Since "there exists a dog with black fur" is okay, is it generally true that "there + 'intransitive verb' ..." also okay?
For example, can I say "There thrive trees in the park" to mean "Trees in the park thrive"?
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
I doubt this has much to do with intransitive or transitive verbs.
There is a tree in the park is a fine sentence. If you look at the ODO entry for there, you see it gets combined with be in virtually all cases.
In sentences with verbs that do not denote "existence", there seems unnatural. Your first example, there exists, is virtually synonymous with there is.
This even goes for a sentence like:
There are trees thriving in the park.
Thriving is attributive to trees, and the main idea of the sentence is still there exist trees (and they are in the park, and they are thriving).
-
How about, at the end of the platform there appeared three enemy agents carrying rifles? Oct 29, 2014 at 13:04
-
@Araucaria If you read appeared as a form of coming into existence, there's nothing wrong with it :) You could not get away with there carried three agents rifles, but you could say (changing the meaning of there!): there, three agents appeared, carrying rifles or there, agents carried rifles. Not that at the end of the platform is just a ruse, it doesn't affect the meaning or use of there, unless you move there to the beginning of the sentence (and add some comma's). Oct 29, 2014 at 13:09
-
That's not quite on the button. Presentational there as it is sometimes called, is perfectly licit. It usually happens when the NP is discourse new and very long ... That sentence I gave there is perfectly fine! Oct 29, 2014 at 15:46
-
@Araucaria: I never said it was wrong :) appeared works. Are you saying that there carried three men rifles is also correct? Oct 29, 2014 at 17:43
-