Behind the techniques we’ve shown so far is an unstated assumption

[Pink_Flower]

Behind the techniques we’ve shown so far is an unstated assumption: that once we run the code, it will run to completion (only pausing to accept input) with no opportunity for us to intervene and inspect the results of the program at whatever point we want.

Source : a teacher


Shouldn't it be " Behind the techniques we’ve shown so far there is an unstated assumption: that once ..."?

 

[GoesStation]

That's possible, but it's cleaner as written. The writer has used a common form of inversion.

You'll often see this construction with the verb lie, too.

 

[Pink_Flower]

You'll often see this construction with the verb lie, too

Would you please give an example?

 

[GoesStation]

Would you please give an example?

Behind this assumption lies the assumption that the code will run to completion. The meaning is very nearly the same as the sentence with be.

 

[Pink_Flower]

Thanks. I still don't get the inversion part. What made the author to use inversion? what specific characteristic a sentence should have to make it eligible for having an inversion?

 

[tedmc]

Thanks. I still don't get the inversion part. What made the author [STRIKE][STRIKE][STRIKE]to[/STRIKE][/STRIKE][/STRIKE] use inversion? What specific characteristic should a sentence [STRIKE]should [/STRIKE]have to make it eligible for having an inversion?

.

 

[GoesStation]

Thanks. I still don't get the inversion part.

It moves the part the author wants the reader to consider first to the front of the sentence.

 

[jutfrank]

The preposition phrase Behind the techniques we've shown so far is at the beginning of the sentence in both cases, so there is no difference in effect in that regard.

I think Pink Flower's question is fundamentally about the use of existential sentences—specifically the difference between those using existential 'there be' and those using existential 'be'—and not especially about inversion.

There are basically two grammatically very different ways of saying that something exists. A simple example:

A book is on the table. [existential be]
There is a book on the table [existential there be]

If you invert these, you get:

On the table is a book.
On the table, there is a book.

In my view, there is no important semantic difference between these two forms of expression—they both say the same thing.

So to answer the question in the OP—yes, you could very well use there in that sentence but it's also fine without it. It has the same meaning.