There is / to be

[Potato]

Probably this question is a bit silly, although I cannot find any satisfying answer. Maybe you can help me.
Today I was asked a question about using "there is" or just "to be" when you want to describe that something exists somewhere, it wasn't in English, but it was something like:

"Why is it incorrect to say "Many bridges are in Venice" instead of "There are many bridges in Venice"?"

It's just if you translate the sentences in Russian they are absolutely the same and the person was frustrated because he couldn't see any difference.
I suppose "Many bridges are in Venice" is incorrect because we don't have any context about those "many bridges", but I'm not 100% sure. It's like I feel that the sentence is not correct, but I cannot really explain why. Besides I was thinking about it for quite a long time, so I'm at that point when I'm no longer sure that "Many bridges are in Venice" is incorrect at all.:silly:
I would be happy if you gave me some clarifications here, thanks!

 

[Yankee]

I would understand each one to have the same meaning, but I would expect to hear/use, "There are etc."

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I don't see any difference, either. Both are fine, and they mean the same thing.

"There are many bridges in Venice" is more likely.

Most Americans would say, "There are a lot of bridges in Venice."

(Cross-post.)

 

[GoesStation]

They don't mean the same thing.

Many bridges are in Venice: we're talking about bridges. Some bridges are in Saint Petersburg; some are in Paris; some are in other cities — and many of them are in Venice.

There are many bridges in Venice: we're talking about a distinctive feature of Venice. It has a lot of bridges.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Good point.

I was reading it like Yoda-speak: Many bridges in Venice there are to cross, young Luke!

Corrected I am.

 

[emsr2d2]

I was reading it like Yoda-speak: Many bridges in Venice there are to cross, young Luke!

I think Yoda would have said "Many bridges to cross in Venice there are". ;-)

 

[Rover_KE]

I don't consider "Many bridges are in Venice" to be in any way acceptable as a standalone English sentence, or a suitable alternative to the perfectly natural "There are a lot of bridges in Venice".

 

[TheParser]

Besides I was thinking about it for quite a long time, so I'm at that point when I'm no longer sure that "Many bridges are in Venice" is incorrect at all.

Have you had a chance to check Michael Swan's popular Practical English Usage?

On page 590 (item #563) in the 1995 edition, he says the following.

1. "In sentences which say that something exists (or does not exist) somewhere [my emphasis], we usually use there as a kind of preparatory subject."
a. "There's a hole in my tights. (More natural than A hole is in my tights.)"
b. "There's ice on the lake. (More natural than Ice is on the lake.)"


*****

By the way, you may also be interested in Mr. Swan's reminding us that in the plural, we say "There are two policemen at the door," but informal English accepts "There's two policemen at the door." (My note: But NOT "There is two policemen at the door"!)