object/subject in 'there+be' sentences

[Soup]

What is the evidence for "there"'s being a subject?

Aside from (i) position and (ii) agreement, there's contraction (iii). Forms of the verb BE contract with their subject, specifically if that subject is a pronoun, like this,

I am -> I'm
It is -> It's
There is => There's

..., I thought "a lot of people" was singular in that sentence, not "there".

The phrase a lot of modifies the plural noun people, and it is that noun (people) that makes the verb are plural here:

• A lot of people are in the street.
• A lot of people is in the street.

Consider also, a lot and lots, both of which mean many:

• There's a lot in the street.
• There's lots in the street.
• There's many in the street.

The words a lot, lots, and many are substantive: they stand in for a noun, a plural noun (e.g., many cars, many people, many parking spaces), and their role in the above sentences is that of notional subject, but omit There's and those plural notional-subjects become plural structural-subjects and the verbs become plural are:

• A lot are in the street.
• Lots are in the street.
• Many are in the street.

You say the subject (the word that agrees in person and number with the verb) comes before the verb, not after the verb but... . Is it "always", "often", "usually" or "sometimes"? It is not always, because Came Christmas does not obey the rule.

Came Christmas is an example of an existential-there construct, one that (a) doesn't have a To Be verb and (b) is introduced by an (implied) adverbial (See also Quirk on Existential there with verbs other than "to be"):

• (Then there) came Christmas.
  
  • (Then) Christmas came.

Came Christmas has two subjects, one structural and one semantic. The structural subject is either filled in by there (Then there came Christmas) or left empty (Then came Christmas). The semantic subject can replace there (Then there came Christmas / Then Christmas came).

...the subject is the word that undergoes inversion in questions.

It does:

Statement: Sue is a teacher.
Question: Is Sue a teacher?

In questions, the subject comes after the verb, not before the verb, but it still agrees with the verb: agreement tells us Sue is the subject in Is Sue a teacher? as is they in Are they teachers? and there in Are there a lot of people in the street?

(I am interested in hearing what you think the term 'subject' means.)

This puzzles me too:
I'm not sure what you call an existential-there construct. Polish has sentences like

Tam jest dom.

But, unlike in English "There is a house," "tam" is a meaningful word in this sentence. It means "there", as opposed to "here".

As in say, (Over) there is a house, in which case there isn't semantically empty in English either.

• Over there is a house. <Subject, substantive noun>
• A house is over there. <Subject, noun>

Existential-there is semantically empty. It does not contribute meaning to the sentence. It fills a slot, a structural slot: the subject position. Existential-there can be replaced by the notional subject:

• There is a house.
• A house is.

• There is a house on the hill. existential-there
• A house is on the hill.

[QUOTE=birdeen's call;727363]I can't help out all that much with Polish I am afraid as it's not one of the languages I speak, but I can offer you an example of existential-there found online (page 118):

• Ubyƚo wody w rzece.
  
  • Meaning, there was less water in the river.

_________________
See also Google

[birdeen's call]

It's much clearer now, thank you.

I never thought that in "Came Christmas" "there" was elided. It seems quite obvious now though and it's a revelation to me.

(I am interested in hearing what you think the term 'subject' means.)

I'll try to explain my point of view then.

It's not easy for me to say for sure what "subject" means to me, because it's just a regular word in my mind, not a strictly defined term. I know that I call some things subjects and feel uncomfortable about calling that some other things.

I would say that "subject" denotes a semantic category, not a syntactic one. At the same time, I understand the need of a syntactic term, but it's difficult for me to agree to call anything that satisfies a set of artificially (in my opinion) created rules a subject. For example, when you say that the fact that "there" takes a contracted form of "be" leads us to the conclusion that "there" is a subject, it strikes me as a terrible reasoning. To use a simile, it seems similar to me to saying that a Native American warrior is a bird because he has a feather on him. I'm not saying this to prove that your reasoning is wrong, but to show you how I understand it. There is simply no connection in my mind between being a subject and taking a contracted form of the verb "be". The same applies to other arguments you used. They don't convince me, because they don't lead to my idea of subject.

Having said that, I have no problem with calling "it" a subject in

It rains.

I could try to guess why I have no problem with it, but I don't think that would be productive.

My main problem seems to be that calling "there" a subject is counterintuitive to me. I'm a mathematician, so I don't mind counterintuitive in general and I can get over a new meaning of a word. But I think words shouldn't be given counterintuitive meanings when it's unnecessary. That's why I asked how an average English speaker reacts to calling "there" a subject in existential "there" constructions.

