object/subject in 'there+be' sentences

[Verona_82]

Hello,

Am I right about the function of the underlined words in the sentence below:

There (formal subject) were a lot of people (object??) in the street.

I'm also curious about such simple sentences as:

Yesterday (subject) was Tuesday
It was Tuesday yesterday (adverb)

Are they equally common?

I'd be very grateful for help.

[birdeen's call]

Hello,

Am I right about the function of the underlined words in the sentence below:

There (formal subject) were a lot of people (object??) in the street.

"A lot of people" is the subject.

I'm also curious about such simple sentences as:

Yesterday (subject) was Tuesday
It was Tuesday yesterday (adverb)

Are they equally common?

I think "Tuesday" is the subject in

Yesterday was Tuesday.

It's not a statement of fact. I just feel it is so, and I have this reasoning to support my view:

"What was yesterday?"
"Yesterday was Tuesday."

"What" is obviously the subject in the question, so "Tuesday" must be the subject in the answer. The following dialogue is unlikely:

"What was Tuesday?"
"Yesterday was Tuesday."

"Tuesday" is also the subject in (and I'm quite sure about this)

Tuesday was yesterday.

I'm unable to compare the popularities of

Yesterday was Tuesday.

and

It was Tuesday yesterday.

I hope someone else can.

[Verona_82]

Thank you, Birdeen!

As for 'there+be" sentences, what part of speech is 'there'? Books say (Swan, for example) that 'there' is a preparatory (formal) subject. So there are two subjects in such structures?

I completely agree that

Tuesday (subject) was yesterday (object,as it's a noun here)

Do you think that
Yesterday (object) was Tuesday (subject) ?

I wish I were better at linguistics :)

[Soup]

"A lot of people" is the subject.

It's the notional (or real) subject. The structural subject is There. We know that because English has SV word-order: the subject comes first.

With There+Be (expletive, anticipatory) sentences the structural subject, shown in [1], can be replaced (usually) by the notional subject, shown in [2]:

[1] There is a glass on the table.
[2] A glass is on the table.

I think "Tuesday" is the subject in Yesterday was Tuesday.

But... English has SV word-order, which makes Yesterday the subject (S), was the verb (V), and Tuesday a subject complement (SC).

[birdeen's call]

Thank you, Birdeen!

As for 'there+be" sentences, what part of speech is 'there'? Books say (Swan, for example) that 'there' is a preparatory (formal) subject. So there are two subjects in such structures?

I didn't know Swan said so. I'm sorry I have misinformed you then.

Does he say why "there" is a subject? If a subject is "that what the sentence is about", then it's difficult to accept his assertion. What's his definition of subject?

I wish I were better at linguistics :)

I wish I were too!

[birdeen's call]

It's the notional (or real) subject. The structural subject is There. We know that because English has SV word-order: the subject comes first.

With There+Be (expletive, anticipatory) sentences the structural subject, shown in [1], can be replaced (usually) by the notional subject, shown in [2]:

[1] There is a glass on the table.
[2] A glass is on the table.


But... English has SV word-order, which makes Yesterday the subject (S), was the verb (V), and Tuesday a subject complement (SC).

So the only reason is the word order? That would mean that "do" (or "neither"?) is the subject in

Neither do I.

wouldn't it?

The following sentence was once discussed here too:

Came Christmas.

Is "came" the subject because of the SVO order?

What's the point of saying that English is a strictly SVO language? Doesn't it make everything more complicated?

[Soup]

So there are two subjects in such structures?

Yes, there are two subjects. The first one (there) is the structural subject: it fills the S of the SV word-order slot. The other one (a glass) is the semantic subject: it carries the meaning.

Do you think that
Yesterday (object) was Tuesday (subject)?

Yesterday is the subject, not the object.

[Verona_82]

So the only reason is the word order? That would mean that "do" (or "neither"?) is the subject in

Neither do I.

wouldn't it?

Isn't it an example of inversion, where word order changes? I think "I" is the subject here.

[birdeen's call]

Isn't it an example of inversion, where word order changes? I think "I" is the subject here.

I think so too. But why not call what happens in "there" sentences inversion too? Saying that those sentences have two subjects seems unnecessary to me.

[Soup]

So the only reason is the word order? That would mean that "do" (or "neither"?) is the subject in

Neither do I.

wouldn't it?

Of course not. They are not preparatory there+Be constructs.

What's the point of saying that English is a strictly SVO language? Doesn't it make everything more complicated?

No one to my knowledge has ever said 'English is a strictly SVO language', aside from you, that is. (You may want to choose your words more carefully when reporting what you have read not to mention take a little more time reading what has actually been said. )