# Forum Other Languages English for Russians - Изучаем английский язык Learn English - Грамматика, переводы, словарный запас  It's on the(a) table.

## Selexin

The question to native English speakers.
Which article would you use in this case?   _- Where is my book?
- It's on the(a) small table in the room. _ 
If both speakers know that there are more then one small table in the room.

----------


## emeraldeyez

> The question to native English speakers.
> Which article would you use in this case?   _- Where is my book?
> - It's on the(a) small table in the room. _ 
> If both speakers know that there are more then one small table in the room.

 It's on *a* small table in the room.  
Using "a" is referencing that the person realizes one must look on ALL the small tables in the room to find the book. 
Using "the" denotes that it would be only one small table in the room.

----------


## Selexin

*emeraldeyez*, does the following phrase sound natural for you (a native english speaker)?  _It doesn't listen logical to me._  
Is _ listen_  a normal word in this context?

----------


## sperk

> *emeraldeyez*, does the following phrase sound natural for you (a native english speaker)?  _It doesn't sound logical to me._  
> Is _ listen_  the normal word in this context? No

----------


## Selexin

*sperk*, one person claimes he ran into such an expression on the internet. 
That's why I asked.  
And yes, articles have never been my strong side. Thanks for the correction.

----------


## sperk

> *sperk*, one person claims he ran into such an expression on the internet. 
> That's why I asked.  
> And yes, articles have never been my strong side. Thanks for the correction.

----------


## emeraldeyez

> *sperk*, one person claimes he ran into such an expression on the internet. 
> That's why I asked.  
> And yes, articles have never been my strong side. Thanks for the correction.

 
What type of expression?

----------


## chaika

it listens well. That expression.  
No, it does not sit well with me either and I would never say "it listens well". A book "reads well" but neither a play nor a line of thought  "listens well."

----------


## emeraldeyez

> it listens well. That expression.  
> No, it does not sit well with me either and I would never say "it listens well". A book "reads well" but neither a play nor a line of thought  "listens well."

 
Actually I can beg to differ here. While that phrase is not common ... I have heard it expressed that way.  
For instance ... when referring to listening to a piece of music or a reading done out loud. One MAY (though not often) state "IT listens well" the IT in this case being the passage being read or the music being played, thereby actually lending itself to an easy listen to a person or group of people. Because there is a case that "something does not listen well" too. Like a bad piece of music or a passage that the wording makes no sense. So "it" does not listen well on the ears.  
Does this make sense? 
It is an antiquated way of phrasing something. (very outdated, but not entirely unheard of.)

----------


## doninphxaz

> Originally Posted by chaika  No, it does not sit well with me either and I would never say "it listens well".   Actually I can beg to differ here. While that phrase is not common ... I have heard it expressed that way.

 I have to agree with Chaika here.  “It listens well” is an error if the person is wanting to express the idea of “It sounds good” or “It sounds correct.”  “It listens well” is not a sample sentence I would ever give to a beginning student of English because the context in which it can be used is very limited.  I have taught at three large American universities, and I have never once in my life heard it.

----------


## emeraldeyez

> “It listens well” is not a sample sentence I would ever give to a beginning student of English because the context in which it can be used is very limited.

 I agree with this statement.   ::    
Let me state, I respect that you have taught a 3 large American Universities.  
Thing is ... I HAVE heard this statement used, actually I have heard it used by a professor at John's Hopkins University durning a lecture. (But I am sure we know how long winded some of them get ....LOL  ::  ) 
But let me reiterate ... I believe the statement is antiquated and outdated. I have heard such a statment used perhaps twice ever. While it is not something I would ever use in my vocabulary or even teach it to someone. As I too find it just does not sound right. But the statement has been known to be used. LOL  ::     ::

----------


## Ken Watts

Yes, I've heard it too, and here are some examples:  

> I've enjoyed the CD because it listens well, there is enough variety to keep my interest, and the song content covers a lot of ground.

  http://cdbaby.com/cd/junedreammakers  

> It listens well looped and low, but give it at least one loud, full attention go, for the sake of the dynamics and structure.

  http://www.thirdfactory.net/lipstick.html  

> "It listens well, Aunt Biny. It sounds perfectly enticing. If I read it in a book I'd lap it up. . ."

