There was plenty of food. There were a hundred people at the party.

[Bambook]

Part 1. Here are two sentences. They are from this page https://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/it-and-there.html
A. There was plenty of food.
B. There were a hundred people at the party.

Would you be so kind to explain me and comment on the following?

1. Sentence A have no place mentioned. As I know sentence B is more common because in introduces a place "at the party".
2. In sentences simial to sentence A, which show no place, does word "There" work as indicator of place and mean "in that place"?
3. Or in "there is\there are" sentences "There" is always a "dummy subject" as explained in the article I am giving the link to above. It says "We usually use 'there' as a dummy subject with a noun or a noun phrase and the verb 'be'".
4. I can not understand how can "there" work as a subject. To me "food" and "a hundred people" look as subjects.

Part 2.
C. A sentence from "Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone". "Where there should have been a back to Quirrell’s head, there was a face, the most terrible face Harry had ever seen." This sentence is showing no place. Am I right that the two underlined "there" are "dummy subjects" and they are not showing places? Maybe the place does exist in this sentence though it is not said it is understood?

 

[jutfrank]

1. Sentence A have no place mentioned. As I know sentence B is more common because in introduces a place "at the party".
2. In sentences simial to sentence A, which show no place, does word "There" work as indicator of place and mean "in that place"?

If the place isn't mentioned it's because the speaker knows the listener already knows what it is.

3. Or in "there is\there are" sentences "There" is always a "dummy subject" as explained in the article I am giving the link to above. It says "We usually use 'there' as a dummy subject with a noun or a noun phrase and the verb 'be'".

Understand this a single structure that we can call: 'there be'. This structure has two basic meanings: location (saying where something is) and existence (saying that something exists).

4. I can not understand how can "there" work as a subject. To me "food" and "a hundred people" look as subjects.

In this sense, 'subject' is a purely grammatical term. Dummy subjects don't denote any 'thing' in the world. A grammatical subject is not the same as a semantic or philosophical subject.

"Where there should have been a back to Quirrell’s head, there was a face, the most terrible face Harry had ever seen." This sentence is showing no place. Am I right that the two underlined "there" are "dummy subjects" and they are not showing places?

Yes, right. Moreover, both of these uses express existence, not location.

Maybe the place does exist in this sentence though it is not said it is understood?

The place is the back of Quirrell's head. That's clear from the context.

 

[Bambook]

I am sorry for bothering you. Please still clarify again for me.
1.
My old question - 2. In sentences simial to sentence A, which show no place, does word "There" work as indicator of place and mean "in that place"?
2.1. Can it ever (in this discussed structure) be used to indicate a place?

2.

Understand this a single structure that we can call: 'there be'. This structure has two basic meanings: location (saying where something is) and existence (saying that something exists).

The "two basic meanings" are they normally or always existing simultaneously in one sentence? Like in my example "There were a hundred people at the party" the "a hundred people" existed and location was "the party".

 

[jutfrank]

In sentences simial to sentence A, which show no place, does word "There" work as indicator of place and mean "in that place"?

We'll talk about sentence A specifically.

No, it indicates existence, not place. If you say There was plenty of food, you're talking about the existence of an unproblematic quantity of food. People didn't go hungry as a result of the lack of existence of food.

Can it ever (in this discussed structure) be used to indicate a place?

Yes. Indicating a place (location) is one of the two senses that 'there be' has. The other is existence.

The "two basic meanings" are they normally or always existing simultaneously in one sentence?

No, they're exclusive. Each 'there be' structure has just one of these senses.

Like in my example "There were a hundred people at the party" the "a hundred people" existed and location was "the party".

Yes, right. The 'there be' structure expresses existence and the locative phrase at the party expresses location. Yes, it's very common as you can probably imagine for sentences to contain information about both existence (with a 'there be' structure) and location (with a place phrase) in combination.

 

[emsr2d2]

I had a party last night. There were twenty people there.

The first "there" expresses existence and the second location.

 

[Bambook]

Please bare with me a little more. The following comment made me doubt.

Yes. Indicating a place (location) is one of the two senses that 'there be' has. The other is existence.

That is why I am asking again. I want to recheck the following point. In this sentence "There was plenty of food." or a similar one is "there be" always and only used and meant to show existance and never meant to show a place?

 

[emsr2d2]

Please bare bear with me a little more longer. The following comment made me doubtful.

"Yes. Indicating a place (location) is one of the two senses that 'there be' has. The other is existence."

That is why I am asking again. I want to recheck the following point. In this the sentence "There was plenty of food no full stop here" or a similar one, is "there + be" always and only used and meant to show existence and never meant to show a place express location?

Note my corrections above. In that context and any similar contexts, yes. In order for the first word to be "there" and for it to indication location, it would be followed by a comma another "there"!

Here, there was no food. There, there was plenty of food!

 

[5jj]

Please bare bear with me a little more.

...

In this sentence "There was plenty of food." or a similar one is "there be" always and only used and meant to show existaence and never meant to show a place?

No.

In speech, accompanied by a pointing gesture, and with there emhasised, it could indicate a place.

 

[Bambook]

Here, there was no food. There, there was plenty of food!

Thank yuo! The above is clear. The first "Here" and "There" which are before the commas do not belong to "there+be" structure and thus they are not rising any question. And though emsr2d2 said "yes" and 5jj said "No" I concluded that both replies mean same and "there+be" always used to indicate existence and never to indicate location.

