said:


> What is the difference between
> -When he came into the room, it was a big noise.
> -When he came into the room, there was a big noise.



The second sentence is correct and makes sense.

The first sentence does not make sense because "it" has to refer to something.

And, without context, "it" can only refer to "the room". 

The room is not a big noise.

So, as an isolated sentence without context, the first sentence does not make sense.

No one can imagine all possible contexts.  Therefore, we cannot say that the first sentence is incorrect. We can only say that it does not make sense -- unless there is a context that causes it to make sense or to justify it.


----------



## yakor

Steven David said:


> Yes, that works.
> 
> We should use "a" indefinite article before "strong", however.


There was a cold on the street...and There was the cold on the street. 
"a cold" and "the cold" are not the same thing.


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> There was a cold on the street...and There was the cold on the street.
> "a cold" and "the cold" are not the same thing.



That is correct. They are not the same thing.


----------



## PaulQ

yakor said:


> There was strong, terrible 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] cold*ness* (*in* the street)."


----------



## yakor

Steven David said:


> Yes, that works.
> 
> We should use "a" indefinite article before "strong", however.


Yes, when one says "There was a strong cold" the person means that among people (or in the some region, place), there was this illness.
Using "the cold" OR just "cold"(the  intense , dreadful, murderous, piercing cold*),* one means the low temperature of the air. Why  doesn't "cold" in  "with cold" have the article "the"? (He was dead with cold)


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> Yes, when one says "There was a strong cold" the person means that among people (or in the some region, place), there was this illness.
> Using "the cold" OR just "cold"(the  intense , dreadful, murderous, piercing cold*),* one means the low temperature of the air. Why  doesn't "cold" in  "with cold" have the article "the"? (He was dead with cold)



This is specific cold. It is unique cold, one of a kind. It is the cold that we can expect in that particular situation or place.  

Of course, here, there is no context to tell us what the place, or situation, is. However, that would be the reason to use "the" definite article. 

Are you talking about the room, again, as in the original example sentence? If so, you should provide a complete sentence. Then, it's clear, and we are on the same page.


----------



## yakor

Steven David said:


> This is specific cold. It is unique cold, one of a kind. It is the cold that we can expect in that particular situation or place.


In the sentence "He is dead with cold" there is not the article "the". But in the sentence "He is dead with the coldness" "the" is present...No specific cold, though...



Steven David said:


> Of course, here, there is no context to tell us what the place, or situation, is. However, that would be the reason to use "the" definite article.


It was winter. We entered the room and as far as the room was unheated there was *the* cold. Do you mean that?


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> In the sentence "He is dead with cold" there is not the article "the". But in the sentence "He is dead with the coldness" "the" is present...No specific cold, though...
> 
> 
> It was winter. We entered the room and as far as the room was unheated there was *the* cold. Do you mean that?



Yes, there is no specific cold, and there is no specific context. Without anything coming before this sentence, or after this sentence, there's no way to know the reason for using "the" definite article.

In the second example sentence above, there's no need to use "the" definite article. Without context, it's better to say "it was cold".

This sentence works:

"Because it was unheated, when we entered the room it was cold."


----------



## yakor

Steven David said:


> "Because it was unheated, when we entered the room it was cold."


But we say about using "cold" as the noun and why there is not the article "the" in "with cold"?


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> But we say about using "cold" as the noun and why there is not the article "the" in "with cold"?



The reason is that this is "cold, in general, not any one specific "cold".

We say "it's cold in the room" just as we say "it's cold outside". This is cold in general, not specific cold.


----------



## yakor

Steven David said:


> The reason is that this is "cold, in general, not any one specific "cold".
> 
> We say "it's cold in the room" just as we say "it's cold outside". This is cold in general, not specific cold.


But in "it's cold" "cold" is an adjective. While in "with cold" "cold" is a noun. In the sentence "He is dead with cold" there is not the article "the". But in the sentence "He is dead with the coldness" "the" is present...No specific cold, though...


----------



## RM1(SS)

yakor said:


> "He is dead with the coldness"


That sentence sounds extremely strange to me.


yakor said:


> But we say about using "cold" as the noun and why there is not the article "the" in "with cold"?


You are forgetting that there is one, and only one, real rule in English and that it takes precedence over all other "rules" that are taught: We say it this way because this is the way we say it.