 Aldrich, Bess Streeter, _The Rim of the Prairie_ (U of Nebraska Press 1966) http://tinyurl.com/d8qgv8 
The saying comes from Germans:  

> Nor could all the ardor of the professional patriots obliterate that German influence which has fastened upon the American _yes_ something of the quality of _ja_, or prevent the constant appearance of such German loan-forms as “it listens well” and “I want out.” Many American loan-words are of startlingly outlandish origin.

 Mencken, Henry Louis, _The American Language_ 200 (1921) http://tinyurl.com/cn94k2 http://www.bartleby.com/185/28.html  

> Such expressions as _gabfest, plunderbund, it listens well, bum, dumb_ (in the senses of stupid), come from the Germans. . .

 The Federal Writers' Project, _New York City: Vol 1, New York City Guide_ 112 (1939) http://tinyurl.com/dkydym

----------


## translationsnmru

> “It listens well” is an error if the person is wanting to express the idea of “It sounds good” or “It sounds correct.”

 "It sounds correct"? No, definitely not. But it sort of makes sense if someone is speaking about a new album of a pop group, in the same way as when people say "this book reads well". While it may be not correct from the strict grammatical standpoint, people do use such expressions now and then.

----------


## Selexin

_So too do demands for forms of "proof" which the theory of evolution predicts will never be observed,..._  
Everything seems to be ok with this phrase, exept *for* has been bothering me... Shouldn't there be *that* in it's place?

----------


## Matroskin Kot

> _So too do demands for forms of "proof" which the theory of evolution predicts will never be observed,..._  
> Everything seems to be ok with this phrase, exept *for* has been bothering me... Shouldn't there be *that* in it's place?

 Not if _demand_ is a noun. In which case, 'a demand for [something]' is correct. You can demand (verb) something, but your action is a demand for something. Does that make sense?

----------


## Selexin

> Not if demand is a noun. In which case, 'a demand for [something]' is correct. You can demand (verb) something, but your action is a demand for something. Does that make sense?

 I fully agree with you in that. The construction _'a demand for [something]'_ is absolutely correct.  But what makes me wince is that  the * [something]*  here is a *subordinate clause with predication*! 
If simplified the sentence would be like this:  _So too do demands for forms of "proof" will never be observed_. 
Does it sound normal?  I doubt it.

----------


## translationsnmru

The "simplified" version is definitely not okay, and its meaning is not the same. It could be re-written as follows: _Demands for forms of "proof" will never be observed either._ 
Your original sentence stated a different thing. 
But, anyway, "demands _for_" sounds just fine.
Для примера, по-русски полная версия звучала бы примерно вот так: "То же самое верно в отношении требований предоставить определённые виды доказательств, которые, как предсказывает теория эволюции, никогда не будут наблюдаться".
Нормальная - с точки зрения формальной грамматики - конструкция. 
Теперь ты взял и "упростил" её, выкинув серединку: 
"То же самое верно в отношении требований предоставить определённые виды доказательств  никогда не будут наблюдаться". 
Что получилось? Конец предложения ("никогда не будут наблюдаться") никак не связан грамматически с началом. Вот то же самое имеет место в твоей упрощённой версии. Но проблема связана вовсе не с "demands for" - тут как раз всё нормально.

----------


## Selexin

*translationsnmru*, спасибо, теперь ясно. 
So too do demands for forms of "proof" which [*as* the theory of evolution predicts] will never be observed,... 
С точки зрения грамматики понятно. 
Но теперь не понятен смысл высказывания....
Ну да ладно, это другая тема.

----------


## basurero

> *emeraldeyez*, does the following phrase sound natural for you (a native english speaker)?  _It doesn't listen logical to me._  
> Is _ listen_  a normal word in this context?

 
The *normal* word is "sound". While some people may have heard "listen" used in this way, it is definitely not the *normal word in this context*.

----------


## alexB

> _So too do demands for forms of "proof" will never be observed_. 
> Does it sound normal?  I doubt it.

