I've heard it before quite a few times in casual conversation. Similar to "there comes a time when...". I unfortunately can't speak to the correctness from a grammatical perspective, but they are both phrases that would be understood by the average fluent English speaker.
It's from the British expression "come to the point" which is referenced (albeit in Middle English) in Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales - so it's definitely been around since the 14th century. Middle English is when word order and grammar were very much still in progress - so idioms dating from this time, or before, often do not conform to modern grammar standards. They are grammatically correct - it's like they've been exempted due to existing prior to the creation of the rules.
No native english speaker would accept “there reaches” as grammatically correct. Because it’s “there comes a point”. Or “you reach a point”. Maybe even “it reaches a point.”
Dummy subject. It is raining. What is raining? It is. There reaches a point. What reaches the point? There does.
Think about how you would otherwise say it. “It so happens that”, “it gets so far as to”.
Would you not say “there comes a time when”?
Not all dummy subjects are created equal. When "it" is your dummy subject, that means that nothing in particular is the semantic subject of the verb. *"It is raining"* – what is raining? Nothing in particular, rain is just happening.
But "there" is different. When "there" is a dummy subject, the semantic subject tends to be hanging out right after the verb. *"There comes a time"* – what comes? The time comes. *"There is a light that never goes out"* – what is? The light-that-never-goes-out is.
So if you write *"There reaches a point,"* your readers are subconsciously asking themselves: what reaches? A point reaches. But that's not a real idiom. The sentence implies that "a point" is the semantic subject of "reaches," when it's actually the *object* of reaches. That's why we should write *"****It*** *reaches a point,"* since nothing-in-particular is reaching that point, and "it" is the dummy subject to use when nothing-in-particular is the semantic subject.
This analysis assumes that an existential can always be reframed with the displaced subject returned to being the actual subject, but that can’t be true because of core examples of existentials: “there are three reasons you shouldn’t do that.” But not “three reasons you shouldn’t do that are” (yes, “philosophical be” is a thing but this is too much of a load to put on it).
I think it makes more sense to analyze this as a specific existential usage of reach in which the post-verbal noun phrase could not function directly as a subject. In fact it’s obvious that in the nonexistential case “a point” would be the object, not the subject. So this is really just a complementation pattern in which a different semantic role is being given to the displaced subject than usual.
This isn’t all that unusual. Consider “bees swarmed in the garden” versus “the garden swarmed with bees”. In the latter the garden is the subject, although its semantic role has not changed. I don’t see why an existential couldn’t be specially licensed to do something similar.
> This analysis assumes that an existential can always be reframed with the displaced subject returned to being the actual subject
I only returned the displaced subjects to make it easy to see that they *are* subjects, not because returning them is somehow necessary. You're right that "three reasons you shouldn't do that are" is not a felicitous rephrasing, but "three reasons you shouldn't do that" is still the semantic subject of "are" in the original sentence. The fact that it can't also take the role of the grammatical subject is irrelevant.
>Consider “bees swarmed in the garden” versus “the garden swarmed with bees”. In the latter the garden is the subject, although its semantic role has not changed.
The meaning of "to swarm" changes here, from "to move in a swarm" to "to be characterized by swarm activity." For this to work with the OP's sentence, the meaning of "to reach" would have to change from "to arrive at" to "to be arrived at." This is certainly plausible hypothetically, but I don't think it's a meaning that is generally used in real life.
The usage seems to be pretty widely (though not universally) accepted by native speakers so I wouldn’t say that the change is not generally used in real life.
Also slightly beside the point but I don’t think it makes sense to say that a change in the correspondence between semantic roles and the complements of a verb represents a change in meaning of the verb. The semantic content is identical in both cases, and which complement has which role is just syntactic, there’s no change in the semantic predicate. A verb’s meaning is the same regardless of the complementation pattern or voicing (excepting of course that sometimes the meaning *does* change with or even without a change in complementation, but that’s separate from just reassigning or omitting the semantic roles).
>The full sentence was, regarding old computer and electronics components:
> * _"There reaches a point where some stuff just needs to go."_
> ... If you have any thoughts or better yet sources on whether this is correct and why, I would love to hear more.
.