----------



## Steven David

These questions are related to the original example sentence. However, at this point, it seems that it would be practical to start another thread about using "the" definite article.


yakor said:


> But in "it's cold" "cold" is an adjective. While in "with cold" "cold" is a noun. In the sentence "He is dead with cold" there is not the article "the".
> 
> But in the sentence "He is dead with the coldness" "the" is present...No specific cold, though...



It's not whether a word is a noun or an adjective that determines whether or not we use "the" definite article. Specificity, recognized in context, tells us whether or not to use "the" definite article. Article use has more to do with context and speaker viewpoint and less to do with rules of structure and grammar. However, articles are part of English grammar and syntax.

About your second example sentence

Is that your sentence? Did you decide to put "the" definite article before "coldness"? Where does this come from? There is no context. So we cannot say why "the" definite article is before "coldness" or whether "the" definite article should be before "coldness" in the first place. It's not really reasonable to use this sentence as a comparison to the other sentences in considering whether or not to use "the" definite article.

It seems that you are trying to find rules or permanent patterns for article use in English. Article use in English, again, has much more to do with context and speaker viewpoint. We can find usual patterns in common contexts for article use. Still, in the end, it comes down to speaker viewpoint in context in consideration of why or why not someone uses an article.

Note: These questions are related to the original example sentence. However, at this point, it would be a good idea and practical to start another thread about using "the" definite article or about articles in general.


----------



## yakor

Steven David said:


> The more likely phrase is "it was cold". However, given some context, I cannot say that "there was cold" is impossible. It would be a question of context and how a speaker views "cold" in a room.


How could  one view "cold" in a room, that "There was cold" was possible?


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> How could  one view "cold" in a room, that "There was cold" was possible?



The house is haunted, and, for some inexplicable reason, when they entered the room, they were surrounded by cold.

When we walked into the room, there was cold all around us. It was the strangest feeling.

The second clause in the above sentence means this:

Cold existed in the room, and it surrounded us.


----------



## yakor

Steven David said:


> Cold existed in the room, and it surrounded us.


Do you mean by the noun "cold" the lack of soul warmth? You felt cold because of the  lack of soul warmth among visitors? The nature of this cold in the room is not the low temperature.


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> Do you mean by the noun "cold" the lack of soul warmth? You felt cold because of the  lack of soul warmth among visitors? The nature of this cold in the room is not the low temperature.



No, I did not mean that. However, that's a possibility. Someone could mean that.

I meant that there was really cold in the room, and it was not possible to explain this. Outside, it was very warm. This is the existence of cold as a supernatural event. That is, more specifically, what I had in mind.

Consider the novel and the movie The Amityville Horror.

The Amityville Horror - Wikipedia
_*The Amityville Horror*_ is a book by American author Jay Anson, published in September 1977. It is also the basis of a series of films released from 1979 onwards. The book is claimed to be based on the paranormalexperiences of the Lutz family, but has led to controversy and lawsuits over its truthfulness.


----------



## zaffy

Yakor, you seem to have exactly the same problem as the Polish learners of English as in Slavic languages we have one form for 'there is' and 'it is'. 

-There is a projector in the classroom.
-It is cold in the classroom.

Both sentences will be translated the same way into Polish and into Russian probably as well. What is more, we will use here no subject at all.  So in Polish the sentences will read: "In the classroom is cold" and "In the classroom is a projector"

You need to know "there is/are" goes with nouns and "it is" goes with adjectives. "There is" goes with physical things that you can, for example, touch. You can touch a projector. So, "There is a projector in the classroom". You can't touch 'cold', so "It is cold in the classroom".


----------



## lingobingo

zaffy said:


> You need to know "there is/are" goes with nouns and "it is" goes with adjectives. "There is" goes with physical things that you can, for example, touch. You can touch a projector. So, "There is a projector in the classroom". You can't touch 'cold', so "It is cold in the classroom".


I’m not sure where these ideas come from? The *existential there* relates to nouns in that it’s used to say that something exists, but it does not have to be something tangible. You can say “there’s a time and a place for everything”, “there are matters we need to discuss”, “where there’s a will, there’s a way”, etc.


----------



## PaulQ

lingobingo said:


> I’m not sure where these ideas come from


Hmm... I think it is good elementary guidance for someone in whose language there is one form for 'there is' and 'it is'.

Also, *there *is an adverb and *it *is a pronoun. (see #9)


----------



## lingobingo

Really? I think it’s misleading. It’s simply not true – is it? – that you can only use “there is” in relation to things you can touch.