  It does not make sense at all. You did not provide the context  

> The second way to think you've disproved the theory of evolution is to fail to grasp its consequences, or to ascribe to it consequences it does not have. Arguments of the form "I can't see how X evolved", usually fall into this class. So too do demands for forms of "proof" which the theory of evolution predicts will never be observed, e.g. "a cat turning into a dog", and such similar fatuities

  according to which in your initial sentence *do* stands for *usually fall into this class*, so in its full form the sentence should be  _So demands for forms of "proof" which the theory of evolution predicts will never be observed, e.g. "a cat turning into a dog", and such similar fatuities usually fall into this class too._ 

> *translationsnmru*, спасибо, теперь ясно. 
> So too do demands for forms of "proof" which [*as* the theory of evolution predicts] will never be observed,...
> С точки зрения грамматики понятно. 
> Но теперь не понятен смысл высказывания....
> Ну да ладно, это другая тема.

 Без предыдущего предложения смысла нет, а с ним – другое дело.
Аргументы типа «Я не понимаю, как эволюционировал Х» обычно вписываются в эту категорию. Так же как и требования предоставить определённые виды доказательств, которых, как предсказывает теория эволюции, не может быть в принципе, например: «кошку превращающуюся в собаку» и тому подобную чушь.

----------


## chaika

People are all the time using intransitive verbs transitively. Because we know what the intransitive verb means, we can (more or less) understand what it means used transitively. One of the most common ones these days is "shop", an intransitive verb. But a local chain of food stores here in the South has over its doors "Thanks for Shopping Food Lion!" Should be "shopping at." And then there's the other verb, to Photoshop smth. Food for thought.

----------


## Selexin

What is the plural for the word "sinuosity" ?

----------


## translationsnmru

> What is the plural for the word "sinuosity" ?

 Sinuosit*ies*

----------


## Selexin

Which article should be used? 
- Where is my shirt?
- It's on *a(the)* hanger in the wardrobe.

----------


## brandonp

Either article is grammatically correct.  Which one is used depends on the situation.  If there is only one hanger in the closet, then "the" would be used.  If there are multiple hangers, then "a" should be used.

----------


## Selexin

In case of multiple hangers, would the use of  *a* imply generic reference?

----------


## brandonp

Yes, it would.  Informally, it doesn't really matter which article is used though.  You could say "It's on a hanger in the closet" even if there is only one hanger, and conversely, you could also say "It's on the hanger in the closet" even if there are multiple hangers.

----------


## Selexin

Then  in the example  with a book and two tables (in the beginning of the thread) , can I also answer: _It's on the table_ 
to the question: _- Where is my book?_

----------


## Matroskin Kot

> Yes, it would.  Informally, it doesn't really matter which article is used though.  You could say "It's on a hanger in the closet" even if there is only one hanger, and conversely, you could also say "It's on the hanger in the closet" even if there are multiple hangers.

 Well, you could say it, but I'm not sure it would be correct. I think by using _the_, you are implying that there is only one hanger. That's how I would understand it if you told me that.

----------


## brandonp

Yeah, I completely agree.  I just wanted to emphasize the fact that the use of one article over the other wouldn't confuse the recipient in everyday conversation.  But yes, "the" would certainly emphasize the "one and only", so to say, hanger in the closet, while "a" would indicate that there are many hangers and a search for the right one would be needed.

----------


## brandonp

> Then  in the example  with a book and two tables (in the beginning of the thread) , can I also answer: _It's on the table_ 
> to the question: _- Where is my book?_

 The best article choice would be "a" in this situation.

----------


## Karras

It is probably not technically correct to do so, but you will definitely find many people using "the", even when there is a number of identical objects involved. This is particularly likely if it can already be assumed that the person to whom you are speaking has some knowledge of the likely location, or if the location can be easily determined due to some other factor (being in plain sight, for example). 
As an example, some might say "your wallet is on the table", knowing full well that there might be several (possibly identical) tables, because either it is in plain sight or because the owner of the wallet already knows which table they were near to and therefore where they left it. 
This can (and often does) lead to confusion and prolonged searching, but it is something you will encounter regardless.

----------


## Selexin

Is it admissible to put indefinite article in the phrase:
"Such *a* good weather!" ?

----------


## brandonp

No, it should just be "such good weather".

----------


## Matroskin Kot

'Weather' is uncountable.

----------


## Selexin

She goes out jogging *in all weathers*.
How does this sound?

----------


## Karras

"Out in all weather". 
Weather is not plural. Weather systems or weather conditions can be plural but I cannot think if a circumstance where "weather" itself is.