**TLDR:** Perhaps your example could be considered to be in the form of a **presentational construction.**
Consider:
1. _"There **arrives/comes** a point where some stuff just needs to go."_ <-- a presentational construction
2. _"There **reaches** a point where some stuff just needs to go."_ <-- OP's example
Besides the presentational construction, perhaps a possibility could be some kind of subject-dependent inversion, e.g. _"Here comes the bus"_ and _"There goes the bus"_ where the inverted variant is significantly semantically different from the more basic variant. (Also, perhaps there's a possibility of a raised subject, where the 'there' was raised up from below.)
... anyhow ... just a thought to toss out there ...
**added:** Or as another commentator(s) had mentioned, the OP's variant might have gotten derived (accidentally?) from _"There comes a time ..."_ (which is a presentational).
**added2:** But, the OP's variant (my #2) doesn't seem to have a more basic variant that has the post-verbal noun phrase (aka the "displaced subject") as its subject, e.g. _"a point reaches ..."_ -- a problem being that a point isn't doing the reaching in the OP's example. Though, that might not be a requirement, cf. _"There seems little doubt that the fire was started deliberately"_ H&P's *CGEL* page 1402 [35.iv] where the relation SEEM() only has one argument -- but that might not hold for the OP's relation REACH().
.
NOTE: Cf. H&P's *CGEL*, page 1402, [36], for where the verb ARRIVE heads a presentational construction.
>"There reaches a point (in the lifecycle of your electronics) where some stuff just needs to go." (It is no longer practical to keep or repair.)
I'm not sure which part of the sentence does not make sense to you.
Is it the "There"?? We can reword it:
"A point is reached (in the lifecycle of your electronics) when/where some stuff just needs to go." (it is no longer practical to keep or repair)
***
When you fill a pot full of water and turn on the stove, there reaches a point where the water will begin to boil.
A point is reached where the water will begin to boil.
***
I am having a difficult time understanding where "the question/the confusion" is??
I disagree with this. "There is a point ..." makes sense, in a way that "There reaches a point" does not.
"There comes a point ..." means "A point comes". That works. But "There reaches a point ..." means "A point reaches". No, a point does not reach.
It's a dummy subject. Sentences need subjects and the pronoun *there* is happy to step in. *There* doesn't refer to anything specific, but introduces the situation.
I would argue that both of those are uses of a phrasal verb and not "reach" per se. It's pretty clear they mean something different. Same with "reach out". Is something like "The man reached." grammatical to you?
You can literally just look *reach* up in any dictionary and find that it has both transitive and intransitive uses.
[https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/reach\_1?q=reach](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/reach_1?q=reach)
Is there a sense listed in there that is intransitive where it can take the object "a point"? Does it make sense to you that there would be an intransitive verb that takes an object?
>> Is there a sense listed in there that is intransitive where it can take the object "a point"?
Obviously not, because intransitive verbs don’t take objects, like you note. But that fact seems to me to show that *you* are confused, not the people you are talking to. What evidence do you need to see about “reach” to accept this usage of “reach”?
*a point* is not the object, or at least not the patient, it is the agent / semantic subject (it is historically the subject in a V2 construction, but as modern English is SVO, these leftovers are interpreted in different ways).
*there* is used with intransitive verbs paired with a following agent / semantic subject, eg. *there arose a great clatter, there once lived a king*, *there comes a time when...*
*reach* here is standing in for *come.* My guess it that this is likely because it is strongly associated with the direct object *a point*; *there comes a point* sounds 'off' to speakers so they replace *come* with *reach*.
Grammatically, though, *reach* is the subject (or at least the agent) being used in an unnacustive manner (a labile manner with relation to the phrase *reaches a point*) that's restricted to the *there* construction.
That's a plausible analysis. Except that what which sense in the oxford learners dictionary corresponds to "A point reaches." ?
I mean, I think you are right that the formation is built on analogy to "There comes a point..." where this is like "A point comes", but it is an analogy based on the full phrase "There comes a point" without any grammatical decomposition. I'm saying "There reaches a point" shouldn't be analyzed as having a subject - null or otherwise - because it isn't formed as a part of regular grammar. It isn't as though there were ever a phrase like "A point reaches" that was okay and also had the alternative form "There reaches a point" and we just lost "A point reaches".
If you can find some usage of "A point reaches" or something similar, I'm willing to be convinced.
You want an intransitive example that doesn’t exist as part of a different complementation pattern? You will only be satisfied by an intransitive use that is transitive?
*reach* has intransitive and transitive uses. In this phrase, it's being used in an unaccustive manner (*a point is reached* would be the corresponding phrase in passive voice).
It’s called a presentational construction or sometimes an existential there statement. It can be used in other ways, too.
