What events could there be in that city?

[Pilot]

Why is "there" in " What events could there be in the city?" but not in "What could be in the city?"?

 

[Tarheel]

Assuming those are your sentences, it's not in the second one simply because you didn't put it there.

The first one is fairly clear, but it could be rephrased better as "What's going on in Charlotte this weekend?" or something like that.

It's unclear what the speaker means by the second one.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm not completely sure what your question is. I presume you're asking something about the use of 'there-be' in the former sentence. In this case, it's likely existential.

Did you mean to include the noun 'events' in the second example?
Could you tell us where you took these sentences from? The second one especially sounds made up.

 

[Pilot]

The question arose because online translators (Google, DeepL) provide me with such translations when I translate texts from Russian into English. Sometimes they put "there" for both physical and non-physical things, and sometimes they don't. I can't understand the regularity

 

[Tarheel]

The question arose because online translators (Google, DeepL) provide me with such translations when I translate texts from Russian into English. Sometimes they USE "there" for both physical and non-physical things, and sometimes they don't. I DON'T understand the regularity

I'm not sure what you mean by "regularity" there.

 

[Pilot]

I'm not sure what you mean by "regularity" there.

I meant that sometimes the same translator translates the same sentence differently, with or without "there"

 

[Tarheel]

You are looking for "consistency". You don't think that person is consistent.

 

[jutfrank]

You'd need to give some real examples in context for us to comment sensibly and judge whether a 'there-be' is justified.

 

[Pilot]

There is the case

I don't know what problems there might be

Where are there kind people?

 

[Tarheel]

"I don't know what problems there might be" is fine, but, of course, I don't know if it fits the context. (It lacks a period (full stop).)

 

[Pilot]

Maybe it's easier to determine where "there" is not required than where it is required? As I understand it, it's used for physical and non-physical things like "problems", but a native speaker corrected me once when I was trying to say the conditional sentence "If there were the case..." (I don't remember the ending) and told me to use "It" instead

 

[Tarheel]

A typical native speaker would have no idea what you mean by "conditional sentence".

Do you have a question about a specific sentence?

"If that was the case" is possible, but I am totally unfamiliar with your phrase.

 

[Pilot]

Do you have a question about a specific sentence?

"If that was the case" is possible, but I am totally unfamiliar with your phrase.

Is "If there were a case, the conditions would change" correct?

 

[5jj]

Is "If there were a case, the conditions would change" correct?

That is grammatical.
If there were the case, the conditions would change. That is not.

 

[teechar]

Note that "if that was the case" means "if that was true". Do you see why you can't really play around with it like you tried?

 

[jutfrank]

Is "If there were a case, the conditions would change" correct?

No, it's very wrong. I don't think any of us are even entirely sure what you mean, but I'll guess that you mean this:

If that/it were the case, the conditions would change.

As the above post notes, 'the case' here (with 'the') means something like 'true'. Also note that this sentence does not use 'there-be', as it doesn't say anything about location or existence.

 

[Pilot]

ChatGPT explained to me that in "If that/it were the situation" we are talking about a concrete situation known beforehand, and in " If there were a situation" we are hypothetically talking about existence of some situation. The article "a" indicates a hypothetical, undefined situation. It is simply a possible state of affairs, spoken of as a concept, without being connected to anything concrete. And since the concrete situation does not exist, unlike in the first case, we cannot use "the" here

 

[jutfrank]

I think you misunderstand. We use the case, with the definite article 'the' to mean something like 'the true state of affairs'. You can't use the indefinite article 'a' in this phrase, and you can't use it with 'there-be'.

 

[Pilot]

As the above post notes, 'the case' here (with 'the') means something like 'true'. Also note that this sentence does not use 'there-be', as it doesn't say anything about location or existence.

"Case" = "incident," right? Why doesn't "case" indicate the existence of an "incident"? In the sentences "I don't know what problems there might be" and "If there were bees here, they would sting you" does it mean existence or location?

 

[jutfrank]

"Case" = "incident," right? Why doesn't "case" indicate the existence of an "incident"?

Where? In which sentence do you think it means that? I think the following sentence confused us all:

There is the case

Please explain what you wanted this to mean.

In the sentences "I don't know what problems there might be" and "If there were bees here, they would sting you" does it mean existence or location?

Existence.