----------


## Оля

I regret to state a fact that there is a example in Lingvo:   ::    _They go out in all weathers. — Они выходят в любую погоду._

----------


## Matroskin Kot

> I regret to state a fact that there is a example in Lingvo:     _They go out in all weathers. — Они выходят в любую погоду._

 Well, it's possible, and still used in some places as an idiom, but using "in all weather" is more common, and "in all kinds/sorts/types of weather" even more so.

----------


## Selexin

Here are some questions I've run across on answers.yahoo.com/  

> Where are there any pay fishing lakes in Indiana ?‎
> Where are there any Raves in Atlanta or around ?
> Where are there any pig farms in colchester?

 Doesn't it seem odd to use existential _there_  in questions with _where_?
What do you think of it?

----------


## sperk

> Here are some questions I've run across on answers.yahoo.com/    
> 			
> 				Where are there any pay fishing lakes in Indiana ?‎
> Where are there any Raves in Atlanta or around ?
> Where are there any pig farms in colchester?
> 			
> 		  Doesn't it seem odd to use existential _there_  in questions with _where_?
> What do you think of it?

 The questions seem a bit clumsy because the asker is really asking two questions: does something exist and if so, where is it. You could also say: Are there any pay fishing lakes in Indiana, and if so, where are they?

----------


## bitpicker

> Here are some questions I've run across on answers.yahoo.com/    
> 			
> 				Where are there any pay fishing lakes in Indiana ?‎
> Where are there any Raves in Atlanta or around ?
> Where are there any pig farms in colchester?
> 			
> 		  Doesn't it seem odd to use existential _there_  in questions with _where_?
> What do you think of it?

 If you left out the 'where' the answer would be 'yes' or 'no', and if you left out the 'there' the answer to the question is contained in the location given in the question - all the questions are therefore correctly phrased, they ask for both existence and location. However, you could rephrase them as, for instance, 'where would I find any Raves in Atlanta?' or somesuch. 
Robin

----------


## Selexin

Sperk, bitpicker, thanks for your replies. 
I got another one to ask, though. 
Would it be natural for a native(!) speaker to come up with a question like: "Where are there any books?"

----------


## sperk

> Sperk, bitpicker, thanks for your replies. 
> I got another one to ask, though. 
> Would it be natural for a native(!) speaker to come up with a question like: "Where are there any books?"

 I can't think of a situation in which that question would arise, in fact it doesn't make any sense.

----------


## Selexin

Can we say: "Where are any books?" 
What is a possible reply?

----------


## basurero

> Can we say: "Where are any books?" 
> What is a possible reply?

 No, it's incorrect.

----------


## rockzmom

> Would it be natural for a native(!) speaker to come up with a question like: "Where are there any books?"

 As much as I don't follow the rules of English, I could not figure out a way to use your sentence   ::   So, I too agree with the others. You also asked for the reply to your possible question.. so  here are some ways of how we might say that question and the reply if you were in a library or maybe a book store. Some are more formal than others Hope this helps!: 
Example 1:
Selexin: Hi, I'm looking for the Maximum Ride books.
Clerk: The series by James Patterson?
Selexin: Yes. Do you have any of those books?
Clerk: Yes, there over in the Young Adult Fiction area. 
Example 2:
Selexin: Hi, I'm looking for the Maximum Ride books.
Clerk: The series by James Patterson?
Selexin: Yes. Do you have any?
Clerk: Yes, there over in the Young Adult Fiction area. 
Example 3:
Selexin: Hi, I'm looking for the Maximum Ride books.
Clerk: The series by James Patterson?
Selexin: Yes. Do you have those books?
Clerk: Yes, there over in the Young Adult Fiction area. 
Example 4:
Selexin: Hi, I'm looking for the Maximum Ride books.
Clerk: The series by James Patterson?
Selexin: Yes. Do you carry them and can you tell me where they are located?
Clerk: Yes we do and they are over in the Young Adult Fiction area. 
Example 5:
Selexin: Hi, I'm looking for the Maximum Ride books.
Clerk: The series by James Patterson?
Selexin: Yes. Do you have any in stock and if so, where I can find them?
Clerk: Yes we do and they are over in the Young Adult Fiction area. 
Example 6:
Selexin: Hi, where are the Maximum Ride books?
Clerk: The series by James Patterson?
Selexin: Yes. 
Clerk: They are over in the Young Adult Fiction area 
Example 7:
Selexin: Hi, where can I find books about Russia?
Clerk: Do you mean travel or history? 
Example 8:
Selexin: Hi, where are books about Russia?
Clerk: Do you mean travel or history?