----------



## Loob

As a starting point in relation to dummy subjects, zaffy's 


zaffy said:


> "there is/are" goes with nouns and "it is" goes with adjectives


is quite helpful, I think.
(I took "things you can touch" as just an illustration.)


----------



## PaulQ

lingobingo said:


> It’s simply not true – is it?


It seems to me that it would be far more often true than not true, and that is why it would be useful.

It may be that I am reading it as two separate pieces of advice
(i)"there is/are" goes with nouns and "it is" goes with adjectives. 
(ii)"There is" goes with physical things that you can, for example, touch.


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, admittedly I shouldn’t have included the quote about nouns and adjectives in post #42. I wasn’t arguing with that.


----------



## zaffy

*lingobingo,* sure you can say that my pieces of advice are misleading but they do work at an elementary level when students get the basics and they are just helpless with "there is/it is". I've been teaching English for 21 years and you need to somehow believe me.  As I said earlier in Slavic languages you have one form for both, plus there is no subject at all. So, we say "In the cellar is a bike" and "In the cellar is dark". So students won't use subjects in those two sentences at all and once you tell them the sentences need subjects, they will ask you but which? 'it' or 'there'?
So once you ask them to think which of them is a noun and you can touch, they will begin to understand the thing. Then you introduce more difficult examples with abstract nouns that you can't indeed touch like "There are matters...".

And if you started explaining things with abstract nouns.....the students and you, as a teacher, would be lost.  At least that's the way I see it.


----------



## lingobingo

Fine. I believe you. If it works, it works. But you made no mention of the fact that you were a teacher or that you teach the concept that way.


----------



## Steven David

I agree with your approach, Zaffy, in that you draw upon knowledge of the learners' first language to help them understand something in English.

However, there's just one thing I would add in addition to this:

> So, we say "In the cellar is a bike" and "In the cellar is dark". So students won't use subjects in those two sentences at all ... <

Those two sentences have subjects. It's just that the word order has been changed in one of them, or it's fronted with a prepositional phrase.

The subject is "a bike".

A bike is in the cellar.

In the cellar is a bike. < different word order

The subject is not missing in this sentence. The location word "there" is missing. In effect, "there" is not a subject.

A bike is, there, in the cellar.

The bike is, there, in the cellar.

There is a bike in the cellar.

A bike is in the cellar.

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's really no such thing as a "dummy subject". Each word in a sentence has a purpose and a meaning.)

In the second example, the subject is "dark".

Dark is in the cellar. ([The] Water is in the cellar.) (Monsters are in the cellar.)

Dark is in the cellar. < This sounds strange because we don't normally think of "dark" as existing independently. Dark is usually or normally a condition or a state. Nonetheless, "dark" is the subject, or, grammatically, "dark" can be a subject.

It is dark in the cellar.

"It" refers to the condition or state of the cellar. In this case, "it" is the subject.

The condition, or state, (it) is dark in the cellar.


----------



## PaulQ

Or re-read #9.


----------



## grassy

Steven David said:


> There is a bike in the cellar





Steven David said:


> The word "there" points to a location in the cellar where a bike is located.


So where is the bike located in the cellar, Steven? Behind a bag of potatoes or next to grandpa's old saxophone?


----------



## Loob

grassy said:


> So where is the bike located in the cellar, Steven? Behind a bag of potatoes or next to grandpa's old saxophone?


----------



## PaulQ

grassy said:


> So where is the bike located in the cellar, Steven? Behind a bag of potatoes or next to grandpa's old saxophone?





> a location in the cellar


a location that is in the cellar -> an example of such a location; any location in the cellar; the location where it is, etc.

"There" cannot be a subject - even a dummy one.


----------



## zaffy

Steven David

When I'm teaching those two structures, I usually write up:

...... is a bike in the cellar.
...... is cold in the cellar.

And then I ask the students "Right, what is missing? I think the answer is pretty clear that it is the subjects that are missing. 'There', as I know, doesn't show the location. It works as a subject. If you wanted to point the location, you would add another 'there' and say "There was a bike over there", wouldn't you?


----------



## PaulQ

zaffy said:


> I think the answer is pretty clear that it is the subjects that are missing.


You need to analyse the sentence properly. How can an adverb be a subject?


zaffy said:


> If you wanted to point the location, you would say "There was a bike over there", wouldn't you?


