object/subject in 'there+be' sentences

[Soup]

Yep.

Is it still of issue? :-D

 

[engee30]

Is it still of issue? :-D

Like hell it is. :-D

 

[Soup]

Like hell it is. :-D

What does that mean? (Is there anyone on this board that uses English to actually say what they mean?)

 

[birdeen's call]

Confuses the issue, not contradicts it. Tuesday is not the subject here:

• Yesterday was Tuesday.

I cannot make sense of what it is you are trying to say, and the pitiful part is that I actually want to know what you said.

In what context? The question is broad.

Please be nice, Soup.

I will try to say what I mean again. If you don't understand that, please help me explain by saying what you don't understand. If it's still too incomprehensible to ask questions about it, please say it and the discussion will end.

You said the following things.

Me: "A lot of people" is the subject.
You: 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.

Me: I think "Tuesday" is the subject in Yesterday was Tuesday.
You: But... English has SV word-order, which makes Yesterday the subject (S), was the verb (V), and Tuesday a subject complement (SC).

In both statements your argument is that English has SV word order. In both statements the conclusion is the same: in either sentence (of the sentences in question), the subject is the word before the verb.

I would like to understand what you meant by "English has SV word order". (I previously asked what it meant. I'm now asking what you meant by that. I think this narrows the broad scope of my previous question. I apologize for not having thought of it then.)

I would also like to understand why "English has SV word order" (in the meaning you used, which I hope you will explain) implies that "there" and "yesterday" are subjects (of whatever kind) in their respective sentences.

I asked one more question in this thread, which still hasn't been answered, but I will refrain from repeating it until these two are. Maybe I will see it more clearly then.

 

[crazYgeeK]

Re: object/subject in 'there be' sentences

Oh! What a long thread!
I wanna share some opinions of mine.
I think normally English has SV order, it's not special at all, I mean that many languages agree with that rule, including my native language - Vietnamese.
But in some special cases, it changes the normal order to express something like emphasis, exclamation...and even informal or spoken English.
I think yesterday in "Yesterday was Tuesday" is the subject, to me "Tuesday" is the object (I'm not sure if it is the same to "subject complement").
To me, "Yesterday" can be used as an adverb of time, I see as an adverb, so do we have an emphatic structure like "Adverb do/does/to be subject"?
If we have, the sentence "Yesterday was Tuesday" may be kind of that structure. And if so, "Tuesday" is the subject and "Yesterday" is an adverb. So we may have two ways of understanding on this problem.
I have some emphatic sentences: Quickly do you go!
You go quickly!
Is this use right?
If "Yesterday" is a noun but an adverb(see it as so) and vice versa, I think we can surely point out what the subject is!
Thank you so much!

 

[Soup]

Me: "A lot of people" is the subject.
You: It's the notional (or real) subject. More clearly, the term 'subject' refers to the structural subject (the word, phrase, clause that determines the verb's number agreement). In our example (There were a lot of people in the street), [t]he structural subject (the one that agrees with the main verb) is There. (That's the 'subject'.) We know that because English has SV word-order: the structural subject comes first. That is, when there are two subjects, one structural and one notional, it is the structural subject (S) that agrees with the verb (V), not the notional subject. So, in saying that '"A lot of people" is the subject' you are saying that it determines the verb's number agreement. It doesn't. Here's why.

The phrase 'a lot of people' participates in a copular structure: the subject (S), the verb (V) and the subject complement (SC) all must agree in number. Below, There (S) is plural and agrees in plural number with are (V) and a lot of people (SC):

• There are a lot of people in the street. plural

But it is not the subject complement (a lot of people) that gives the verb (are) its number, it's the subject (There) as evidenced by clitic -'s, short for singular is:

• There's a lot of people in the street. singular

If the phrase 'a lot of people' determined the verb's number agreement, plural are, then There's (a lot of) people would be ungrammatical, yet speakers use it because they know that English has SV word-order: the structural subject determines the verb's number agreement. Change SV to VS (a question) and the structural subject still determines the verb's number (e.g., Is she happy?).


Me: I think "Tuesday" is the subject in Yesterday was Tuesday. Consider, first, the grammaticality of Yesterday was hot and *Hot was yesterday. If yesterday were the subject (that would make it a noun) then the inversion *Hot was yesterday should be grammatical as the noun yesterday should agree in number with its verb, but it is not grammatical, which tell us that the verb doesn't gets its number agreement from its subject complement (yesterday):

• Tuesday (S, noun) was yesterday (ADV).
• Yesterday (S, noun) was Tuesday (SC, noun).
  

The assumption is that one of the above sentences is an inversion of the other because both sentences share the same words, but at the level of meaning those sentences differ: yesterday (noun), a day; yesterday (ADV), a point in time. With copular sentences, the subject (nominal) complement renames the subject (e.g., Sue is a teacher) or describes the subject (e.g., Sue is happy), yet in our example (Tuesday was yesterday) yesterday does not rename Tuesday or describe it; it tells us when Tuesday existed in time, and adverbial meaning. Which means these do not share the same meaning:

• Yesterday (noun) was Tuesday.
• Tuesday was yesterday (ADV).

I asked one more question in this thread, which still hasn't been answered, but I will refrain from repeating it until these two are. Maybe I will see it more clearly then.

You asked:

...why not call what happens in "there" sentences inversion too?

With there-inversion, the meanings differ because the semantic contribution of there is altered by its position in the syntax:

[1] There were a lot of people in the street.
[2] A lot of people were there, in the street.


