The usage of "there is the"

[Tarheel]

See below.

Bob: You know that book I've been reading?
Rob: Yeah. Moby Dick.
Bob: I've misplaced it somehow.
Rob: It's right there on the table.
Bob: D'oh! How could I have missed it?

 

[Barque]

No, I haven't misunderstood you. I just think a different style of explanation may help you. I'll answer your last couple of questions a little later.

 

[Barque]

Is it obligatory that the book and the table were visible at the time of speaking or not necessarily?

Yes, this would normally be said when the book can be seen.

Can "an ashtray" and "a penstand" potentially mean that there is more of them than one?

In theory, yes. In practice, in this context, no, because if there were more than one, you'd then specify which ashtray, so that the other person would know what you mean. For example, "There's a square ashtray on the desk that I don't use". Logic and practicality make a difference too and aid in understanding what's meant.

In post #16 I believe I have identified some situations in which you could use "There's the X in/on the Y".

Another one is where you're referring to a specific thing in a specific place.

Roftok: Do you know a good Italian restaurant? I want to take some people out on Sunday.
Barque: Well, there's Luigi's on High Street. But I don't know if it's open on Sundays.

Apart from these, I don't think there are any other situations you could use "There's the X in/on Y" in.

 

[ROFTOK]

See below.

Bob: You know that book I've been reading?
Rob: Yeah. Moby Dick.
Bob: I've misplaced it somehow.
Rob: It's right there on the table.
Bob: D'oh! How could I have missed it?

Thank you Tarheel!
But if you look at the matter under discussion closely you will see that there is no "there is the" construction in your context.

 

[Tarheel]

@ROFTOK The purpose of the dialogues is to illustrate natural speech. With that in mind, I am not going to create a dialogue with phrases I don't think anybody is ever going to say.

 

[ROFTOK]

@ROFTOK The purpose of the dialogues is to illustrate natural speech. With that in mind, I am not going to create a dialogue with phrases I don't think anybody is ever going to say.

It's up to you. But the point of this thread is not your dialogue no matter how natural it is but the construction under discussion which has been being analyzed with great pains. On the bright note, I must admit, that there is something new for you to learn here, because this "unnatural" construction is used by no lesser person than John Galsworthy. What I like about this forum is that every one can learn something new in terms of language.

"The man of the world was more than ever determined to see what she was made of. Along the terrace he kept close at her elbow. He had within him much good wine. There was the long drive home, the long drive and the warm dark and the pleasant closeness of the hansom cab with its insulation from the world devised by some great and good man."

Barque, would you be so kind to contribute your opinion on the usage of this "unnatural" construction produced by John Galsworthy? I think it would be interesting.

 

[5jj]

"The man of the world was more than ever determined to see what she was made of. Along the terrace he kept close at her elbow. He had within him much good wine. There was the long drive home, the long drive and the warm dark and the pleasant closeness of the hansom cab with its insulation from the world devised by some great and good man."

That is different. It is not "There was the long drive home ... on/in anything".

 

[Barque]

Barque, would you be so kind to contribute your opinion on the usage of this "unnatural" construction produced by John Galsworthy?

I agree with 5jj that that's a different construction.

 

[ROFTOK]

That is different. It is no "There was the long drive home ... on/in anything".

I never said that it must only be "there is the ... on/in anything". It has been "there is the".

 

[ROFTOK]

I agree with 5jj that that's a different construction.

But what does the author mean by it? Do you understand?

 

[Barque]

But what does the author mean by it? Do you understand?

He was saying it (the long drive home) happened or was going to happen. He's either saying "There was the long drive home that happened" or "There was the long drive home that awaited them". I can't tell from just that passage which he meant.

I don't think it's relevant to your original question.

 

[ROFTOK]

I don't think it's relevant to your original question.

Thank you. I want you to know that it's very much relevant. Everything that has "there is the" is very much relevant.

 

[Barque]

Noted. Good luck and I hope someone gives you an answer that helps you.