I would like to ask about one more sentence. What is the syntactic subject in

Outside my window is a tree.

?

[birdeen's call]

I can't help out all that much with Polish I am afraid as it's not one of the languages I speak, but I can offer you an example of existential-there found online (page 118):

• Ubyƚo wody w rzece.
  
  • Meaning, there was less water in the river.

This is quite a good example, thank you. It's indeed similar to the English construction, although it's not exactly the same. (The translation is not perfect.)

(Note that the letter is ł, and not ƚ.)

[Soup]

Outside my window is a tree.

Meaningwise the phrase outside my window doesn't seem to be the structural subject as that would make the meaning of the copular equation A = B somewhat odd in terms of word-order (subjects are nouns, not adverbs; i.e., ?outside my window is located a tree). What we have looks like a topicalized (or fronted) adverbial phrase with an elided existential-there subject:

• Outside my window (there) is a tree.
• A tree is outside my window.
• Outside my window is a tree.

There remains, however, one problem with that interpretation: How do you parse it for learners? Not a nice sentence, but one that proves interesting, at least for me.

_____________
Thank you for explaining your idea of the term 'subject'. I will keep it in mind when your next question comes up. (I didn't know you were a mathematician.)

[birdeen's call]

Not a nice sentence, but one that proves interesting, at least for me.

Thanks again. The sentence comes from a song I like.

[Soup]

Thanks again. The sentence comes from a song I like.

The link won't open (I live in China: YouTube is forbidden). Does the song go like this?

There only for me.
And it stands in the grey of the city,
No time for pity, for the tree or me.

[birdeen's call]

The link won't open (I live in China: YouTube is forbidden). Does the song go like this?

There only for me.
And it stands in the grey of the city,
No time for pity, for the tree or me.

Yup, that's the song. Eric Clapton's Cream played it.

[5jj]

I never thought that in "Came Christmas" "there" was elided. It seems quite obvious now though and it's a revelation to me.

It may seem obvious to you, but it's not to me. "(Then) Came Christmas" seems to me to be rather more natural than "Then) There came Christmas". To suggest an existential-there construct appears to me to be inventing a non-existent reason to justify a belief, "In English, the subject comes first in statement", that the language shows to be unfounded occasionally.

In utterances such as "Long live the king!" and"Be that as it may,..." it is possible to argue that we are dealing with wishes/hypothetical utterances, not 'statements'. However, in She'll be 21 come March, there can be no question of 'there comes March'; it is, rather, 'when March comes'. The subjunctive 'come' rather than the indicative 'comes' is interesting (we have discussed this elsewhere), but there is little doubt in my mind that those speakers who use such expressions in modern English are not implying any doubt about the coming of March - "come March" and "when March comes" express the same thought. In the former, the subject comes after the verb; in the latter, before it.

#1, below, could be re-phrased with 'there'; it could also be re-phrased with the subjct coming before the verb. That there are different possibilities does not mean that one is really the other.

1. Next day came news of the disaster.

#2, below could not be rephrased with 'there'. It is an alternative, and acceptable, V-S word order in a statement.

2. "I don't believe you," said John.

[Verona_82]

I couldn't have imagined the thread would become so long
Thank you for the replies, they've been very helpful.
I've learned some interesting things from the discussion and sorted out those yesterday/Tuesday structures in my head (hooray!), but ...

1. Next day came news of the disaster.
2. In the street were a lot of people

These ones are examples of inverted structures, aren't they? Are they used in spoken English?

[5jj]

1. Next day came news of the disaster.
2. In the street were a lot of people

A. These ones are examples of inverted structures, aren't they? B. Are they used in spoken English?

A. It depends on whether you consider the underlying structures (if there are underlying structures!) to be:

1a. Next day there came news of the disaster and:
2a. In the street there were a lot of people
or:
1b. News of the disaster came next day and
2b. A lot of people were in the street.

B. I do not feel that they are commonly used in spoken English, but they are certainly used.

If we change the subject of #2 to a thing, rather than a person, we have an interesting situation.

1c.i. A book was on the table. ......1c.ii. On the table was a book.

While word-for-word renderings of this are natural in some languages, these thoughts are more usually expressed in English as:

1d.i. There was a book on the table. .....1d.ii. On the table there was a book.

What is not acceptable in English is:......1d.iii. *On the table was there a book.

Inversion with there+be is possible, indeed mandatory, if we add an initial (near-) negative expression:

1d.iv. Only (=nowhere but) on the table was there a book.