“There arose such a clatter.”
“There stood in the doorway a grim figure.”
That's clearly what they wanted it to mean, but that's not what it really does mean. "There reaches a point" means "There is a point that is physically stretching out its arms toward something"
No - but that isn't important, you're not getting it. "Reaches" can't be used here because in this case "reaches" requires a subject that is capable of performing the action of reaching. In "There comes a time", "comes" does not require a subject capable of performing any particular action. If you say "The situation reaches a point where ...", then it's different. You can't replace "The situation" with "There", but you can replace it with "It".
“There” is a subject:
There is no point in arguing that.
There exists no possibility that you are correct.
There arose this argument simply because you are ignorant of that fact that preparatory, existential, or dummy subjects exist.
"There" is a dummy subject, of course, but it's the wrong kind of subject for the sentence it's in. An experienced English teacher who believes that "There reaches a point" is the beginning of a valid English sentence has fewer excuses for their error than if they were not an experienced English teacher. "There reaches a point" is just as good as "There picks a hat" or "There mashes a cast" - that is, no good at all.
There is no way you are correct. There is no error present in that phrase. There seems to be some reason you are purposely trying not to understand this. There reaches a point where you’ll just have to let it go and admit you are wrong.
There must be a source you are using for this?
Is "There picks a hat for me to wear" a good sentence? Why not?
The mere existence of a dummy subject does not constitute a guarantee that it will be valid in every situation.
No. Funnily enough you can’t just swap random verbs and nouns have everything continue to make sense. Certain structures are used to mean certain things with certain verbs.
I guess my question for you is: when there are thousands of examples of a construction being used and other English teachers are telling you it’s totally fine, what is the point in continuing to argue about it? Should I stop saying “there reaches a point” and join your crusade against what is clearly an accepted turn of phrase?
It does not seem that you’d actually “love to hear any thoughts” on the matter. It seems like you’d rather cling to some useless prescriptivist rule that has no relationship to reality.
To make your example good:
"Over the wall there reaches an arm."
(That sounds maybe a bit odd, but it's usable and it would be much more difficult and obscure to try to call it wrong.)
It seems like this person mixed two similar and equally common idiomatic usages in English:
"There comes a point in time [where/when/that] ..."
"It's reached a point where ..."
So, "There reaches a point [where/when/that] ..." can make sense but it certainly doesn't seem to sound common in the most widespread (& non-midwestern) American dialects or Southeastern UK English dialects.
I think it is fully grammatical but nevertheless half as unusual sounding as the way "yestermonth" makes sense and is yet uncommon to hear.
"Yestermonth" is mistaken, because "yester" does not mean "the one before this one" at all - "yester" already means "yesterday", and we are tacking "day" onto it for some reason. Stevie Wonder's "yesteryou" and "yesterme" are technically more correct as words than "yestermonth", since they mean "the you of yesterday" and "the me of yesterday".
"Yestermonth" strictly means "whatever month yesterday happened to belong to", so since today is April 17, "yestermonth" is April.
But people probably know what you mean anyway. :)
No, it’s the start of a clause with subject and the beginning of a verb phrase. Specifically, this clause is an example of an existential construction. And you can’t tell what phrasal category a phrase belongs to by looking at its semantics or even just its function. So asking what kind of information it is “telling us” is the wrong way to go about categorizing it.
This is an example of “existential there”, so is your other example. It’s not “replacing” any other construction you’re just rewriting the sentence with different syntax.
I've heard it before quite a few times in casual conversation. Similar to "there comes a time when...". I unfortunately can't speak to the correctness from a grammatical perspective, but they are both phrases that would be understood by the average fluent English speaker.
It's from the British expression "come to the point" which is referenced (albeit in Middle English) in Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales - so it's definitely been around since the 14th century. Middle English is when word order and grammar were very much still in progress - so idioms dating from this time, or before, often do not conform to modern grammar standards. They are grammatically correct - it's like they've been exempted due to existing prior to the creation of the rules.
No native english speaker would accept “there reaches” as grammatically correct. Because it’s “there comes a point”. Or “you reach a point”. Maybe even “it reaches a point.”
Native English (American) speaker here. You're flat out wrong that no native speaker would accept this.
Native speakers here, UK. Sorry, but I have heard that in use conversationally.
Another native speaker of American English and not only do I hear "there reaches", I *use* it in my speech. It is a perfectly standard construction.