Your reasoning is faulty:

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.


----------



## zaffy

Strictly speaking an adverb can't be a subject. However, I guess I once came across a grammar book, explaining that 'there' in the 'there is/are' structure, takes the role of the subject.


----------



## Loob

All sorts of things can be subjects, Paul.


----------



## lingobingo

One website explains it like this, complete with quote:

Existential _there_, also known as nonreferential _there_, is entirely different from _there _used as a place adverb: "It has no locative meaning, as can be seen by the contrast: There's a sheep over there. Also, existential there carries no emphasis at all, whereas the adverb does: There he is" (Rediscover Grammar, 2003).​


----------



## yakor

zaffy said:


> *lingobingo,* sure you can say that my pieces of advice are misleading but they do work at an elementary level


I think my question is not about how to use "there is" and "it is" in common sense  and the difference between them.
We speak about "cold", when it is used as noun.
There was cold in the room. "Cold" is the noun here, isn't it? Or not?
It was a fine day. "a fine day" is the subject, not an adjectival, but nevertheless we use "it was" In many case we say "It is a\the (noun). No adjectives here.


----------



## zaffy

Yakor
'It was a fine day' has nothing to do with 'It was cold on that day'.



PaulQ said:


> You need to analyse the sentence properly. How can an adverb be a subject?



OK, I 've found the source, Practical English Usage by Michael Swan, Oxford. They call it a "preparatory subject"


----------



## PaulQ

Loob said:


> All sorts of things can be subjects, Paul.


Really, Loob? Do you have examples?


zaffy said:


> If you wanted to point the location, you would say "There was a bike over there", wouldn't you?


Your reasoning is faulty:

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.

Although *there* can be a noun meaning “that place [yonder]” (He left there last night.) This is not the case in “There is a bike in the cellar.”

[Multiple examples removed in order to comply with Rule 4: _Minor fair use excerpts (one or two) from dictionaries are permitted. _DonnyB - moderator]



zaffy said:


> OK, I 've found the source, Practical English Usage by Michael Swan, Oxford. They call it a "preparatory subject"


Who are "they" and what evidence do they have? The idea of calling it a "preparatory subject" is a gross over-simplification and whereas, like your guidance above, may help the learner, at a higher level, it cannot be sustained. Just because it looks like a subject does not mean that it is a subject.

It is wrong as it makes no sense, and further it is not justified, merely stated - _"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." (Hitchen's Razor)_

Note the reasoning and evidence in the OED. 
​


----------



## Steven David

zaffy said:


> OK, I 've found the source, Practical English Usage by Michael Swan, Oxford. They call it a "preparatory subject"




I know what you mean, Zaffy.

I understand where you are coming from.

I have a copy of Practical English Usage, as well.

  

Many things are subject to change. And, one day, the analysis of "there" and "it" that I posted will be reflected in reference books, as well.

________

In the cellar is a bike.

A bike is in the cellar.

This shows that English is not always, 100% of the time, SVO or Subject Verb Complement (anything that follows the verb).

A bike is in the cellar.
In the cellar is a bike.

There is a bike in the cellar.
A bike is, there, in the cellar.

The subject is "a bike" in the four sentences above. With the last two sentences, the only thing that changes is the word order. The subject remains the same.


----------



## PaulQ

It is worth noting that the position of adverbs in a sentence is very fluid:

He went to the door *quickly.
Quickly*, he went to the door.
He went *quickly *to the door.

The same occurs with "there".


----------



## yakor

zaffy said:


> Yakor
> 'It was a fine day' has nothing to do with 'It was cold on that day'.


I say the same, it has nothing to do. "It" is used not only with adjectives, but not less often with nouns.



grassy said:


> So where is the bike located in the cellar, Steven? Behind a bag of potatoes or next to grandpa's old saxophone?


Somewhere there in the seller, isn't it clear?)))



zaffy said:


> Steven David
> 
> When I'm teaching those two structures, I usually write up:
> 
> ...... is a bike in the cellar.
> ...... is cold in the cellar.
> 
> And then I ask the students "Right, what is missing? I think the answer is pretty clear that it is the subjects that are missing. 'There', as I know, doesn't show the location. It works as a subject. If you wanted to point the location, you would add another 'there' and say "There was a bike over there", wouldn't you?


There is a bike in the cellar. "there" is an adverb here not the subject.  The subject is a "bike"(in Russian too). The location is clear pointed in this case.