----------


## paulb

> Sperk, bitpicker, thanks for your replies. 
> I got another one to ask, though. 
> Would it be natural for a native(!) speaker to come up with a question like: "Where are there any books?"

 English speakers use expressions like that. 
As sperk says, this is combining two questions: Is there any X? and Where is X? 
I can make an example out of your sentence: 
Mother: I asked you to pick up all those books off the floor!
Son: I already did.
Mother: I don't believe you.
Son: Where are there any books on the floor?
Mother goes to other room.
Mother: There are three books over in the corner. 
I can honestly say I have had conversations just like that   ::

----------


## paulb

Another question like this I hear often: 
Where is there a bathroom around here/in this building? 
Socially, it can be considered rude to ask a very short question. 
Why are you here? (rude)
Would you mind telling me what brought you here? (polite) 
So, asking "where is there a bathroom here?" might be a little more polite than "where is the bathroom?"

----------


## Selexin

In their replies about the question  "where are there any books?"
Sperk worte:  

> I can't think of a situation in which that question would arise, in fact it doesn't make any sense.

 Paulb wrote:  

> English speakers use expressions like that.

 I'm getting even more puzzled. The opinions split among natives...
Well, consider the situation: _  A: "We need to change the bulb in the sconce"
    B: "I can't reach it, it hangs too high"
    A: "Use books or something to stand on"
    B: "Where are there any books?"_
What do you think?

----------


## paulb

> In their replies about the question  "where are there any books?"
> Sperk worte:    
> 			
> 				I can't think of a situation in which that question would arise, in fact it doesn't make any sense.
> 			
> 		  Paulb wrote:
> [quote:2gfrt1qj]English speakers use expressions like that.

 I'm getting even more puzzled. The opinions split among natives...
Well, consider the situation: _  A: "We need to change the bulb in the sconce"
    B: "I can't reach it, it hangs too high"
    A: "Use books or something to stand on"
    B: "Where are there any books?"_
What do you think?[/quote:2gfrt1qj] 
Lots of things we say in conversation sound very strange if you take away the context. Many times when I see a transcript of a conversation it is hard for me to believe people would talk like that.  
I don't know how it is in Russian, but written English and spoken English are VERY different. This is just one example.

----------


## Selexin

Paulb, so, is the phrase "Where are there any books?" possible in a conversation like this:   _A: "We need to change the bulb in the sconce"
B: "I can't reach it, it hangs too high"
A: "Use books or something to stand on"
B: "Where are there any books?"_ 
?

----------


## sperk

> Paulb, so, is the phrase "Where are there any books?" possible in a conversation like this:   _A: "We need to change the bulb in the sconce"
> B: "I can't reach it, it hangs too high"
> A: "Use books or something to stand on"
> B: "Where are there any books?"_ 
> ?

  In PaulB's example the question "Where are there any books on the floor?" is not a normal question but a challenge in the form of a rhetorical question, defying the mother to find books on the floor. The kid is not requesting information or expecting the mother to tell him where any books are located; he knows there aren't any. In your example, you are asking a traditional question and expect an answer so you should say something like:
A: "Use books or something to stand on"
B:  "Are there any books around here?"

----------


## rockzmom

> I'm getting even more puzzled. The opinions split among natives...
> Well, consider the situation: _  A: "We need to change the bulb in the sconce"
>     B: "I can't reach it, it hangs too high"
>     A: "Use books or something to stand on"
>     B: "Where are there any books?"_
> What do you think?