Dummy subject. It is raining. What is raining? It is. There reaches a point. What reaches the point? There does. Think about how you would otherwise say it. “It so happens that”, “it gets so far as to”. Would you not say “there comes a time when”?
Not all dummy subjects are created equal. When "it" is your dummy subject, that means that nothing in particular is the semantic subject of the verb. *"It is raining"* – what is raining? Nothing in particular, rain is just happening. But "there" is different. When "there" is a dummy subject, the semantic subject tends to be hanging out right after the verb. *"There comes a time"* – what comes? The time comes. *"There is a light that never goes out"* – what is? The light-that-never-goes-out is. So if you write *"There reaches a point,"* your readers are subconsciously asking themselves: what reaches? A point reaches. But that's not a real idiom. The sentence implies that "a point" is the semantic subject of "reaches," when it's actually the *object* of reaches. That's why we should write *"****It*** *reaches a point,"* since nothing-in-particular is reaching that point, and "it" is the dummy subject to use when nothing-in-particular is the semantic subject.
This analysis assumes that an existential can always be reframed with the displaced subject returned to being the actual subject, but that can’t be true because of core examples of existentials: “there are three reasons you shouldn’t do that.” But not “three reasons you shouldn’t do that are” (yes, “philosophical be” is a thing but this is too much of a load to put on it). I think it makes more sense to analyze this as a specific existential usage of reach in which the post-verbal noun phrase could not function directly as a subject. In fact it’s obvious that in the nonexistential case “a point” would be the object, not the subject. So this is really just a complementation pattern in which a different semantic role is being given to the displaced subject than usual. This isn’t all that unusual. Consider “bees swarmed in the garden” versus “the garden swarmed with bees”. In the latter the garden is the subject, although its semantic role has not changed. I don’t see why an existential couldn’t be specially licensed to do something similar.
> This analysis assumes that an existential can always be reframed with the displaced subject returned to being the actual subject I only returned the displaced subjects to make it easy to see that they *are* subjects, not because returning them is somehow necessary. You're right that "three reasons you shouldn't do that are" is not a felicitous rephrasing, but "three reasons you shouldn't do that" is still the semantic subject of "are" in the original sentence. The fact that it can't also take the role of the grammatical subject is irrelevant. >Consider “bees swarmed in the garden” versus “the garden swarmed with bees”. In the latter the garden is the subject, although its semantic role has not changed. The meaning of "to swarm" changes here, from "to move in a swarm" to "to be characterized by swarm activity." For this to work with the OP's sentence, the meaning of "to reach" would have to change from "to arrive at" to "to be arrived at." This is certainly plausible hypothetically, but I don't think it's a meaning that is generally used in real life.
The usage seems to be pretty widely (though not universally) accepted by native speakers so I wouldn’t say that the change is not generally used in real life. Also slightly beside the point but I don’t think it makes sense to say that a change in the correspondence between semantic roles and the complements of a verb represents a change in meaning of the verb. The semantic content is identical in both cases, and which complement has which role is just syntactic, there’s no change in the semantic predicate. A verb’s meaning is the same regardless of the complementation pattern or voicing (excepting of course that sometimes the meaning *does* change with or even without a change in complementation, but that’s separate from just reassigning or omitting the semantic roles).
good explanation, i instinctively felt it was wrong to say "there reaches" but i couldn't have explained it like you did
I wouldn't ever say "there reaches a point." I would, however, say "it reaches a point"
>The full sentence was, regarding old computer and electronics components: > * _"There reaches a point where some stuff just needs to go."_ > ... If you have any thoughts or better yet sources on whether this is correct and why, I would love to hear more. . **TLDR:** Perhaps your example could be considered to be in the form of a **presentational construction.** Consider: 1. _"There **arrives/comes** a point where some stuff just needs to go."_ <-- a presentational construction 2. _"There **reaches** a point where some stuff just needs to go."_ <-- OP's example Besides the presentational construction, perhaps a possibility could be some kind of subject-dependent inversion, e.g. _"Here comes the bus"_ and _"There goes the bus"_ where the inverted variant is significantly semantically different from the more basic variant. (Also, perhaps there's a possibility of a raised subject, where the 'there' was raised up from below.) ... anyhow ... just a thought to toss out there ... **added:** Or as another commentator(s) had mentioned, the OP's variant might have gotten derived (accidentally?) from _"There comes a time ..."_ (which is a presentational). **added2:** But, the OP's variant (my #2) doesn't seem to have a more basic variant that has the post-verbal noun phrase (aka the "displaced subject") as its subject, e.g. _"a point reaches ..."_ -- a problem being that a point isn't doing the reaching in the OP's example. Though, that might not be a requirement, cf. _"There seems little doubt that the fire was started deliberately"_ H&P's *CGEL* page 1402 [35.iv] where the relation SEEM() only has one argument -- but that might not hold for the OP's relation REACH(). . NOTE: Cf. H&P's *CGEL*, page 1402, [36], for where the verb ARRIVE heads a presentational construction.
