4

The question about "the role of infinitive in this sentence" prompted me to ask the following question.

English uses a "dummy" such as it and there to start a sentence when there is nothing else to start an extra-posed sentence in the linked question or a sentence starting with "there". Please read the comments below the answer.

I object to calling "there" a subject of the sentence in the following:

There is a man at the door.

There is redundant as it could be rephrased to "A man is at the door/A man is there (pointing at the door)" as "at the door" indicates the place where a man physically exist at this moment. Here, "there" is a dummy which means nothing.

Another example:

There was no snow yesterday.

In this sentence, there means nothing and just indicates the existence of "snow" yesterday.

Oxford Online Dictionary classifies this dummy "there" as an "adverb"

3 (usually there is/are) Used to indicate the fact or existence of something: ‘there’s a restaurant round the corner’

Let's say two people are engaged in a phone conversation:

A: There was much snow yesterday in our town. Was there much snow?
B: Here was not much (snow).

If "there" in the abvoe is a subject as a dummy, why is "here" not a subject?

Note: I read the linked previous question with an interest but it doesn't address why "here" cannot be a dummy subject like dummy there.

Community
  • 1
  • I don't get it. I can clearly add meanings to both here and there. Actually they make perfect matches to several other languages too, Turkish and Japanese being the 2 examples I can give. There: Asoko in Japanese and There: Orada in Turkish and is/are and was/were are time indicators and subject pronoun indicators. I read the other explanations for locator and dummy there but for me dummy there is not dummy at all. – Grizzly Nov 10 '15 at 08:36
  • @Grizzly Asoko in Japanese is a pronoun. There and here are adverbs (sometimes nouns). Big difference there. As I don't know anything about Turkish, I can't comment on it. –  Nov 10 '15 at 08:39
  • same in Turkish too but the dummy there, I can totally imagine it in my mind. For me it doesn't feel dummy at all. Nonetheless, interesting read. – Grizzly Nov 10 '15 at 08:41
  • 1
    A brief look in the google leads me to believe that the locative there and the dummy-subject there were both present in Old English. I haven't put this in an answer because I don't know enough to evaluate the sources. Given that Old English had a dummy-subject there but no dummy-subject here, it's no surprise that modern English is the same. The question then becomes why would you expect a dummy-subject here? Of course, this pushes the question back to Old English. – deadrat Nov 10 '15 at 09:26
  • @deadrat Yes, I worried that it would be close-voted as primarily opinion- based when I posted it. There is no etymological explanation in the previous link and your input will be much appreciated if you don't mind. –  Nov 10 '15 at 09:49
  • "Here" and "there" are used quite differently in A and B. The former is specifying a location, it's not a "dummy". It's only the fact that "there" can also be used to indicate a location that makes them feel similar. The distinction is clearer if you say "here, there was not much snow" (which sounds much more natural than your version) – Rupe Nov 10 '15 at 10:03
  • @Rupe I understand you point. If I had used more natural version, this question would not work. My point is "there" is as much adverbial as "here". In other words, "here" is as as much dummy-subject-like as "there". –  Nov 10 '15 at 10:12
  • Yes that's what I took you to mean. Sorry but I think you're wrong. "Here" in this case is a straightforward locative adverb that clearly adds meaning that's not there otherwise. It's only the similarity of form between the 2 sentences and the fact that "here" is related to (another sense of) "there" that makes them seem at all similar. Compare with "In London (there) was not much snow". Would you say that "In London" is a dummy subject in that? – Rupe Nov 10 '15 at 10:20
  • @Rathony I've put what I found in an answer that I hope it useful but hedged enough not to be misleading. – deadrat Nov 10 '15 at 10:21
  • 1
    @Rathony You're welcome. It's an interesting question, and I hope someone with a working knowledge of Old English chimes in if only to let us know if I'm on the right track. – deadrat Nov 10 '15 at 10:32
  • Here is an example of a sentence that uses "here". – Hot Licks Nov 10 '15 at 12:14
  • @HotLicks Good one. I like that. –  Nov 10 '15 at 12:20
  • @HotLicks Yes, but it isn't a Subject there though. – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 12:22
  • @Araucaria - How is "here" not the subject?? – Hot Licks Nov 10 '15 at 12:28
  • @HotLicks It's a case of Subject-dependent inversion, which happens a lot with BE. – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 12:31
  • @Araucaria - And you would make the same claim for "It is an example of a sentence"? – Hot Licks Nov 10 '15 at 12:33
  • @Araucaria - I think if you study the references you will see that this is NOT an example of subject-dependent inversion. – Hot Licks Nov 10 '15 at 12:36
  • @HotLicks Try the tests outlined in Bill's answer below. Have you got any references to say that here is a Subject in that sentence? – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 13:36
  • @HotLicks In "it is an example of a sentence" the sentence means "it = an example of a sentence". That is clearly not what your sentence means. It means "In this place is an example of a sentence", not "In this place = an example of a sentence". Try the tests outlined by Bill on that "It's an example, isn't it" versus *"Here's an example, isn't here". – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 13:39

4 Answers4

3

I wouldn’t go along with that. Locative “there” is an adverb (some grammars call it a prep) rhyming with “dare” and meaning “in or at that place”. Dummy pronoun “there” on the other hand is pronounced unstressed with a reduced vowel and used to fill the syntactic subject position in existential clauses. So there is a difference in category, pronunciation and meaning.

