There will probably be

Question

The population of India has been steadily increasing for decades, and the country will probably have1.6 billion people by 2050 and surpass China as the world's most populous nation.

The population of India has been steadily increasing for decades, and there will probably be 1.6 billion people by 2050 and surpass China as the world's most populous nation.

Is there will probably be a standard usage? Any difference between First and second sentence?

Thank you

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

pokhIs there will probably be a standard usage?

It's perfectly grammatical. It's not a problem in the general case. It is a problem in the quoted second sentence, however.

pokhAny difference between first and second sentence?

Not in terms of the most basic meaning, but a there-construction normally has a locative phrase, and the second sentence seems to be missing that.

..., and there will probably be 1.6 billion people in that country by 2050 ...

Moreover, and this is a worse mistake, the sentence is clearly designed to say two things about India ("the country"): will have 1.5 people and (will) surpass China. The phrasing "there will be", provided it is supplemented as above so that it's correct, can handle the first part, but not the second, so that we're left, in the second sentence, with "there will be ... and surpass ...", that is, with a clause with a verb "surpass", but no subject to go with it, the subject (the country) having been removed by the substitution of the there-construction.

CJ

Pokh · Answer

CalifJim
pokh with a clause with a verb "surpass", but no subject to go with it, the subject (the country) having been removed by the substitution of the there-construction.

CJ

CJ

If there doesn't refer to India , What does it refer to? If we assume there to refer back to INDIA we will have a subject for verb "surpass".

Thank you

CalifJim · Answer

pokhIf there doesn't refer to India , What does it refer to?

Two different uses exist for the word there. Existential there does not refer to anything. It's a place holder. You need an adverbial there to indicate a location.

There will be ... existential there.

The table is there. locative there.

___________________

You can even have both in one sentence.

Go to Elm Street. You'll see that there are a lot of restaurants there.

The first there is existential there and refers to nothing.

The second there is locative there and substitutes for "on Elm Street".

CJ

Pokh · Answer

CalifJim
pokhIf there doesn't refer to India , What does it refer to?
Two different uses exist for the word there. Existential there does not refer to anything. It's a place holder. You need an adverbial there to indicate a location.

There will be ... existential there.
The table is there. locative there.
___________________

You can even have both in one sentence.

Go to Elm Street. You'll see that there are a lot of restaurants there.

The first there is existential there and refers to nothing.
The second there is locative there and substitutes for "on Elm Street".

CJ

CJ,

Any medical test will sometimes fail to detect a condition when it is present and indicate that there is one when it is not.

ETS says "There is one leaves it in the final clause without a referent" .Its really going over my head coz First IT refers back to condition..so cant we assume second one( in final clause) also to refer back to condition?

CalifJim · Answer

pokhIt's really going over my head

That's understandable; the construction is a bit weird, and the explanation is rather brief.

Nevertheless, here's the intended meaning:

Any medical test will sometimes fail to detect a condition when it is present and indicate that there is one when it is not.

~

Any medical test will sometimes fail to detect a condition when [the condition] is present and indicate that there is [a condition] when [the condition] is not [present].

The final 'when it is not' is almost impossible to follow without rereading the sentence a few times because there is nothing 'it' can refer to within the last that-clause: that there is one when it is not.

You have to go all the way back to 'detect a condition' to see that 'condition' is the intended referent. It seems that ETS is claiming that this makes the final 'it is not' ungrammatical. I'm not sure I would say it's really ungrammatical, but it makes for an extremely awkward construction that is very difficult to read.

CJ

There will probably be

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions