the difference between 'there be' & 'not there-be'

[Fine Tree]

Hi,

I'd like to know the difference in nuance and usage between 'there be' & 'not there-be'.
Would you please explain by example which is natural in what context?

[1]
1-1. There is somebody staring at us over there.
1-2. Somebody is staring at us over there.

[2]
2-1. There is somebody talking with your sister over there.
2-2. Somebody is talking with your sister over there.

Thanks in advance.

[Pete]

Hi,

I'd like to know the difference in nuance and usage between 'there be' & 'not there-be'.
Would you please explain by example which is natural in what context?

[1]
1-1. There is somebody staring at us over there.
1-2. Somebody is staring at us over there.

[2]
2-1. There is somebody talking with your sister over there.
2-2. Somebody is talking with your sister over there.

Thanks in advance.
I tried looking in The Grammar Book (by Celce-Murcia …) and discovered that the meanings are essentially the same, but the use of one or the other depends on context in the discourse as a whole. You use "There is" / "there are" to alert the person you are addressing to be ready for new, presumably important information that is to follow. The sentences without "there" have a matter-of-fact sound; you know they are stating a fact, but you don't see any emphasis on the fact. One place you do see statements of this form is in "stage directions", descriptive information in a script that sets up a scene:
- It is morning. A table and chair are on the stage. A glass of juice is on the table.

Here's my analysis of the sentences you gave:

1-1 - This is a fact worth emphasizing; this is the more natural form.
1-2 - Probably not what would be said.

2-1 - This is what you would naturally say if you were alerting a friend to the situation.
2-2 - This might be natural as a detail in a discourse that is already in progress:
- I see a number of conversations taking place here. Pat is talking to Alex. Someone is talking with your sister over there. …

[Fine Tree]

Please help me with these again!

[1] In this case, normally we don't say #2, do we?
Would you like me to give you a ride? / Thanks, but it's OK. [___]
1. There is someone to pick me up.
2. Someone is coming to pick me up.

[2] In what context can we use this expression?
- Someone is in the kitchen.

[3] When the semantic subject is 'a girl/woman', is the rule the same with 'someone'?
1-1. There is a girl staring at us over there.
1-2. A girl is staring at us over there.
2-1. There is a woman sitting over there in the bench.
2-2. A woman is sitting over there in the bench.

[4] Which is normal everyday expression (in what context)?
1. There goes/rings the bell.
2. There is the bell going/ringing.
3. The bell goes/rings.
4. The bell is going/ringing.

Thanks in advance.

[Pete]

>Please help me with these again!

[1] In this case, normally we don't say #2, do we?
- Would you like me to give you a ride? / Thanks, but it's OK. [___]
1. There is someone to pick me up.
2. Someone is coming to pick me up.
-- Actually, while I don't think #1 is really wrong, I think #2 fits most naturally into the conversation here.

[2] In what context can we use this expression?
- Someone is in the kitchen.
-- I'd say that you would use this form (instead of the "there is" equivalent) in a context where you were listing places where people currently were (or were not).

[3] When the semantic subject is 'a girl/woman', is the rule the same with 'someone'?
1-1. There is a girl staring at us over there.
1-2. A girl is staring at us over there.
2-1. There is a woman sitting over there <strike>in</strike> on the bench.
2-2. A woman is sitting over there <strike>in</strike> on the bench.

-- I'd say that the rule is the same. In English discourse, when you are introducing new information, especially in a totally new topic, you are very likely to use the "there is/are" form. When the topic of discussion has already been established and only part of the information is new, you are more likely to use the direct "subject is ..." form.

[4] Which is normal everyday expression (in what context)?
1. There goes/<strike>rings</strike> the bell. [You were expecting a bell to sound, and you suddenly hear it. This is the natural way to point it out.]
2. There is the bell <strike>going</strike>/ringing. [Going doesn't sound at all natural. In the circumstance I described for #1, you might also say this, but also omitting "ringing". As it is, it isn't wrong, but the ringing would probably still be continuing as you say it.]
3. The bell <strike>goes</strike>/rings. [You would say this only in a description of habitual happenings:
- We generally arrive at school before nine. The bell rings. We go inside. ...
4. The bell is <strike>going</strike>/ringing. You can naturally say this, but definitely the bell is still ringing as you say it. Otherwise, you would choose #1, or #2 without the participle. Or maybe, "That was the bell."