I agree.
Although, I had never heard of the “dummy” understanding until it was discussed earlier in this thread.
I had always understood this as being about the “existential”. The French had pioneered this idea of linking verbs (like “be”) being paired with an existential subject, but English was (and still perhaps is) a bit more clumsy when it adopted it.
Other examples of the existential in English:
It seems to me …
It is likely that …
There are times when …
I agree with heimuoshu and yuli that there is used adverbially (i. e., not as an expletive) in the sentence in question.
[quote]Not sure if he would be welcomed, he had written to his wife and suggested that she 40 a yellow handkerchief on the only big oak tree in town, if she still wanted him back. If there was no handkerchief, he would understand and leave his home behind without 41.
As the[color=#000040] bus[/color] 42 the big oak tree, everyone was nervous. Vingo stopped[color=#000040] looking out the window[/color], his eyes 43 so hard that his face tightened 44 he was ready for the greatest disappointment ever. Suddenly, he heard all of the young people screaming with joy, for [color=#000040]out there[/color] 45 an oak tree covered with hundreds of yellow handkerchiefs billowing in the wind as a signal of welcome.[/quote]
I got the above excerpt here (option to save MS Word document will pop up), which I guess is the website of National Caotun Commercial & Industrial Vocational Senior High School. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_C … igh_School
And here is another version of the account from which I excerpted the portion above:
Exactly, and we couldn’t say “there to be” a book, or “there being” a book in an independent clause. Whether you call it the subject or not, that holds true. “There” in such clauses acts like a normal subject in as far as that.
Just taught these students again. They are using the book “遠東高中英語關鍵句型，第三本” (Far east key sentence patterns book3) and the tests (sometimes) relate to this book.
Tonight’s classic test question:
Correct this sentence (change underlined section, not multiple choice):
Running over by a car, the dog limped away.
How the hell do you teach this?
My Chinese is not bad and I’ve ordered a copy of the above book (explanations in Chinese) to try and help them, but I’d really appreciate any help / books on how to teach this kind of test prep. I know that these tests are a pile of garbage, with no real help to their English ability, but telling them that when they have a test on Wednesday, doesn’t help much. They are really nice kids and I’d like to help them.
Chris, IYouThem, Tempo Gain, i wonder whether one of you could explain to this non-native speaker of English what the function is of the word “out” is that comes right before the “there”.
That’s a weird one. “Having been run over” I’d say. Lucky dog, eh? There was a thread about these kind of sentences a while back, Participle Relative Clause with "having"
[quote=“yuli”]Chris, IYouThem, Tempo Gain, i wonder whether one of you could explain to this non-native speaker of English what the function is of the word “out” is that comes right before the “there”.
[/quote]
Ooh, I missed the “out”… I was thinking it read “for there stood an oak tree”. Good catch!
There is a book on the table.
There, on the table, is a book.
A book is there.
Hmm. Okay, I can agree. “There is a book on the table.” The equal construction means that book and there are the same, or that book acts as a prounoun reflective of the noun “there.” Dummy noun.
Okay.
Good job! :bravo:
[quote=“Chris”][quote=“yuli”]Chris, IYouThem, Tempo Gain, I wonder whether one of you could explain to this non-native speaker of English what the function is of the word “out” is that comes right before the “there”.
[/quote]
Ooh, I missed the “out”… I was thinking it read “for there stood an oak tree”. Good catch![/quote]
Yes, good call. But without the “out” they’re right and it’s pretty obscure grammar these days. I’m actually pretty impressed.
Yes, they are right. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way in real life: “without the ‘out’” is not an option for the students facing the test question. 
So would anybody care to analyse the pattern again, this time with the “out”? 
Actually, there (not “out there”) is no need to do that: the answer has been posted already - just go back to the first half of the thread… 
I said I disagree with Tempo Gain. I never said he is wrong. With cataphoric pronouns “there” could be considered the subject like he rightfully pointed out. My previous post does indicate though that there are other options for when different forms can follow there.
Yuli,
Out is purely an indication of place being the opposite of in. You could refer to Practical English Usage by Michael Swan for grammar explanations. By far the best book on the market in my opinion.
I missed your sarcasm. My radar is broken therefore I had to edit the post.
You were right with your disagreement - “there” is neither the subject nor a temporary (dummy) subject, it is part of the adverbial expression “out there”.
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=103469&start=9
And i supported your disagreement then and still support it now:
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=103469&start=17
And it seems so does Charlie Jack…
True enough, but an adverbial can also serve as a subject. It could as easily have been “for in the park stood a tree…”
You can call this the subject or not, I’ve seen different interpretations, but it’s irrelevant to the question at hand.
