Thread: What's with `there`s in `There are people out there who there's just nobody for them`

Text: There are people out there who there's just nobody for them.

I really can't understand how to explain 3 times `there` in this sentence. On the screen it has russian subs, but I can't understand, why it is translated to `Есть такие люди, для которых нет никого.`

Problems (greens are done):

1. `out there` - what does it mean?
2. `who there's` - what is with this grammar?

It would be ok if this sentence were `There are people who has nobody for them`

screenshot.1438623388.jpg

Originally Posted by nexen

Text: There are people out there who there's just nobody for them.

I really can't understand how to explain 3 times `there` in this sentence. On the screen it has russian subs, but I can't understand, why it is translated to `Есть такие люди, для которых нет никого.`

Problems:

1. `out there` - what does it mean?
2. `who there's` - what is with this grammar?

It would be ok if this sentence were `There are people who has nobody for them`

screenshot.1438623388.jpg

1. out there просто значит у нас в мире, для простоты - есть. Можно без out, но, видимо, стилистика поменяется.
2. А может это то же самое, что who has just nobody for them there просто there переставлено, а has сократилось до 's?

Originally Posted by kib

1. out there просто значит у нас в мире, для простоты - есть. Можно без out, но, видимо, стилистика поменяется.

Но если "можно без out", то получится: во-первых, двойное `there`, что как-то странно, во-вторых, тогда уж второе `there` заменить на `here`, ибо это грамматически правильно. Но опять же, это если убрать `out`, обнозначающиее `вне`.
Переводя дословное, `out there` - `вне там`. Конечно, это может значить `here`, но, опять же, зачем тогда `there are`, которое и так указывает на `here`?

Originally Posted by kib

2. А может это то же самое, что who has just nobody for them there просто there переставлено, а has сократилось до 's?

`has` вроде до `s` не сокращается. Более того, как можно сократить даже `is` до `s` вместе с `there`? И почему `there` идет сразу после `who`? Грамматически неверно же

Я не сильный знаток английского, но насколько я понимаю "there is/are" это просто такая вводная часть предложения, которая на русский переводится как "есть/существуют" (и при этом в руссском зачастую эти слова отбрасываются) в абстрактном смысле. Т.к. в английском опускать слова нельзя так свободно как в русском, то просто требуется какая то вот вводная часть "there is cat on the chair" как "кот на кресле". Аналогичная ситуация с "they say", что есть не "они говорят", но "говорят..." в абстрактном смысле как раз без конкретики кто где и когда. Я такую структуру фразы вижу тоже в первый раз, так что выглядит действительно странно, но судя по всему это просто достаточно универсальная вводная и легко используется и в подчиненном предложении.
"out there" я бы перевел как "где-то там", но судя по всему реальный смысл опять таки "и тут и там".

Я, конечно, тоже не видел, чтобы has сокращалось до 's, но мало ли как может быть в беглой разговорной речи. Вообще моя первая идея была, что вторая часть должна быть без them на конце, и тогда все предельно ясно. Я ее отбросил только потому, что решил, что ну как же могли допустить такую простецкую ошибку.

P.S.
Пожалуй "they say there is magic land of wisdom out there" спрягает всё вышесказанное чтобы на русском быть именно что "говорят, что где то есть волшебная страна вселенской мудрости".

Originally Posted by Alex80

P.S.
Пожалуй "they say there is magic land of wisdom out there" спрягает всё вышесказанное чтобы на русском быть именно что "говорят, что где то есть волшебная страна вселенской мудрости".

Спасибо, с этим проблем нет, я пометил эту часть, как выполненную (зеленым).
Осталась вторая, самая странная часть. Хотелось бы услышать ответ от нативно-говорящего человека, ибо это ну совсем странная-странность с `who there's`

Originally Posted by nexen

Осталась вторая, самая странная часть. Хотелось бы услышать ответ от нативно-говорящего человека, ибо это ну совсем странная-странность с `who there's`

Сильно подозреваю, что это опять таки просто разговорное сокращение на интонациях и на самом деле имелось ввиду: "...who are like there is...", находится пример: Rob Bliss' Urban Experiments "...a lot of kids who are like 'There is nothing to do in Grand Rapids'...".
Т.е. "а он такой типа 'да я не знаю о чём вы вообще'...".

The sentence sounds strange because it's unplanned/improvised speech -- I doubt any native speaker would construct it that way in writing (not even in very informal writing).

Anyway, in traditional/formal style, we would say "there are people for whom there is just nobody." But, as you probably know, constructions with the objective case "whom" are rarely used in colloquial speech nowadays. Instead, we would say "there are people who there's nobody for" -- with "who" in the subjective form even though it's logically the object of the preposition "for," which gets moved to the end of sentence.

And why "them" after "for"? It's not really necessary and if anything, to have "for whom" and "for them" in the same clause sounds redundant. But, again, this was an improvised remark -- I think most likely the guy accidentally combined two variants in his brain:

(1) "there are people who find/discover/think/believe [etc.] that there's nobody for them"
AND
(2) "there are people who there's nobody for"

Either variant sounds normal by itself, but the accidental combination is very awkward. (I assume that "оговорка" would be the right word in Russian -- the guy made a small slip-of-the-tongue, and thus the confusing grammar.)