----------



## Steven David

zaffy said:


> Steven David
> 
> When I'm teaching those two structures, I usually write up:
> 
> ...... is a bike in the cellar.
> ...... is cold in the cellar.
> 
> 'There', as I know, doesn't show the location. It works as a subject. If you wanted to point the location, you would add another 'there' and say "There was a bike over there", wouldn't you?



"There", as I know it, is a location.

There was a bike over there.<

Yes, of course, anyone could say this.

"There" is a location within the area referred to as "over there". This could be read as redundant, but it's not incorrect.

"A bike" is still the subject, however.

A bike was there.
A bike was over there.

There was a bike.
Where?
Over there.
Where?
There. It was right there.
I didn't see it.
A bike was there -- right over there.
Are you sure?
Yes, there was a bike right over there.

The only thing that changes is the word order. "A bike" is the subject.


----------



## Loob

Count me in on the side of zaffy and Swan.

Yakor, could you just repeat your question?


----------



## lingobingo

I’m not sure that zaffy and Swan entirely agree? Zaffy seems to be saying the “there” indicates location.

Swan describes the existential there as acting as a preparatory subject, with the “real” subject coming after the verb. But presumably by that he means the real-life subject (the actual thing being discussed), rather than the grammatical subject of the verb? 

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

The bike is in the cellar  Is it? No it isn’t!​A bike is in the cellar  Is it? No it isn’t!​There is a bike in the cellar  Is there? No there isn’t!​


----------



## Steven David

zaffy said:


> Steven David
> 
> When I'm teaching those two structures, I usually write up:
> 
> ...... is a bike in the cellar.
> ...... is cold in the cellar.
> 
> And then I ask the students "Right, what is missing? I think the answer is pretty clear that it is the subjects that are missing. 'There', as I know, doesn't show the location. It works as a subject. If you wanted to point the location, you would add another 'there' and say "There was a bike over there", wouldn't you?



...... is a bike in the cellar.

There is a bike in the cellar.

A bike is, there, in the cellar.

The first sentence is fronted with the location word "there". This, of course, is a common occurrence with both "there" and "here". "A bike" is the subject in both sentences.

The speaker uses "there" because, in context, the speaker perceives or infers that this has to do with the existence and location of a bike in the cellar. It doesn't have to do with identifying a bike in the cellar. This is why "It is a bike in the cellar" does not sound good and is not correct.

______

...... is cold in the cellar.

It is cold in the cellar.

There is cold in the cellar.

Both sentences are correct. The first one, with "it", is more likely and usual given what speaker viewpoint would be in context. However, the correct one depends on context and speaker viewpoint in context.

What does the speaker mean to say?

Does the speaker mean to speak of the condition or the state of the cellar? If so, then "it" is the subject and goes in the space at the beginning of the sentence.

Or does the speaker mean to say that cold exists in the cellar? If so, then the sentence is fronted with the location word "there", in which case "cold" is the subject of the sentence. (There is no such thing as a "dummy subject". Each word in a sentence has a purpose and a meaning.)


----------



## zaffy

Steven David said:


> -It is cold in the cellar.
> -There is cold in the cellar.
> 
> Both sentences are correct.



To be honest, I just can't imagine the second sentence being considered correct in any exam.


----------



## Steven David

zaffy said:


> To be honest, I just can't imagine the second sentence being considered correct in any exam.




It does not conform to normal and usual speaker viewpoints in common contexts. In other words, we do not usually speak of cold existing in a room. We usually speak of the state or the condition of a room as being cold. In this sense, yes, it is a very unlikely sentence. However, from a structural standpoint, it's not incorrect, at least, not technically incorrect. Given that this is not what a speaker would usually want to say in context, I would call it lexically incorrect. In other words, a speaker, an English language learner, would choose the wrong word to use. 



So, again, yes, we do not usually speak of cold existing in a room. However, it's not impossible. I posted a sentence with "there was cold" earlier in this thread: viewpoint in context. Co-text, as well, counts and is as equally important as context.


----------



## Loob

zaffy said:


> To be honest, I just can't imagine the second sentence being considered correct in any exam.


----------



## SevenDays

yakor said:


> Hi! Could _it _sometimes be used instead of "_there_"? For example,
> -When we came into the room, there was cold.(When we came in to the room,  it was cold.)
> -There was a fine day, and we went to walk on the street. (It was a fine day, and we went to walk on the street.)