 

[5jj]

NO. read my last post again.

 

[jutfrank]

In this sentence "There was plenty of food." or a similar one is "there be" always and only used and meant to show existance and never meant to show a place?

In this sentence, yes. I don't know what you mean by 'a similar one'.

I'll say it again: sometimes 'there-be' expresses existence and sometimes it expresses location. In this sentence it expresses existence, not location.

 

[Bambook]

I'll say it again: sometimes 'there-be' expresses existence and sometimes it expresses location. In this sentence it expresses existence, not location.

Oh Oh. I though I have clarified the issue for myself but it looks I have not. Could you please give examples of 'there-be' expressing location.

 

[jutfrank]

Could you please give examples of 'there-be' expressing location?

Aha! There's my jumper. I've been looking for that all day!
There's the bus. Come on, let's go.
Hello? Frank? Are you there?

 

[Bambook]

Aha! There's my jumper. I've been looking for that all day!
There's the bus. Come on, let's go.
Hello? Frank? Are you there?

Thank you!
I tried to analize your sentences. Pls check if the bellow is correct.
1. Line 1 and line 2 really look very much like "there+be" structure expressing existence, discussed above. But they have a definite noun phrase, and that is exactly why they are not "there+be" structures expressing existence but they are 'there+be' structures expressing location. Right?
2. Line 3 I think is different from them. Because if we convert it to an affirmative sentence it becomes "There you are" or "You are there". Here "there" is not followed by "be". Thus it is not "there+be" structure but something else. Right?

 

[emsr2d2]

I tried to analyze your sentences. Pls Please check if the my understanding bellow below is correct.

See above. In AmE, it's "analyze" and in BrE it's "analyse". The penultimate letter differs but they're both spelled with a "y", not an "i".
Remember to write all words out in full on the forum. There is no such word as "Pls".
The word "the" didn't have a referent.
"Bellow" is a verb, meaning to shout very loudly. You needed "below".

1. Lines 1 and line 2 really look very much like "there+be" structure expressing existence, discussed above. But However, they have a definite noun phrase, and that is exactly why they are not "there+be" structures expressing existence but they are 'there+be' structures expressing location. Right?

I'm going to tentatively say yes, but since I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "a definite noun phrase", I'll wait for a grammar specialist to confirm.
Note my corrections above. My first correction avoids the repetition of the word "line". My fourth correction avoids the repetition of "they are" and "there + be structures", by using "they are not [A] but ". My second correction was of tautology - don't use "really" and "very much" together. My third correction is a common one on the forum - as a learner, don't try to start a sentence with "but".

2. I think line 3 I think is different. from them no full stop here because if we convert it to an affirmative sentence it becomes "There you are" or "You are there". Here, "there" is not followed by "be". Thus Therefore, it is not "there+be" structure but something else. Right?

It's simply different because "Are you there?" can never be about existence. We don't have to convert it into anything.
Note my corrections above. The word order I've given in sentence #1 is more natural. You didn't need "from them" because it's already clear what you're comparing. It's possible to start sentences with "Because" but this isn't one of those sentences. I've added the required comma after "Here" and "Therefore" is more natural than "Thus".

 

[jutfrank]

1. Basically, yes. The existential 'there-be' is almost always used before indefinite noun phrases, so if you see there is followed by an indefinite noun phrase, you can be confident that it's probably existential, and similarly if it's followed by a definite noun phrase, it's very likely going to be locative.

2. Right, and well noted. Strictly speaking, the locative part is just the word 'there'. In the locative sense, the word 'there' is not actually a dummy subject, and has semantic content as an adverbial. Look what happens when you (try to) invert for the interrogative:

Existential:

+ There's a man in the garden.
? Is there a man in the garden?

Locative:

+ There's my jumper.
? [not possible]

Pragmatically, you can't actually make a question out of There's my jumper since the utterance is just a way to say that you've found something.

Another very important point perhaps to reiterate here is 5jj's note in post #8 that when used locatively, 'there' is often stressed whereas in existential cases it is rarely stressed.

 

[Bambook]

Thank you!

+ There's my jumper.
? [not possible]

Is not "Is my jumper there?" the appropriate interrogative here?

Another very important point perhaps to reiterate here is 5jj's note in post #8 that when used locatively, 'there' is often stressed whereas in existential cases it is rarely stressed.

Thank you! Now that you have repeated that I understood the meaning of those lines.

 

[5jj]

Is not "Is my jumper there?" the appropriate interrogative here?

No. The inverted form would be Is there my jumper?, which is not possible.

 

[jutfrank]

Is not "Is my jumper there?" the appropriate interrogative here?

If you're talking pure syntactics only, then yes, that's the transformation. My point, however, was that it's not possible to make such a transformation in real language since there's no actual propositional content. The utterance in real language is a way to show that you've just identified the location of your lost jumper. You can't really make a question out of that as it doesn't make sense. The closest you can get is something like:

Is that my jumper there?

Anyway, perhaps I'm needlessly complicating things here so don't worry too much about this.

 

[jutfrank]

The inverted form would be Is there my jumper?

This would be the interrogative structure if it were existential, not locative.

This is the point I'm (badly?) trying to make:

Locative and definite:
Declarative: My jumper is there.
Interrogative: Is my jumper there?

Existential and indefinite:
Declarative: There is a jumper.
Interrogative: Is there a jumper?