[Grammar] There is a key on the table there.

[kadioguy]

There is a key on the table there.

(My original sentence)
-------------
I am wondering if this sentence is correct.

I saw a kind of explanation in which it sees "there is a key" as an inversion of "a key is there". If so, my sentence above will be incorrect, or it will be "a key is on the table there there".

What do you think?

 

[jutfrank]

The first sentence is okay but the transformed sentence is wrong.

I don't understand what you're trying to do or why.

 

[kadioguy]

The first sentence is okay but the transformed sentence is wrong.

I don't understand what you're trying to do or why.

Thank you for the reply, jutfrank.

I saw a kind of explanation in which it sees "there is XXX" as an inversion of "XXX is there".

According to that kind of explanation, we see

(a) "There is a key" is an inversion of (b) "a key is there".

(c) "There is a key there" is an inversion of (d) "a key is there there".

(e) "There is a key on the table there" is an inversion of (f) "a key is on the table there there".

What do you think? (I think (d) and (f) are strange.)

 

[Tdol]

We're moving into strange paces when we're using there there. Stick with the original.

 

[kadioguy]

(a) "There is a key."

(c) "There is a key there."

Do they have the same effect?

 

[SoothingDave]

(a) "There is a key."

(c) "There is a key there."

Do they have the same effect?

No. The first states that a key exists. The second tells us a key's location.

 

[kadioguy]

I saw a kind of explanation in which it sees "there is XXX" as an inversion of "XXX is there"

I guess that you don't agree with that.

Am I right?

 

[emsr2d2]

I certainly don't agree that "There is" (existence) is an inversion of "is there" (location).

 

[jutfrank]

I saw a kind of explanation in which it sees "there is XXX" as an inversion of "XXX is there".

According to that kind of explanation, we see

(a) "There is a key" is an inversion of (b) "a key is there".

You can't really do that. To repeat what other members have said, the initial There is an existential 'there'. If you invert the sentence, it reads as a place adverb.

Where did you see this particular explanation? What was the point the writer was trying to make?

 

[jutfrank]

(a) "There is a key."

(c) "There is a key there."

Do they have the same effect?

No, the effect is quite different. The second sentence is about location. The first isn't.

 

[SoothingDave]

It is possible, with emphasis and gestures, that "THERE is a key" could be about location. But it is not the natural reading.

 

[Rover_KE]

You said it's your original sentence. What is the context?

Who are you talking to? Can the listener see the key? Is there more than one table?

 

[kadioguy]

Where did you see this particular explanation? What was the point the writer was trying to make?

This particular explanation was from a grammar book by a Chinese speaker. I reread that part just now.

It says:

A sentence like "There (C) is (V) a book (S) on the desk" is an inversion of "A book (S) is (V) there (C) on the desk". (Note: S=subject, V=verb, C=complement)

This kind of sentence is used for emphasis, just as:

Here comes the parade.
Away flew the birds.

What do you think?

You said it's your original sentence. What is the context?

Who are you talking to? Can the listener see the key? Is there more than one table?

I've got your point, Rover_KE. I wrote this sentence simply to discuss this grammar point, so I have no particular context. I am sorry to have failed to mention this in post #1.

 

[Tarheel]

Kadioguy, we don't say I've got your point. (A sentence without context lacks meaning.)

 

[kadioguy]

Kadioguy, we don't say I've got your point. (A sentence without context lacks meaning.)

Simply say I've got it?

 

[Tarheel]

Say: "I get your point" if you have to say that. (You could start with the second sentence in that post, in which case it would, of course, be the first sentence.)

 

[kadioguy]

This particular explanation was from a grammar book by a Chinese speaker. I reread that part just now.

It says:

A sentence like "There (C) is (V) a book (S) on the desk" is an inversion of "A book (S) is (V) there (C) on the desk". (Note: S=subject, V=verb, C=complement)

This kind of sentence is used for emphasis, just as:

Here comes the parade.
Away flew the birds.

What do you think?

Hi, all. I am wondering if you agree with this statement?

 

[GoesStation]

No. As explained above, it's incorrect.

 

[probus]

It does not seem to be a very good book. Neither of the last two examples is particularly or necessarily emphatic.

"Here comes the parade" is merely an assertion that the parade is about to arrive. The speaker may be excited about that fact, but without an exclamation point there is no reason to call the statement emphatic.

"Away flew the birds" is just a variant of "The birds flew away." It might be chosen if the speaker is telling a story to small children for example, but it is better described as slightly poetic rather than emphatic.

 

[tedmc]

I think the sentence would be correct if you change it to:

The book is there on the desk.