"No, there isn't a book" or "no, there isn't a book"

[Rachel Adams]

Do native speakers use "no, there aren't books, "no, there isn't a book" in answers or do they sound unnatural?

1. "Are there books on the table?"

"No, there aren't books on the table."

"Yes, there are books on the table.

2. "Is there a book on the table?"

"No, there isn't a book on the table."

Yes, there is a book on the table.

 

[emsr2d2]

Do native speakers use "No, there aren't books" or "No, there isn't a book" in answers, [STRIKE]or[/STRIKE] and do they sound unnatural?

1. "Are there any books on the table?"
"No, there aren't any books on the table."
"Yes, there are [some] books on the table."

2. "Is there a book on the table?"
"No, there isn't a book on the table." :tick:
"Yes, there is a book on the table." :tick:

Note my corrections above. With my changes, both answers to Q1 are possible. Note that most native speakers wouldn't make their reply so long.

Are there any books on the table?
No.
No, there aren't.
Yes.
Yes, there are.

Is there a book on the table?
Yes.
Yes, there is.
No.
No, there isn't.

 

[Tdol]

Or simply No.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Or:

"Is there a book on the table?"

"No, there's not."

Here are the important things: Don't answer singular with plural, and don't answer plural with singular.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Or:

"Is there a book on the table?"

"No, there's not."

Here are the important things: Don't answer singular with plural, and don't answer plural with singular.

But not "No, there're not". Or is it also used?

 

[GoesStation]

But not "No, there're not". Or is it also used?

Most people avoid there're. It's too hard to say. It's not possible in this dialog anyway because the question established the subject as singular.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Most people avoid there're. It's too hard to say. It's not possible in this dialog anyway because the question established the subject as singular.

Do you mean it's never used in both written and spoken English?

 

[GoesStation]

Do you mean it's never used in both written and spoken English?

You may see and hear it occasionally. Don't use it.

 

[emsr2d2]

I can't find it now but there was a debate on here some time back as to whether the casual, reduced spoken form of "There are" could really be considered "There're" and whether it should be written like that. It's certainly true in BrE that in normal, everyday, fairly rapid speech, a possible answer to the question "Are there any books on the table?" is "[No.] There're not". I don't do phonetics but it sounds like "Tharer" (rhymes with "rarer") - it certainly wouldn't come out as "There are" where "are" rhymes with "car".

 

[Tarheel]

Do you mean it's never used in written and spoken English?

I certainly wouldn't use it. And I never have.

The whole point of a contraction is that it makes things easier to say. I wouldn't use a contraction that's harder to say than the original. (Why would anybody do that?)

 

[Rachel Adams]

Most people avoid there're. It's too hard to say. It's not possible in this dialog anyway because the question established the subject as singular.

Is it wrong to use "there is" at the end of a sentence?
For example; "On the table there is a book" instead of "there is a book on the table"?

 

[Tarheel]

Is it wrong to use "there is" at the end of a sentence?

No, it's not wrong.

For example; "On the table there is a book" instead of "there is a book on the table"?

Whatever floats your boat. :-D

It's different, but it's not wrong.

 

[Rachel Adams]

It's different, but it's not wrong.

And the short form is used too, isn't it? "On the table there's a book."

 

[Tarheel]

And the short form is used too, isn't it?

Not really. It's grammatical, sure. But people don't go around talking about books on tables.

"On the table there's a book."

It's not likely to ever be a topic of conversation.