 Selexin, there is something you need to remember about "American" native speakers and we have discussed this in other threads. Depending upon where you are from has a lot to do with how you speak and what you may or may not say. Someone raised in the North East, say in the Boston area, will speak very differently from someone in the South, say New Orleans, or as I have posted about North Carolina and the "Queen's English." 
An example is "them there." While I would NEVER say that combination of words in a professional setting, I might joking around with my family and friends. "Where did you get them there spuds?"  or a famous take on it is "There be gold in them thar hills!" 
So, your question about "Where are there any books?" while yes, it COULD be said by some people, it is technically not correct and not used by MOST people. You would need to add/subtract something to the sentence to complete it and make YOU not sound like a foreigner, hillbilly, teen rapper or something. Unless of course, that is what you are going for   ::   
"Where are there books around here?" 
"I don't see any books around here!"
"What are you talking about? Where are there any books [around] here?" 
Does this help?

----------


## paulb

> as I have posted about *the* North Carolina and the "Queen's English."

  ??????   
So, your question about "Where are there any books?" while yes, it COULD be said by some people, it is technically not correct and not used by MOST people. [/quote] 
Just for the record I completely disagree here. I don't know what rule or principle you think this question violates. Taking the ken Watts approach, aka google, yields this: 
 Results 1 - 10 of about 29,300,000 for "where are there any". (0.29 seconds) 
Perhaps twenty nine million is not "most people", but it sure is a lot.

----------


## paulb

> Originally Posted by rockzmom  as I have posted about *the* North Carolina and the "Queen's English."    ??????          Originally Posted by rockzmom  So, your question about "Where are there any books?" while yes, it COULD be said by some people, it is technically not correct and not used by MOST people.   Just for the record I completely disagree here. I don't know what rule or principle you think this question violates. Taking the ken Watts approach, aka google, yields this: 
>  Results 1 - 10 of about 29,300,000 for "where are there any". (0.29 seconds) 
> Perhaps twenty nine million is not "most people", but it sure is a lot.

----------


## rockzmom

> Originally Posted by rockzmom  as I have posted about *the* North Carolina and the "Queen's English."   ??????

 http://masterrussian.net/mforum/view...hp?f=1&t=16947
"A DICTIONARY OF THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH, NORTH CAROLINA" that was published in Raleigh, N.C. by the Travel and Tourism Division, Dept. of Commerce, [between 1978 and 1988]  
And you get  *Results 1 - 10 of about 357,000,000 for them there. (0.24 seconds)* does that make "them there" correct or that MOST Americans use this expression???

----------


## sperk

> Results 1 - 10 of about 29,300,000 for "where are there any". (0.29 seconds) 
> Perhaps twenty nine million is not "most people", but it sure is a lot.

 Googling for the fragment "where are there any" doesn't make "where are there any books?" a valid question.

----------


## paulb

> Originally Posted by paulb  
>  Results 1 - 10 of about 29,300,000 for "where are there any". (0.29 seconds) 
> Perhaps twenty nine million is not "most people", but it sure is a lot.   Googling for the fragment "where are there any" doesn't make "where are there any books?" a valid question.

 The grammaticality of the expression can't depend on what the object is. The expression could be incorrect by being inappropriate for some particular context, but it doesn't break any rules and I wouldn't think twice if I heard it being used. It is a bit informal, but it means exactly the same thing as "Where can I find any books ...", an expression no one would object to. 
To repeat, spoken and written English are two vastly different things. It would be silly to say that the sort of spoken English everyone uses is "incorrect", even if it looks strange when written down. 
"Them there" is a slightly different matter. First, as a synonym for "those" it is a colloquialism of course. Some people use colloquialisms all the time and some only use them rarely. For students of English it is generally enough to just point out certain expressions as colloquialisms.  
Second, the problem with googling such a short expression is that you catch the words being used in other ways as well: "We're fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here."

----------


## rockzmom

Selexin.. you also slightly changed your sentence..  
You started off with:   

> Can we say: "Where are any books?" 
> What is a possible reply?

 and changed it to:   

> In their replies about the question "where are there any books?"

----------


## rockzmom

> Second, the problem with googling such a short expression is that you catch the words being used in other ways as well: "We're fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here."

 The same can be said for the expression you Googled... here is #20 
"Mar 10, 2008 ... If so *where? Are there any* websites with bbw supersized clothing that are available in Mazatlan that you know of? Thank you..." 
Clearly this is NOT related to what we are discussing. Do you have a problem with this result?