 

[jutfrank]

There are a couple of key points of confusion going on here. The first is a confusion of two different senses of there and the second relates to definite/indefinite noun phrases.

First, you should distinguish between existential there and referential (or 'deictic') there.

1) There's a book on the table.

The blue there above is existential—it simply says what exists. It doesn't say anything about any location (the place phrase on the table does that). After existential there be, we almost always use an indefinite noun phrase (hence the indefinite article). The reasons for this we can discuss later, if necessary. We also typically need to follow existential there be with a place phrase.

2) There's a book.

The red there above is referential. That means it's referring to a particular place. This is the 'pointing' sense that you've mentioned in your previous posts. In my example 2), there is no need for the speaker to use a place phrase because the 'pointing' makes it clear to the listener that the place being referred to is wherever the pointing is directed at. In fact, it would normally be wrong to follow with a place phrase, for this precise reason. If a speaker did follow with a place phrase, it would be a way to make it very clear to the listener what the location is by naming it explicitly. However, in speech, this would be done with special intonation, which in writing may be represented as follows:

2a) There's a book—on the table.

In this case, the the red there and the place phrase on the table both refer to the same place. The place is mentioned first deictically and then later explicitly. After referential there, you can follow equally with a definite or an indefinite noun phrase, depending on the meaning of the utterance, but a definite noun phrase tends to be more likely (again, we can discuss why this is next, if necessary).

Is that clear so far?

 

[ROFTOK]

jutfrank, most of it is clear. But one thing is not. If I hear someone say the sentence:

There's a book on the table.

How can I distinguish which one of the two meanings is meant? Of course, if I have it in different colors then it's clear, but in speech this option is not available. I infer that:

There's a book on the table. (can represent two types of "there" namely "existential and referential since they are unrecognizable in speech.)

Maybe, in terms of practical usage, it's not so important, but I just decided to let you know that that is what I didn't understand.

 

[jutfrank]

jutfrank, most of it is clear. But one thing is not. If I hear someone say the sentence:

There's a book on the table.

How can I distinguish which one of the two meanings is meant?

From the way the person says it. As I've tried to show, if the referential meaning is intended, there will be an obvious pause (as well as intonation marking) before the on the table part.

Also, of course, from the context of the utterance. It's very unlikely you'll misunderstand.

Of course, if I have it in different colors then it's clear, but in speech this option is not available.

Yes, it is. See my point above.

 

[Barque]

jutfrank, most of it is clear. But one thing is not. If I hear someone say the sentence:

There's a book on the table.

I know I said I was going to withdraw but perhaps I can contribute a little more.

Roftok, logic isn't the only important thing. You also have to keep in mind what's customary.

People do not say 'There's the book on the table" merely to mean "The book's on the table". Just accept that. That's how it is. "There's the book on the table" is only used in the circumstances I listed earlier.

Don't look for logic. English isn't a logical language.

Also, there are some aspects of English that you have to get a feel for. That comes from practice, not from asking questions on forums.

 

[ROFTOK]

I know I said I was going to withdraw but perhaps I can contribute a little more.

Roftok, logic isn't the only important thing. You also have to keep in mind what's customary.

People do not say 'There's the book on the table" merely to mean "The book's on the table". Just accept that. That's how it is. "There's the book on the table" is only used in the circumstances I listed earlier.

Don't look for logic. English isn't a logical language.

Also, there are some aspects of English that you have to get a feel for. That comes from practice, not from asking questions on forums.

Actually, I see no problem about asking on forums something I don't know. It won't hurt. I think that's what forums are made for, for asking.
As for your advice to accept that people say "The book is on the table", well, I can accept that. But I don't have to confine myself to accepting something without exploring it. English has a fuzzy logic, but saying that it has no logic it's a stretch. And I am pretty sure that there is a reason behind why people don't say There is the book...

 

[ROFTOK]

jutfrank, I think you are not finished with the explanation. I am all set to read your further explanation.

 

[5jj]

And I am pretty sure that there is a reason behind why people don't say There is the book...

But they do, in some contexts, as you have been told.