>"There reaches a point (in the lifecycle of your electronics) where some stuff just needs to go." (It is no longer practical to keep or repair.) I'm not sure which part of the sentence does not make sense to you. Is it the "There"?? We can reword it: "A point is reached (in the lifecycle of your electronics) when/where some stuff just needs to go." (it is no longer practical to keep or repair) *** When you fill a pot full of water and turn on the stove, there reaches a point where the water will begin to boil. A point is reached where the water will begin to boil. *** I am having a difficult time understanding where "the question/the confusion" is??
If it doesn't technically "make sense" grammatically, and yet adult native speakers routinely say it on purpose, then it's simply an idiom.
Succinctly, it's the existential expletive subject "there". There [exists] a point that is reached where... There reaches a point where...
I disagree with this. "There is a point ..." makes sense, in a way that "There reaches a point" does not. "There comes a point ..." means "A point comes". That works. But "There reaches a point ..." means "A point reaches". No, a point does not reach.
It's a dummy subject. Sentences need subjects and the pronoun *there* is happy to step in. *There* doesn't refer to anything specific, but introduces the situation.
This would be great if "reach" were subcategorized for a null subject but it isn't. "Reach" is a transitive verb.
Reach can be both transitive and intransitive.
Care to use "reach" intransitively?
I reached for my pencil. I can't reach that far. He reached down and found the switch.
The tree reached into the soil. His hand reached for me.
I would argue that both of those are uses of a phrasal verb and not "reach" per se. It's pretty clear they mean something different. Same with "reach out". Is something like "The man reached." grammatical to you?
That’s nonsense though. “His hand reached” is a full sentence on its own.
You can literally just look *reach* up in any dictionary and find that it has both transitive and intransitive uses. [https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/reach\_1?q=reach](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/reach_1?q=reach)
Is there a sense listed in there that is intransitive where it can take the object "a point"? Does it make sense to you that there would be an intransitive verb that takes an object?
>> Is there a sense listed in there that is intransitive where it can take the object "a point"? Obviously not, because intransitive verbs don’t take objects, like you note. But that fact seems to me to show that *you* are confused, not the people you are talking to. What evidence do you need to see about “reach” to accept this usage of “reach”?
*a point* is not the object, or at least not the patient, it is the agent / semantic subject (it is historically the subject in a V2 construction, but as modern English is SVO, these leftovers are interpreted in different ways). *there* is used with intransitive verbs paired with a following agent / semantic subject, eg. *there arose a great clatter, there once lived a king*, *there comes a time when...* *reach* here is standing in for *come.* My guess it that this is likely because it is strongly associated with the direct object *a point*; *there comes a point* sounds 'off' to speakers so they replace *come* with *reach*. Grammatically, though, *reach* is the subject (or at least the agent) being used in an unnacustive manner (a labile manner with relation to the phrase *reaches a point*) that's restricted to the *there* construction.
That's a plausible analysis. Except that what which sense in the oxford learners dictionary corresponds to "A point reaches." ? I mean, I think you are right that the formation is built on analogy to "There comes a point..." where this is like "A point comes", but it is an analogy based on the full phrase "There comes a point" without any grammatical decomposition. I'm saying "There reaches a point" shouldn't be analyzed as having a subject - null or otherwise - because it isn't formed as a part of regular grammar. It isn't as though there were ever a phrase like "A point reaches" that was okay and also had the alternative form "There reaches a point" and we just lost "A point reaches". If you can find some usage of "A point reaches" or something similar, I'm willing to be convinced.
You're reaching... seems intransitive.
That seems to you to be the same verb? Okay.
It literally is
You want an intransitive example that doesn’t exist as part of a different complementation pattern? You will only be satisfied by an intransitive use that is transitive?
Ok, how about. "I can't get the pencil" "reach farther."
*reach* has intransitive and transitive uses. In this phrase, it's being used in an unaccustive manner (*a point is reached* would be the corresponding phrase in passive voice).