P.S. Regarding the сокращение of "is" and "has" to 's -- yes, this is correct and common. Just off the top of my head, here are some classic song lyrics:

"There's a place for us -- somewhere a place for us!" (i.e., "there is a place") -- 1956
"There's got to be a morning after ("there has got to be", meaning "there must be") -- 1973
"She's got it, yeah baby, she's got it" (i.e., "she has got it", meaning "she has it") -- 1968

However, in a sentence like "She has beautiful eyes," the word "has" CANNOT be contracted to 's -- at least, not in normal US English (though it was possible in old-fashioned UK English, I think).

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

P.S. Regarding the сокращение of "is" and "has" to 's -- yes, this is correct and common. Just off the top of my head, here are some classic song lyrics:

"There's a place for us -- somewhere a place for us!" (i.e., "there is a place") -- 1956
"There's got to be a morning after ("there has got to be", meaning "there must be") -- 1973
"She's got it, yeah baby, she's got it" (i.e., "she has got it", meaning "she has it") -- 1968

However, in a sentence like "She has beautiful eyes," the word "has" CANNOT be contracted to 's -- at least, not in normal US English (though it was possible in old-fashioned UK English, I think).

I can't actually think of any sentence with "has" as the main verb (not "has got "/"has gotten" or anything like "has seen" etc.), where that contraction would be possible.

PS. It might have to do with the fact that making such a contraction would bring in certain ambiguousness in a lot of cases. Consider "he's a slave", for instance. Now, is he free or not? =))

Sometimes, especially onstage, people just say more words than they need to =\. "There are people out there, for whom there just isn't anybody", ", for whom there's just nobody.". English is broke. We no longer use the word whom, in nearly any case. Practically nobody who speaks english truly understands the difference between "who" and "whom". So you have to bend the correct sentence into backwards (relative to what English USED to be) into modern "who only" speech. The russian translation is perfect. "There are people, for which there is no one." is a phrasing that could be used, in more formally correct speech. I would consider what he said to be more of a mistake; it does stem from this whole "whom" thing though. As you probably know, "there is" is used to express the general existence (or lack thereof) of a thing. "there are people who has nobody for them" --> "there are people who have nobody for them", this sentence isnt quite the same meaning though. This one means "there currently people, who don't have somebody". Whereas the other sentence, means "there isn't a person ANYWHERE for certain people.", not focusing on the lack of a person, but a lack of anyone anywhere. My brain is stretched a little too thin now...

Originally Posted by nexen

Но опять же, это если убрать `out`, обнозначающиее `вне`.
Переводя дословное, `out there` - `вне там`. Конечно, это может значить `here`, но, опять же, зачем тогда `there are`, которое и так указывает на `here`?

Не надо переводить дословно. "Out there" = "там" (в любом словаре написано).


А они там такие, здесь кроме нас никого нет тут.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I can't actually think of any sentence with "has" as the main verb (not "has got "/"has gotten" or anything like "has seen" etc.), where that contraction would be possible.

Not in any variety of English spoken today, I think. But I've seen British-made movies set in "the old days" (say, before WW2) where you would hear constructions like:

"I've three apples, you've some cheese, and he's a loaf of bread."

Of course, the third part of the sentence sounds ambiguous and funny -- "he HAS a loaf of bread", or "he IS a loaf of bread"? -- and as Eric says, I think this ambiguity may explain why, in today's English, you can't contract "have" or "has" when they're the main verb (only when they're functioning as auxiliary verbs). Instead, we'd say either: "I have three apples, you have some cheese, and he has a loaf of bread" or "I've got three apples, you've got some cheese, and he's got a loaf of bread." (The second variant sounds more informal and colloquial.)

Regarding the expression "out there":

The 1986 мультфильм An American Tail tells the story of some Jewish mice who emigrate from Russia to America in the 1880s (i.e., after the pogroms which followed the assassination of Aleksandr II), and features the Grammy-winning song "Somewhere Out There", which you can easily find on YouTube:

"Somewhere, out there, beneath the pale moonlight
Someone's thinking of me, and loving me tonight..."

So here, "out there" simply means "где-то в мире".

But in reference to the SETI project, for example, one could say "Scientists are looking for evidence that there is life out there" -- here meaning "есть [жизнь] где-то в космосе". And from this common reference to outer space, the phrase "out there" is sometimes used adjectivally (most often in the predicate position) to mean "strange, eccentric, crazy, illogical, non-mainstream", etc.:

The political candidate spoke very intelligently about the economy, but when the debate turned to national defense and global terrorism, his answers were rather "Out There."

When "out there" is used in this way to mean "strange, crazy, etc.", the phrase may be hyphenated or capitalized, and it's most often preceded by a qualifying adverb such as "a bit," "very," "somewhat," "extremely," depending on the speaker's point of view.