"there is" omitted

??

Do you possibly mean to ask why it doesn't say "there was" rather than just "was"?

Yes, that's what I meant to ask.

"there was" and "was" both work in that sentence.

If "was" alone is used, the phrase is an inversion of "a little inset was at the bottom".

So is it also OK to say: "In the garden was a flower."? I thought "there" should be used in these kind of sentences where the place is stated at the first place.

Misko PiskoSo is it also OK to say: "In the garden was a flower."?

Yes, that is correct. Similarly to the original example, it is an inversion of "A flower was in the garden". In this case, though, the uninverted form is not normally very natural (the emphasis with the indefinite article seems wrong or something).

For me "At the bottom was a little inset." sounds as "natural" as in "In the garden is a flower." How do I know when "there" should

Misko Pisko"At the bottom was a little inset which read: ..." i found this in a book by G. Durrell. Why was "there is" omitted in this sentence? Thanks a lot. M

Here are some links where this grammatical pattern is discussed.

Opposite is a Church.

Misko PiskoFor me "At the bottom was a little inset." sounds as "natural" as in "In the garden is a flower." How do I know when "there" should be used?

I think you may have misread my post. I said that in this example the uninverted form was not so natural.

Thanks everyone:)