There are many stars in the sky

[GoldfishLord]

• There are 28 days in February.

"In February" does not form a noun phrase with "28 days".

• There are now only two schools in the area that actually teach Latin.

"In the area" forms a noun phrase with "two schools" and "that actually teach Latin".

• There are many stars in the sky.

I think that whether "in the sky" forms a noun phrase with "many stars" is ambiguous.
One possibility: "in the sky" forms a noun phrase with "many stars"
Another possibility: "in the sky" does not form a noun phrase with "many stars".

Is whether "in the sky" forms a noun phrase with "many stars" grammatically ambiguous?

 

[Tarheel]

• There are 28 days in February.

"In February" does not form a noun phrase with "28 days".

• There are now only two schools in the area that actually teach Latin.

"In the area" formS a noun phrase with "two schools" and "that actually teach Latin".

• There are many stars in the sky.

I think that whether "in the sky" forms a noun phrase with "many stars" is ambiguous.
One possibility: "in the sky" forms a noun phrase with "many stars"
Another possibility: "in the sky" does not form a noun phrase with "many stars".

Is whether "in the sky" forms a noun phrase with "many stars" grammatically ambiguous?

Not particularly.

 

[emsr2d2]

@GoldfishLord Where did you get the original sentences from? Where did you get the original grammatical information from? What prompted you to post this thread?
Please note no further replies will be posted until you provide source and context.

 

[GoldfishLord]

Google search.

Is 2019 a leap year? Why there are 28 days in February - and when there will be 29
Source: https://www.google.co.kr/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/2018-leap-year-next-one-11993481.amp

There are now only two schools in the area that actually teach Latin.
Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/relative-clauses-defining-and-non-defining

There are many stars in the sky, and yet we look to the North Star first to guide the way.
Source: https://barbaraschreibke77.medium.com/happiness-3a0de0b182f2

 

[jutfrank]

Is whether "in the sky" forms a noun phrase with "many stars" grammatically ambiguous?

No.

I think that what you're really asking is whether 'there-be' is existential or locative. This sentence is existential, which means that the speaker is saying something about what there is rather than saying something about where stars are.

Could it also be interpreted as locative? Well, I think that with no context at all it could possibly be, but it would be a forced, unnatural interpretation, so I'll say no, there's no ambiguity. The meaning is clear enough even without the context.

 

[GoldfishLord]

I know that I'm asking weird questions, but I'd like to analyze those sentences completely.

---

• There are many stars in the sky.
• In the sky, there are many stars.

In the first sentence, "many stars in the universe" is a noun phrase, but, in the second one, "in the sky" does not form a noun phrase with "many stars" anymore.
Am I right?

---

• There are many stars in the sky.

This sentence could be analyzed in the following ways:
1) there are /many stars in the sky/. (In this case, "many stars in the sky" is a noun phrase)
2) there are /many stars/, in the sky. (In this case, "many stars in the sky" is not a noun phrase)

This is why I said in the original post that the sentence "there are many stars in the sky" was grammatically ambiguous.
I wonder where I am wrong.

 

[jutfrank]

I know that I'm asking weird questions, but I'd like to analyze those sentences completely.

---

• There are many stars in the sky.
• In the sky, there are many stars.

In the first sentence, "many stars in the universe" is a noun phrase, but, in the second one, "in the sky" does not forms a noun phrase with "many stars" anymore.
Am I right?

I think you should forget about noun phrases. Think first about any differences in meaning.

What are you trying to say?

a) Stars exist (existence)
b) Stars are in the sky (location)

I wonder where I am wrong.

In my opinion, you're wrong in that you're trying first and foremost to analyse the syntax, not the meaning. The way that you analyse the structure depends entirely on the meaning of the sentence.

 

[GoldfishLord]

When "there-be" is locative, does the "there" in "there-be" mean "at that place"?

 

[jutfrank]

When "there-be" is locative, does the "there" in "there-be" mean "at that place"?

Yes.

 

[GoldfishLord]

What are you trying to say?

a) Stars exist (existence)
b) Stars are in the sky (location)

I'm trying to say a).

---

- There are many stars in the sky. (existence)
- In the sky, there are many stars. (existence)

In the first sentence, "in the sky" modifies "many stars", but, in the second one, it does not.
Could the first one be analyzed in the same way as the second one?

 

[jutfrank]

No, they're different. The first is probably existential and the second seems to be locative, which I suppose is why you moved the preposition phrase to the front. I think that in the sky is an adjunct and a modifier in both sentences.

I don't really understand fully what you're trying to do. Are you just trying to work out whether in the sky is crucial to the meaning? Are you asking whether in the sky tells us which stars are being referred to? Or whether it just gives us extra information about where the stars are?

If you remove the preposition phrase, you can see what's more clearly an existential sentence:

Ooh, look! There are many stars tonight!

The speaker is not saying where the stars are because she's only interested in their existence. Obviously, they happen to be in the sky, as usual.