I noticed that when I say this, the first "there" is pronounced with a "schwa", while the
second and third have a long ''a'. My dictionary doesn't discuss it. I think it is used
as a pronoun, as in German "es gibt" or in French "io y a". Grammarians please comment.
I pronounce them identically, except for perhaps a bit of syllabification of the first in preparation for the contraction.
The second has a lower fundamental tone and a full glottal stop between as a distinguisher.
Speaking "There, there, it's not so bad", even with the comma, doesn't seperate the two theres as well.
The second has a lower fundamental tone and a full glottal stop between as a distinguisher.
nope. higher. and no glottal.
Dr Bill, yes, "there" is used as the French and German phrases you cited; it's not quite a pronoun in this context, is it? I don't know the term for this, but I'm sure *someone does. I think it all boils down to a question of stress: the second "there" is the subject of the phrase and therefore deserves the strongest stress.
As for how it's *sung, I'd do it like eta.
I wouldn't go so far as to say a schwa, but I'd do it with a little less emphasis and therefore a little less eh to the sound of the first there. As far as the grammar of the phrase there's (a(n), no) X, it is mirrored in several other Indo-European languages: German es gibt and the French il y a, as have been mentioned, and Spanish hay. The German, Spanish and French do not have distinct singular and plural forms as some fastidious grammarians would demand of the English. The English there's is, notwithstanding the grammarians' insistence otherwise, increasingly commonly seen in both singular and plural contexts.
I still make the distinction between there're and there's, but as you say, Faldo, it does seem to be optional these days. Funnily, though, most people seem to still write the agreement correctly.
That reminds me of the German example phrase
"Wenn hinter Fliegen Fliegen fliegen, fliegen Fliegen Fliegen nach". (When flies fly behind flies, flies follow flies). You have to use intonation correctly here
I pronounce them identically, except for perhaps a bit of syllabification of the first in preparation for the contraction.
To me, et, it changes with the emphasis depending on what one is trying to point out, so:
“There’s no there there”, or
“There’s no there there”, or
“There’s no there there, or just a flat, unemphatic
“There’s no there there”.
it changes with the emphasis depending on what one is trying to point out,well, there's always that.
The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar calls it "existential there", while A Communicative Grammar of English calls it "introductory there".
Bingley
Gertrude Stein coined the phrase to disparage Oakland,CA a hundred years ago Back then
it undoubtedly lacked the cultural amenities she desired. Such as tolerance of the love that
dared not speak its name.
Oakland must have been just a wide place in the road in those days. Not even a jerkwater town.
(From days of steam locotives that had to stop for water, obtained by pulling down the filling
spout, which caused water to flow into the tank on the locomotive tender.