Simply put, _it _and _there _represent different syntactic phenomena.

_It _appears in particular contexts; for example,:
(a) as subject of "weather" verbs: _it's raining, it snows in winter. _And so we say _it was cold _because "cold" is a weather-related concept. We use _it _as subject because a basic rule of English is that _all _verbs must have a subject. Accordingly, "is cold" is ungrammatical.

(b) introduced by _extraposition. _English, generally speaking, doesn't like long phrases at the start of sentences. So, instead of saying "That she likes football is obvious," we switch the sentence around and add "it" as subject of auxiliary "is:" _It's obvious that she likes football._

(c) _extraposition _related to the verb "seems." _Seems _is a peculiar verb. It rejects clauses as subject, but accepts "it." So, instead of saying "That she like football seems," we turn things around, add "it," and say _It seems that she likes football._

(d) to represent "distance:" _it's a long way home; it's about 20 miles to the beach. _

(e) to represent "time:" _it's noon; it's half past midnight._

(f) to represent anaphora: _I bought a car today. It came with one door _(it = car).

(g) as subject in idioms. _It is ok._

These are "dummy it," the pronoun has no meaning, except in (f), where "it" means "car" by anaphora.

_There _follows its own syntactic path, known as _there insertion. _Basically, for greater focus/emphasis, _there _is added to an already-existing sentence that has auxiliary "be." This _there insertion _requires a _transformation _of the original sentence. More precisely, the subject and auxiliary "be" switch places ("inversion"), and _there _is inserted as the "new" subject. This can refer to "existence" (i.e., "existential there"):

_A man is at the door ~ There is a man at the door
Three pigs are dancing ~ There are three pigs dancing_

or to a perceived "change:"

_A growing sense of fear is spreading in the country ~ There is a growing sense of fear spreading in the country_
(change, from "no fear" to "growing fear")

This "there" is a dummy subject; it has no meaning, and is added because transformation/inversion requires a dummy subject at the front of the sentence.  Sometimes there is no inversion, and _there _plus auxiliary "be" is added, also for emphasis/focus, and to add grammatical tense:

_A growing sense of fear ~ There is a growing sense of fear _

Notice that (1) while _there insertion _adds greater focus/emphasis, "there" itself isn't stressed; (2) this "there" is not the same as locative "there." In fact, you can have both types of "there:"

_Three pigs are dancing over there ~ There are three pigs dancing over there_
The first "there" is dummy _there, _introduced by _there insertion_; the second "there" is the locative pronoun (pointing to a "location/place").

There are some restrictions to _there insertion. _For example, this doesn't work with transitive verbs:

_We saw three pigs dancing ~ There saw we three pigs dancing_ 

Back to your question: we say _It was cold _and _It was a fine day _because "cold" and "fine day" are weather-related. To me, _There was cold in the room _sounds distinctly odd, because weather-related phenomena takes "it" as subject (_It was cold in the room_). However, _There was cold*ness* in the room _is perfectly fine (in my usage), particularly because this is a metaphor referring to a lack of human warmth: _There was coldness in her eyes. _By contrast, "cold" refers to atmospheric conditions: _It was cold in the room._


----------



## Loob

Nice explanation, SevenDays!


----------



## SevenDays

Loob said:


> Nice explanation, SevenDays!



Thank you. After all that typing, I'm exhausted. I need a beer.


----------



## Loob




----------



## yakor

[This post and the following ones have been added to a previous thread as they're essentially a continuation of the same discussion.  DonnyB - moderator].
Is it possible to say in some meaning
-_There was cold in that house, that we couldn't explain. _(we couldn't explain this cold, the temperature in this house was high enough to feel cold)


----------



## SwissPete

No, *there was cold* has no meaning.


----------



## yakor

SwissPete said:


> No, *there was cold* has no meaning.


What about "There was the cold in that house" OR "There was the coldness in that house" (the cold=cold)
There is a strange cold here.


----------



## SwissPete

*Cold *as a noun in this context sounds odd.

*There was coldness* may work, but it would not necessarily mean 'low temperature'.


----------



## D D

It was cold or it was kind of cold will do in your example.