Historically, dummy pronoun “there” derives from the locative “there”, but it has been bleached of its locative meaning and reanalysed as a pronoun.

The point is that the dummy pronoun “there” is without doubt the syntactic subject in an existential clause, no less than “it” is the subject in an extraposed construction. This can easily be proved:

  1. “There” occupies the basic subject position before the verb, e.g. “There was a nurse present”.

  2. In subject-auxiliary inversion constructions it occurs after the auxiliary, e.g. “Was there a nurse present?”

  3. “There” occurs as subject in interrogative tags, e.g. “There was a nurse present, wasn’t there”?

Yes, the Oxford Online dictionary does indeed give existential “there” as an adverb, but it is wrong! As usual, it is just using ‘adverb’ as a classificatory dumping ground for any word that doesn’t easily fit into one of the other word categories. The examples above demonstrate without doubt that existential “there” is a pronoun. In any case, the function of subject can’t normally be realised by an adverb.

To complete the syntax, the subject of the non-existential construction becomes a displaced subject in the existential version:

[1] "Several windows were open". [2] "There were several windows open".

In [2] “several windows” is analysed as a displaced subject (an internal complement of the verb), but it does correspond semantically to the subject in the non-existential counterpart [1].

Finally, you asked why "here" could not be the subject in:

"Here was not much snow".

"Here" is not a pronoun here, but an adverb (some call it a prep) so it can't possibly be subject. The syntactic subject in this example is "not much snow", and "here" is locative predicative complement. Think of it as "Not much snow was here". As further evidence, note that inversion would not be possible, *"Was here not much snow"?

BillJ
  • 12,832
  • Nice answer. Before I upvote, I've got a niggle (can't help it!), "Was here not much snow" is marginally grammatical to me. For example "Was here, not just the other day, his Lordship himself?" Not so felicitous with a light Subject as in your example. So I'm not sure you've rigorously shown that here is not the Subject yet. Saying that it's an adverb and therefore isn't a Subject is begging the question a bit. – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 12:27
  • Thank you for your detailed explanation. I would appreciate your input for the follow up question and @Araucaria, your input will be much appreciated. –  Nov 10 '15 at 13:15
  • In which dialect of English are there multiple pronunciations for there?? – curiousdannii Nov 10 '15 at 13:16
  • @curiousdannii Yours for a start ;) – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 13:30
  • @Araucaria I'm sceptical about that. – curiousdannii Nov 10 '15 at 13:31
  • @curiousdannii Try saying there's like a plurals form of the word the (put two "the"s in that title), Then stick it in a sentence like thes nothing we can do. Should sound ok ... What d'you think? – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 13:40
  • @Araucaria I don't know what you're trying to get me to say, but it's certainly not natural for me at least. The and a both have two pronunciations, but not there not in AusEng and not in any other dialects that I've heard. – curiousdannii Nov 10 '15 at 13:41
  • @curiousdannii Haven't you heard RP or Gen Am on the TV? – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 13:42
  • @Araucaria of course. Maybe I just haven't noticed it, but I'm sure that I'd notice if there were two semantically distinct heteronyms of there. Wiktionary gave two pronunciations for UK and only one for US, but I think the diphthong/monophthong difference would be between accents, not within one accent. – curiousdannii Nov 10 '15 at 13:47
  • @curiousdannii Certainly in RP (and most varieties of British English) the unstressed existential pronoun is homophonous with the definite article (unless followed by a vowel, when it has an /r/). The adverb/preposition like other adverbs has no weak form at all. – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 13:55
  • @curiousdannii I'm surprised that Aust Englishes don't seem to have a weak form (I've been checking on youtube!) for existential there ... – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 13:57
  • 1
    @Araucaria Surprises all round then :) – curiousdannii Nov 10 '15 at 13:58
  • Bill, the other problem is that here like other preposition phrases can of course function as Subject. For example Here is better than there, Is here ok? and so forth. So that rather pulls the rug from under your assertion that ""Here" is not a pronoun here, but an adverb (some call it a prep) so it can't possibly be subject" (Not my downvote btw, am waiting to upvote!) – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 15:11
  • I think we can say that Was here not much snow? is ungrammatical. – BillJ Nov 10 '15 at 16:15
  • @BillJohnstone Yes, I'd agree in general. However, what about the here can't function as a Subject thingie? – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 17:03
  • The OP was essentially asking if "here" can be an existential subject (he called it a dummy subject) – BillJ Nov 10 '15 at 17:38
  • "Here" can also be a subject in something like "Here's me when I was six", where the personal pronoun is in the accusative case, indicating that "here" must be subject with the pronoun as predicative complement - rather like demonstrative "this". But the OP's point that "it doesn't address why "here" cannot be a dummy subject like dummy there" has I think been answered. Certainly, I was trying to focus on the existential aspect/dummy pronoun aspect, which I think was what the OP was really interested in. – BillJ Nov 10 '15 at 17:57
  • Right, agreed :) So your Predicative Complement point is correct and helpful, but the idea that it can't possibly be a subject - because it's a preposition/adverb isn't helpful in the end, it would seem to seem ... – Araucaria - Him Nov 10 '15 at 18:55
  • Why are you dwelling on this? I've already explained that in the OP's example ("Here was not much snow") "here" is a locative complement, NOT the subject. It's just a simple case of inversion. The problem is that we now get into the realms of adverb vs prep, which normally brings howls of derision from the pro-adverb camp.Yes, PPs can be a subject, but relatively rarely, and in the OP's example, for the sake of clarity, it is best to think of "here" as being as a locative complement irrespective of whether its word category is an adverb or a preposition – BillJ Nov 10 '15 at 19:09
  • Well, it's because the rest of your answer is based on evidence, but that line sticks out like a sore thumb and puts a downer on your excellent answer for any intelligent, reflective or observant reader, because it's clearly untrue. Whereas the rest of your post is excellent. It's not a side issue in your post because you make such a strong claim on the basis of it. – Araucaria - Him Nov 11 '15 at 01:14
2