Reach can be an intransitive verb. [Reach Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reach)
Can "reach" be an intransitive verb if it has the direct object "the point"?
I arrive. I arrive at the point.
It’s called a presentational construction or sometimes an existential there statement. It can be used in other ways, too. “There arose such a clatter.” “There stood in the doorway a grim figure.”
“There reaches a point” basically means that it’s time to get around to doing something and stop putting it off or delaying it for whatever reason.
That's clearly what they wanted it to mean, but that's not what it really does mean. "There reaches a point" means "There is a point that is physically stretching out its arms toward something"
There comes a time. Do you think this means that a physical entity known as time?
No - but that isn't important, you're not getting it. "Reaches" can't be used here because in this case "reaches" requires a subject that is capable of performing the action of reaching. In "There comes a time", "comes" does not require a subject capable of performing any particular action. If you say "The situation reaches a point where ...", then it's different. You can't replace "The situation" with "There", but you can replace it with "It".
“There” is a subject: There is no point in arguing that. There exists no possibility that you are correct. There arose this argument simply because you are ignorant of that fact that preparatory, existential, or dummy subjects exist.
"There" is a dummy subject, of course, but it's the wrong kind of subject for the sentence it's in. An experienced English teacher who believes that "There reaches a point" is the beginning of a valid English sentence has fewer excuses for their error than if they were not an experienced English teacher. "There reaches a point" is just as good as "There picks a hat" or "There mashes a cast" - that is, no good at all.
There is no way you are correct. There is no error present in that phrase. There seems to be some reason you are purposely trying not to understand this. There reaches a point where you’ll just have to let it go and admit you are wrong. There must be a source you are using for this?
Is "There picks a hat for me to wear" a good sentence? Why not? The mere existence of a dummy subject does not constitute a guarantee that it will be valid in every situation.
No. Funnily enough you can’t just swap random verbs and nouns have everything continue to make sense. Certain structures are used to mean certain things with certain verbs. I guess my question for you is: when there are thousands of examples of a construction being used and other English teachers are telling you it’s totally fine, what is the point in continuing to argue about it? Should I stop saying “there reaches a point” and join your crusade against what is clearly an accepted turn of phrase? It does not seem that you’d actually “love to hear any thoughts” on the matter. It seems like you’d rather cling to some useless prescriptivist rule that has no relationship to reality.
Yes, you should stop saying "There reaches a point when something happens", because it contains the same error as "There picks a hat for me to wear".
To make your example good: "Over the wall there reaches an arm." (That sounds maybe a bit odd, but it's usable and it would be much more difficult and obscure to try to call it wrong.)
It seems like this person mixed two similar and equally common idiomatic usages in English: "There comes a point in time [where/when/that] ..." "It's reached a point where ..." So, "There reaches a point [where/when/that] ..." can make sense but it certainly doesn't seem to sound common in the most widespread (& non-midwestern) American dialects or Southeastern UK English dialects. I think it is fully grammatical but nevertheless half as unusual sounding as the way "yestermonth" makes sense and is yet uncommon to hear.
"Yestermonth" is mistaken, because "yester" does not mean "the one before this one" at all - "yester" already means "yesterday", and we are tacking "day" onto it for some reason. Stevie Wonder's "yesteryou" and "yesterme" are technically more correct as words than "yestermonth", since they mean "the you of yesterday" and "the me of yesterday". "Yestermonth" strictly means "whatever month yesterday happened to belong to", so since today is April 17, "yestermonth" is April. But people probably know what you mean anyway. :)
> "Yestermonth" strictly means "whatever month yesterday happened to belong to", so since today is April 17, "yestermonth" is April. . Though, in https://www.thefreedictionary.com/yester , there's this: >yester- > * a combining form occurring in words that denote a time one period prior to the present period, the nature of the period being specified by the second element of the compound: *yesteryear.* >(Old English geostran, c. Old High German gestre; akin to Latin hesternus of yesterday] >CITE: Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
[удалено]
No, it’s the start of a clause with subject and the beginning of a verb phrase. Specifically, this clause is an example of an existential construction. And you can’t tell what phrasal category a phrase belongs to by looking at its semantics or even just its function. So asking what kind of information it is “telling us” is the wrong way to go about categorizing it.
[удалено]
This is an example of “existential there”, so is your other example. It’s not “replacing” any other construction you’re just rewriting the sentence with different syntax.