----------


## sperk

> Originally Posted by sperk        Originally Posted by paulb  
>  Results 1 - 10 of about 29,300,000 for "where are there any". (0.29 seconds) 
> Perhaps twenty nine million is not "most people", but it sure is a lot.   Googling for the fragment "where are there any" doesn't make "where are there any books?" a valid question.   The grammaticality of the expression can't depend on what the object is. The expression could be incorrect by being inappropriate for some particular context, but it doesn't break any rules and I wouldn't think twice if I heard it being used. It is a bit informal, but it means exactly the same thing as "Where can I find any books ...", an expression no one would object to. 
> To repeat, spoken and written English are two vastly different things. It would be silly to say that the sort of spoken English everyone uses is "incorrect", even if it looks strange when written down.

 My point is to help learners, if you think walking into a bookstore and saying "where are there any books on geometry" is a good way to ask a question, by all means do so. But I don't see the point of encouraging learners to use odd expressions the fuller implications of which they don't understand, that is, by asking "where are there any books on geometry," you will sound rude, ignorant or both.
The OP's question "where are there any books?" is still not valid as is different from "where are there any books on..."

----------


## paulb

> Originally Posted by paulb  
> Second, the problem with googling such a short expression is that you catch the words being used in other ways as well: "We're fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here."   The same can be said for the expression you Googled... here is #20 
> "Mar 10, 2008 ... If so *where? Are there any* websites with bbw supersized clothing that are available in Mazatlan that you know of? Thank you..." 
> Clearly this is NOT related to what we are discussing. Do you have a problem with this result?

 I'm not sure what your question means there. Of course google turns up all sorts of things other than what you want. Most of the results under "them there" are variants of the old "there's gold in them there hills" saying. The results from "Where is there any" and "where are there any" show a wide variety of uses, a great number of which follow the form we are talking about. 
I think the bigger point is, if some expression X is used relatively often by native speakers of English, then X is a legitimate part of the language. It might be something very formal, something very informal, something rude, whatever. You might want to tell students they shouldn't use such an expression themselves for a variety of reasons. But such an expression is not a mistake along the lines of "Where are books?" or "Where is books?"

----------


## paulb

> My point is to help learners, if you think walking into a bookstore and saying "where are there any books on geometry" is a good way to ask a question, by all means do so. But I don't see the point of encouraging learners to use odd expressions the fuller implications of which they don't understand, that is, by asking "where are there any books on geometry," you will sound rude, ignorant or both.

 You are entitled to your opinion on that. It might be an interesting experiment for you to ask several of your friends what they think about exactly that question: Where are there any books on geometry? 
If you do, let me know the results. So far my wife said she thought it sounded ok, but I'll ask a few other folks as well.

----------


## Selexin

> rockzmom: 
> So, your question about "Where are there any books?" while yes, it COULD be said by some people, it is technically not correct and not used by MOST people. You would need to add/subtract something to the sentence to complete it and make YOU not sound like a foreigner, hillbilly, teen rapper or something. Unless of course, that is what you are going for   
> "Where are there books around here?" 
> "I don't see any books around here!"
> "What are you talking about? Where are there any books [around] here?" 
> Does this help?

 Yes, it does. At least I have the confirmation that the structure "where is/are there..." is not completely unacceptable.
Thanks.   

> rockzmom:
> Selexin.. you also slightly changed your sentence..  
> You started off with: 
> Selexin писал(а):
> Can we say: "Where are any books?" 
> What is a possible reply? 
> and changed it to: 
> Selexin писал(а):
> In their replies about the question "where are there any books?"

 It's not exactly so. I started off with asking if the following sentences are correct:  

> Where are there any pay fishing lakes in Indiana ?
> Where are there any Raves in Atlanta or around ?
> Where are there any pig farms in colchester?

 As a matter of fact there was a task from a grammar book in which one had to choose the correct question out of several proposed options so that it can be matched with the reply: 
"There are some books on the table." 
The options were as follows:  

> a) Where are some books?
> b) Where are there some books?
> c) Where are any books?
> d) Where are there any books?
> e) Where are books?
> f) Where are the books?

 Here is my suggestion:
a), b), c), e) are incorrect for the reason of plain logic.
f) correct, but irrelevant to the given reply.
The only possible option here, though it sounds awkward too, seems to be the d).
That's why I started musing on this. 
Straighten me up if I'm wrong.   

> sperk:
> But I don't see the point of encouraging learners to use odd expressions the fuller implications of which they don't understand, that is, by asking "where are there any books on geometry," you will sound rude, ignorant or both.