A brief look in the google on the search string

"dummy there" "Old English"

finds a few references like The Syntax of Spoken Indian English, which despite its title discusses the Old English origins of there as dummy subject. The references are to primary sources, which I haven't (and am not qualified) to evaluate.

But if the Old English þǣr, (there) had usages as both a locative and a dummy subject, but hēr (here) didn't, then it's no surprise that modern English is the same.

Of course, this serves to push the question back to Old English.

deadrat
  • 44,678
1

Some etymology might be useful:

there

  • Indo-European pronoun stem: te, to
  • proto-Germanic pronoun stem: þe, þa
  • Gothic: (þar)
  • Old English: þær, thēr
  • Old Saxon: thār
  • Old Frisian: thĕr (Dutch: daar)
  • Old High German: dăr (German: da, dar-)

here

  • proto-Germanic pronoun stem: hi
  • Gothic: (hĕr)
  • Old English: hĕr
  • Old Saxon: hĕr
  • Old Frisian: thĕr (Dutch: daar)
  • Old High German: hĕr, hiar (German: hier)

In both of these (there, here) we have the common indo-European locative suffix -r or -re.

Compare the where the locative suffix is missing, although the Indo-European stem to is the same:

the

  • Indo-European pronoun stem: so, to
  • Sanskrit: sa, tad
  • Gothic: (sa), (þata)
  • Old English: se, ðæt
  • Middle English: ther
  • Old Saxon: thĕ, thie
  • Old Frisian: thi
  • Old High German: der (German: der)

There and the are related, here is not.

Tomas
  • 111
0

"Here's some coffee."

"Here are the books you asked for earlier."

Try to rephrase this:

"There's something about the entire concept of cosmology that isn't quite honest."

"There" and "here" are equals, except "there" is more equal than "here" because it is used more frequently. Suppose you've organized a contest with fifty participants. The rules only allow one winner. Even if all of the participants are idiots, they're not equally stupid; nor are they equally fortunate. You're going to have your winner no matter what. (Look at politicians; look at business moguls. Like everyone else, you find yourself scratching your head now and then, saying "No ... He can't be THAT stupid." But he IS. That's because a contest, any contest, will always have a winner. No matter how poorly everyone in the league is playing, one team is going to win the championship at the end of the season. No matter how absurdly inept the current crop of established authors is, someone's always going to win the Nobel Prize. And so it is with "here" and "there." They are equals, but "here" is very obviously the winner.

As for the proverbial "it," there is a theory (or: here's a theory) that might appeal to your sense of humor:

Some say that it stands for that which shouldn't be named, some kind of supernatural force in charge of everything (not God: God is above it, He created "it"). Don't hold me to it, I don't remember where I read it, nor when.

As for "there" in the sense of "voila!" or "That's it! Don't touch anything, and don't breath until I've taken some pictures!" - well, that's just an interjection, isn't it? Well, maybe not. Maybe it's a variant of "Lo and behold," I don't know.

Ricky
  • 20,450
  • 1
    Had you restricted this to its first two lines I would have up-voted it. – WS2 Nov 10 '15 at 08:03
  • 2
    @WS2: Do I look like a hundred dollar bill to you? I never expect to be liked by everyone. – Ricky Nov 10 '15 at 08:06
  • 3
    Had you restricted this to its last three words I would have up-voted it. – deadrat Nov 10 '15 at 09:09
  • 4
    Regardless of what kind of currency you look like, how about not exceeding your expectations for a change? This doesn't begin to answer the question. You can say "There was no snow yesterday" but not "Here was no snow yesterday." The two words are not equals because we have there-insertion but no here-insertion. Frequency of usage has nothing to do with it. Consider deleting this answer. – deadrat Nov 10 '15 at 09:12
  • 1
    @deadrat: I said they were equal. I didn't say they were interchangeable. – Ricky Nov 10 '15 at 09:33
  • 1
    But there is no there there. – Hot Licks Nov 10 '15 at 13:44