----------



## PaulQ




----------



## SevenDays

yakor said:


> Is it possible to say in some meaning
> -_There was cold in that house, that we couldn't explain. _(we couldn't explain this cold, the temperature in this house was high enough to feel cold)



With _atmospheric conditions _(i.e. "temperature," "weather"), English uses "it" as subject (known by some as "ambient it"): _*It *was cold in that house. _And then you can't use "that," because "that" can't appear in non-restrictive relative clauses; thus: _It was cold in that house, which we couldn't explain._


----------



## yakor

SwissPete said:


> *Cold *as a noun in this context sounds odd.
> 
> *There was coldness* may work, but it would not necessarily mean 'low temperature'.


Please, read my post #80. "cold" means not "low temperature around"


----------



## yakor

D D said:


> It was cold or it was kind of cold will do in your example.


 "cold" in "It was cold" is the adjective.  But it should be the noun.


----------



## heypresto

I think you might be thinking of the noun 'chill'? _There was a chill in the house_. That could make sense.

If not, I think you need to explain more clearly what _you_ mean by 'cold'. Maybe try another sentence.


----------



## yakor

SevenDays said:


> With _atmospheric conditions _(i.e. "temperature," "weather"), English uses "it" as subject (known by some as "ambient it"): _*It *was cold in that house. _And then you can't use "that," because "that" can't appear in non-restrictive relative clauses; thus: _It was cold in that house, which we couldn't explain._


It seems that you didn't read my question(( I don't mean "low temperature" around. 
Also, I don't get what you mean by "non-restrictive relative clause" and why you couldn't use "that" in _It was cold in that house, which/that we couldn't explain._


----------



## heypresto

If you _don't _mean "low temperature around" or 'cold atmospheric conditions', what _do _you mean?


----------



## yakor

heypresto said:


> I think you might be thinking of the noun 'chill'? _There was a chill in the house_. That could make sense.
> 
> If not, I think you need to explain more clearly what _you_ mean by 'cold'. Maybe try another sentence.


Yes, I might.
I just  wanted to know if one could use "cold" as the noun in the sense of "chill", for example. If no, then no.


----------



## heypresto

I've just found this sentence online: _Yes, she's just come off steroids and I think that was due_ _to the cold in the house_. 

So it can _occasionally _be used as a noun. But we'd never say 'There was a cold in the house'.


----------



## yakor

heypresto said:


> So it can _occasionally _be used as a noun. But we'd never say 'There was a cold in the house'.


"a cold" is illness. But I asked about "the cold" and just "cold". I would not ask about "'There was a cold in the house'. (though if all the residents of the house would get a cold at the same time at once, one, possibly, could say "The was a cold in the house"
----------------------


----------



## heypresto

OK. My mistake. But whatever, you still cannot say 'There was cold in the house', or 'There was the cold in the house'.


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> There is only one "there" in English and it is an adverb (basically demonstrative) *with the broad meaning of meaning *"At that point/place". As it is an adverb, it cannot serve as a subject, which accounts for
> There *is* a dog in the garden.
> There *are* two dogs in the garden.


I agree "there" is an adverb in these case. Possibly, "dummy adverb".
What does mean  _"with the broad meaning of meaning"?_


----------



## yakor

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> but in each case, you have a definite idea of what "it" may be.


When we entered the room, *it* was cold in it. 
I have not an idea  of what *"it" *may be.


----------



## grassy

It's a dummy pronoun in that sentence, yakor.


----------



## yakor

lingobingo said:


> I don’t get what you mean.


I mean is it possible to consider "When he came into the room" as "it" in "When he came into the room, it was a big noise."? That is,
it=When he came into the room


----------



## Steven David

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.



yakor said:


> When we entered the room, *it* was cold in it.
> I have not an idea  of what *"it" *may be.




"It" refers to the condition, the temperature, or the climate in the room. "It" could also be any other word that can reference the condition in the room, which is cold.

"It" is not a "dummy subject" and not a "dummy pronoun".


----------



## yakor

grassy said:


> It's a dummy pronoun in that sentence, yakor.


yes, I think so too. I just would like to say that not in all cases it refers to something definite.


----------



## grassy

Steven David said:


> "It" refers to the condition, the temperature, or the climate in the room. "It" could also be any other word that can reference the condition in the room, which is cold.


When we entered the room, the temperature was cold in it.   
When we entered the room, the climate was cold in it. 
When we entered the room, the condition was cold in it. 


yakor said:


> I mean is it possible to consider "When he came into the room" as "it" in "When he came into the room, it was a big noise."? That is,
> it=When he came into the room


No, sorry but that's impossible.