 That's what I need -  to understand all the implications of the structure in question as it is found to be in use by native speakers, and I think I'm starting to catch on to it after having read your posts. 
Thanks again for your kind comments.

----------


## paulb

> As a matter of fact there was a task from a grammar book in which one had to choose the correct question out of several proposed options so that it can be matched with the reply: 
> "There are some books on the table." 
> The options were as follows:    
> 			
> 				a) Where are some books?
> b) Where are there some books?
> c) Where are any books?
> d) Where are there any books?
> e) Where are books?
> f) Where are the books?

 a c and e are all bad. b and c are really the same thing. f could be used sometimes. If I brought home a bag of books and then I couldn't find them, I might ask my wife "Where are the books?" If she didn't know which books I was talking about, she could use answer f.

----------


## Selexin

Searching for help again. 
It's not uncommon to omit the first auxiliary verb in questions like: _Did you go to school yesterday?_ _Have you been there before_ 
so, which one of the following is correct if _did_ is omitted?  _You go to school yesterday?_ _You went to school yesterday?_ 
Thanks in advance.

----------


## sperk

> _You went to school yesterday?_

 This is correct although it's not the same as "did you go to school yesterday?" They're used in different situations.

----------


## Selexin

_You go to school yesterday?_
Is this correct too?

----------


## bitpicker

> _You go to school yesterday?_
> Is this correct too?

 Depends on how you define "correct". Will you hear it in a normal dialogue? I suppose so, the 'did' can be dropped if properly implied just like I dropped the initial 'that' in the first sentence of this reply even though it is the subject of the sentence. But you won't find it as an acceptable grammatical variant in any grammar book.  
Robin

----------


## Selexin

Can you help me resolve my confusion?:  

> O Henry,  Cabbages and Kings: 
> - Looks like a fast sailer.  What's her tonnage?"
> - "Search me!" said Smith.  "I don't know what she weighs *in at*.

 What's the meaning and implication of that "*in at*" thing?

----------


## translationsnmru

> Can you help me resolve my confusion?:    
> 			
> 				O Henry,  Cabbages and Kings: 
> - Looks like a fast sailer.  What's her tonnage?"
> - "Search me!" said Smith.  "I don't know what she weighs *in at*.
> 			
> 		  What's the meaning and implication of that "*in at*" thing?

 "Weigh in" is a phrasal verb which can mean _to measure the weight of a boxer, wrestler, etc. before the fight_ or _to have a specific weight as determined by such weighing_. 
E.g.:
"Sam Brown _weighed in_ at 200 pounds."
"What did he _weigh in_ at"?
I have never heard people use this phrase when speaking about ships, but the basic meaning must be the same.

----------


## Selexin

> As with the self-banished Geddie, it was nothing less than the artful
> smiles of *lovely woman* that had driven Johnny Atwood to the desperate
> expedient of accepting office under a despised Federal Government
> so that he might go far, far away and never see again the false, fair
> face that had wrecked his young life.

 How can the absence of the indefinite article before *lovely woman*  be justified ?  

> Then down the coast, tacking close to *shore*, slowly swam a little
> sloop, white-winged like some snowy sea fowl.

 Why there's no "the" before "shore"

----------


## sperk

> As with the self-banished Geddie, it was nothing less than the artful
> smiles of *lovely woman* that had driven Johnny Atwood to the desperate
> expedient of accepting office under a despised Federal Government
> so that he might go far, far away and never see again the false, fair
> face that had wrecked his young life.
> 			
> 		  How can the absence of the indefinite article before *lovely woman*  be justified ?
> [quote:3rbzeoi8]Then down the coast, tacking close to *shore*, slowly swam a little
> sloop, white-winged like some snowy sea fowl.

 Why there's no "the" before "shore"[/quote:3rbzeoi8] 
"Lovely woman" here doesn't refer to a specific woman but rather to all lovely women, so no article is needed; it's like a collective noun. Both Geddie and Johnny had been driven, in a sense, by the whole body of lovely womanhood, even though the actual woman was an individual.
Using shore without an article is a peculiarity of that word, very common in the spoken language. It sounds very east coast US to me. People even say "I'm going down the shore" rather than "...to the shore."

----------