The question at hand is the verb form which can appear after this element, whatever you care to call it, which is filling the place of the subject in this sentence.
Yes, it could have been - and in that case, quite like with the sentence that was mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, “in the park” would be an adverbial of place and “a tree” the subject. 
[quote]You can call this the subject or not, I’ve seen different interpretations, but it’s irrelevant to the question at hand…
The question at hand is the verb form which can appear after this element, whatever you care to call it, which is filling the place of the subject in this sentence.[/quote]
Well, it appears that not only has the initial question been answered but people have been talking about the (grammatical) subject of the sentence and ended up disagreeing on what/where that would be… And i still hope that it will become clear to all involved that whoever suggested the subject is “the oak tree” had gotten it right…
) pointed out in what happens to be the 4th post in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=103469&start=3I quote (and slightly edit for clarity) The Oxford Reference Grammar, by Sidney Greenbaum, ISBN 0-19-860044-5, p. 119:
Ex: There were a lot of idiots on the road.
In the example, “there” is the grammatical subject and “a lot of idiots” is the notional subject. Without existential “there” the sentence would be:
“A lot of idiots were on the road.”
I am not interested in a whose book says what contest, but I find that the Oxford Reference Grammar book taught me a lot. It made me understand things about English grammar in a meaningful way.
However, Yuli’s statement (quoted above) teaches nothing, nor does it explain anything about English grammar.
[quote=“alecinwonderland”]Just taught these students again. They are using the book “遠東高中英語關鍵句型，第三本” (Far east key sentence patterns book3) and the tests (sometimes) relate to this book.
Tonight’s classic test question:
Correct this sentence (change underlined section, not multiple choice):
Running over by a car, the dog limped away.
How the hell do you teach this?[/quote]
I guess (only a guess) they want “Run over by a car, the dog limped away,” or more fully, “Having been run over by a car, the dog limped away.” Oftentimes, some folk here seem to favor a kind of Bulwer-Lytton-esque English, with some added peculiarities.
Some posters on the board have expressed disapproval of teachers who simply say, “We don’t do it that way.” There have been times here when, after looking in grammar manuals and searching the 'net, the best I could come up with was, “We don’t do it that way.” So I guess y’all can just set me down amongst the bad teachers.
In my time here I’ve been given parameters from on high that forced me (if I wanted to avoid trouble and maintain some kind of job security) to write some strange stuff, stuff even Bulwer-Lytton wouldn’t have liked. At that time, the more I wrote according to the way I was trained, the more flak I got, and the more I wrote according to those parameters, the less flak I got. Finally, when the stuff I was writing was at times pretty damned awful, I was affirmatively praised.
I advise going with the flow, but trying to go with the flow somewhat conscientiously. Don’t let this stuff blow your mind. Hang in there, alecinwonderland.
That’s great - now if you would just read this thread (not just the few most recent comments) carefully enough you would find that not only the OP’s question was answered early on (thanks to Tempo Gain) but that the issue about the “subject” has also been explained - at least three people point in the right direction: heimuoshu, Charlie Jack, and myself.
[quote=“IYouThem”]I quote (and slightly edit for clarity) The Oxford Reference Grammar, by Sidney Greenbaum, ISBN 0-19-860044-5, p. 119:
Ex: There were a lot of idiots on the road.
In the example, “there” is the grammatical subject and “a lot of idiots” is the notional subject. Without existential “there” the sentence would be:
“A lot of idiots were on the road.”[/quote]
I get it, and I think the others who disagree with your position also get it.
Sometimes it’s called a syntactic expletive. Sometimes it’s called a dummy or anticipatory subject. It’s been called an expletive adverb. The grammar book of my undergraduate days simply calls it an expletive. And of course there’s the name your source gives it.
I think everybody gets that. There’s a there that’s used the way the Chinese word you3 is sometimes used. But there’s also a there that’s used the way the Chinese word na4li3 is sometimes used. Some people in this thread hold in effect that there in the sentence in question is used as you3 is sometimes used, and some hold in effect that it is used as na4li3 is used. We just disagree about how there is used in the sentence in question.
[quote=“yuli”]
Yes, it could have been - and in that case, quite like with the sentence that was mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, “in the park” would be an adverbial of place and “a tree” the subject.
:[/quote]
Defintely right, while an adverbial can at times be a subject it’s not there. “Out there” is an adverbial as you say, and not the subject there. Thanks for pointing that out by the way