----------



## PaulQ

yakor said:


> What does mean _"with the broad meaning of meaning"?_


It means I should have written *with the broad meaning* of meaning "At that point/place"


yakor said:


> Possibly, "dummy adverb".


It is easy to think of "there" being a "dummy" something, but all that has happened is that "there" has lost some of its demonstrative force. 

Imagine:
A: [pointing] "Ah, my keys are there = at that/this point" -> demonstrative
A: [not pointing] "There are keys in the cupboard  = "at that/this point that I am mentioning"
A: [not pointing] " In the cupboard, there are keys  = "at that/this point that I am mentioning"
A: [not pointing] " The keys are there in the cupboard, = "at that/this point that I am mentioning"


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> yes, I think so too. I just would like to say that not in all cases it refers to something definite.



"It" always refers to something even if we cannot recognize "it" or cannot figure out what "it" is.  This just means we have to think about "it". In this last sentence "it" refers to whatever "it" could be in any particular sentence. That's it. 

 "dummy subject"  
 "dummy pronoun"


----------



## PaulQ

Steven David said:


> 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.





Steven David said:


> 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?


----------



## grassy

PaulQ said:


> how could this work?


But that's blindingly obvious, Paul:

In the garden is a dog in the garden.


----------



## PaulQ

PaulQ said:


> 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

Steven David said:


> 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)



PaulQ said:


> 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] cold*ness* (*in* the street)."


"cold" is usually qualified by a relative clause or an adjunct". What do you mean?


----------



## Steven David

Steven David said:


> 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.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

yakor said:


> When we entered the room, *it* was cold *in it*.
> I have not an idea  of what *"it" *may be.


Of course you do -- the temperature, or air, or atmosphere in the room was cold.  What else could the sentence mean?


----------



## yakor

zaffy said:


> 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.



zaffy said:


> 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.


----------



## JulianStuart

Steven David said:


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


I'm having trouble with this  Am I missing some point or are you saying these are good English?


----------



## grassy

Steven David said:


> More specifically, "there" refers to some specific place that is in the garden.


We've been here before, Steve:


Steven David said:


> 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.





Steven David said:


> There is a bike in the cellar.





grassy said:


> So where is the bike located in the cellar, Steven? Behind a bag of potatoes or next to grandpa's old saxophone?


----------



## yakor

Loob said:


> Count me in on the side of zaffy and Swan.
> 
> Yakor, could you just repeat your question?


Whom do you call "swan"?


----------



## JulianStuart

yakor said:


> Whom do you call "swan"?


Note the capital letter 
Michael Swan: _Practical English Usage_


----------



## Steven David

JulianStuart said:


> I'm having trouble with this  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.


----------



## JulianStuart

Steven David said:


> 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  . 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

JulianStuart said:


> 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  . 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.


----------



## heypresto

yakor said:


> "A pronoun"??
> Isn't it an adverb?


I don't know how or why, but in post #114, you've quoted me as saying something I didn't say.


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> "A pronoun"??
> Isn't it an adverb?



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.


----------



## JulianStuart

Steven David said:


> 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

JulianStuart said:


> 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.


----------



## yakor

heypresto said:


> I don't know how or why, but in post #114, you've quoted me as saying something I didn't say.


my mistake. I deleted it. I quoted the post#96 of David's


----------



## yakor

yakor said:


> my mistake. I deleted it. I quoted the post#96 of David's





Steven David said:


> 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

> 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

Steven David said:


> 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

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.


----------



## yakor

Steven David said:


> Yes, there are many things.
> 
> Do you hear that?
> 
> There are wolves.


"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"


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> 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.

__________



yakor said:


> "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

lingobingo said:


> _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  Is it? No it isn’t!​2)A bike is in the cellar  Is it? No it isn’t!​3)There is a bike in the cellar  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

Steven David said:


> 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

Steven David said:


> 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

yakor said:


> 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.

_________________



yakor said:


> 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.

__________



SevenDays said:


> 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.


----------



## Forero

PaulQ said:


> 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 ...?
Does there come the train?_

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

Steven David said:


> 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_).


----------



## Steven David

Interesting. That said, I would acknowledge that we live in two different grammar states.


----------



## PaulQ

SevenDays said:


> 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.


Steven David said:


> 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.


----------



## yakor

Steven David said:


> 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

yakor said:


> 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

Steven David said:


> 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

Steven David said:


> 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

yakor said:


> "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

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.


----------