With there-replacement, the preparatory sense ([3]) is omitted along with there ([4]):

[3] There were a lot of people in the street.
[4] A lot of people were in the street.


With inversion, the topic shifts (much like that of a passive construct: the focus is on the first noun, not the second one).

[4] A lot of people were in the street.
[5] In the street were a lot of people.

 

[birdeen's call]

Thank you. I understand your arguments now.

Regarding

There's a lot of people on the street.

I always thought the "'s" was possible there because of the singular "a lot", not because of the singular "there". "Lot" is morphologically singular and there doesn't seem to be a problem with treating it as a singular noun semantically.

As for

There's people on the street.

without "a lot", I thought it wasn't a universally accepted structure. Is it? If it weren't, it would (I believe) refute your argument.

I'd also like to know if there were any surveys indicating that people think of "there" as the subject of some of their sentences. Would an average native speaker of English say without any discomfort that "there" is the subject in

There were people on the street.

? I'm asking this because I want to know whther the definition of subject you've given is artificial or not.

This is actually another version of a question question I asked before. Is it necessary and why to consider "there" a subject in our examples? Just calling it an exception (and giving it a separate set of rules) would be much closer to my intuition. I am not a native speaker, so my intuition doesn't have to matter, but I suspect it could be the same in the case of native speakers.

As for the "yesterday" sentences, I first want to ignore the "hot" one. I wouldn't call "hot" a subject there, so there is no disagreement between what you say and what I think.

In the "Tuesday" one I agree that those two sentences don't have the same meaning. I didn't think they had before either, but it's now that I've come to agree that "yesterday" is a noun in

Yesterday was Tuesday.

I will think about it more probably.

I asked what you meant by "English has SV word order." I'm not sure I've gotten the answer. You only said:

There's (a lot of) people would be ungrammatical, yet speakers use it because they know that English has SV word-order: the structural subject determines the verb's number agreement.

Does it mean that "English has SV word-order" means, "In English, the structural subject determines the verb's number agreement?"

 

[Soup]

Regarding

There's a lot of people on the street.

We're dealing with informal speech. You may find this thread of some interest. There's (even Here's) plus a plural notional-subject is quite common in informal speech, at least in AmE, and whilst it breaks the rules of formal English, "subject-verb non-concord" is common in spoken language, and not just in existential-there sentences. But informal English has nothing to do with why existential-there a is structural subject; Word-order does. (I have found a tutorial for you on Realisations of Subjects. Click here. Scroll down to Some Unusual Subjects).

Is it necessary and why to consider "there" a subject in our examples? Just calling it an exception (and giving it a separate set of rules) would be much closer to my intuition.

Every sentence has a structural subject position, even existential-there constructs. In English, the subject comes first in statement; in questions the subject is inverted (usually); in imperative sentences the subject is implied you. With existential-there sentences, the structural subject is semantically empty: it fills a slot positionally, nothing more, nothing less. All sentences have a (structural) subject (position). (Polish, by the way, has existential-there constructs too).

As for the "yesterday" sentences, I first want to ignore the "hot" one. I wouldn't call "hot" a subject there.

Neither would I. It's as odd as saying the adverb yesterday is a subject in Tuesday was yesterday). In English, the subject comes first in statements: Tuesday was yesterday; *Hot was yesterday; Yesterday was Tuesday.

In the "Tuesday" one I agree that those two sentences don't have the same meaning. I didn't think they had before either, but it's now that I've come to agree that "yesterday" is a noun in

Yesterday was Tuesday.

That's right: subjects are nouns.

I asked what you meant by "English has SV word order." I'm not sure I've gotten the answer.

More clearly, the subject (the word that agrees in person and number with the verb) comes before the verb, not after the verb. English word-order is not fluid, unlike, say, Polish, wherein the word-order is liberal (the morphology is highly inflected which makes it possible to move words around the sentence without changing meaning, even the subject can be dropped/omitted). Polish has basic SV word-order but the subject doesn't always have to come before the verb. English, on the other hand, is not a highly inflected language: position, not inflection, determines what a word is in a sentence: the subject comes before the verb (SV word-order).

 

[svartnik2]

Yesterday [noun] (the day before today) was Tuesday.
Tuesday was yesterday.

Peter is my spouse. =? fronting for hightened prominence
My spouse is Peter. =? fronting

S = indeterminable, IMO

 

[birdeen's call]

You have me lost again, Soup. What is the evidence for "there"'s being a subject? I know you said that and I'm sorry I don't understand.

Is the evidence that

1. people say, "There's a lot of people on the street," which proves "there" is singular, and therefore is a subject,

or is that

2. English has SV word order, and therefore "there" is a subject, because it's before the verb?

Probably both are but I don't understand.

If 1. is the argument, then I don't understand why. As I said, I thought "a lot of people" was singular in that sentence, not "there". Then, the argument of number agreement wouldn't work. Is my interpretation impossible?

If 2. is the argument, then I don't understand it either. The definition of SV order is simply still unclear to me. You say

the subject (the word that agrees in person and number with the verb) comes before the verb, not after the verb.

but this sentence lacks quantification. Is it "always", "often", "usually" or "sometimes"?
It is not always, because

Came Christmas.

does not obey the rule.
If it were "usually", "often" or anything like this, it couldn't be used as an argument in discussions.

You gave me this:

Click here. Scroll down to Some Unusual Subjects).

It gives me yet another definition of subject. It says that the subject is the word that undergoes inversion in questions. It's a definion different from the ones you've given. Which one is right?

This puzzles me too:

Polish, by the way, has existential-there constructs 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".

 

[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. :cross:

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. :cross:

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

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.