meaning “there was” [on hold]
I've just come across it's meaning "there was (glass everywhere)", Shameless US S09E12, minute 55:18.
Is my interpretation right? Even closed captions agree with it.
american-english formality speech contractions
asked Mar 19 at 15:22
GJCGJC
340212
put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Janus Bahs Jacquet, Jason Bassford, tchrist♦ 1 hour ago
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
I've just come across it's meaning "there was (glass everywhere)", Shameless US S09E12, minute 55:18.
Is my interpretation right? Even closed captions agree with it.
american-english formality speech contractions
asked Mar 19 at 15:22
GJCGJC
340212
put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Janus Bahs Jacquet, Jason Bassford, tchrist♦ 1 hour ago
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
4
This is all very unclear. Add more context to your question. Give sentences around your phrase. Also links. What exactly do you want the meaning of? "there was"? Are there two sources, sound and text?
– Mitch
Mar 19 at 17:46
add a comment |
I've just come across it's meaning "there was (glass everywhere)", Shameless US S09E12, minute 55:18.
Is my interpretation right? Even closed captions agree with it.
american-english formality speech contractions
asked Mar 19 at 15:22
GJCGJC
340212
I've just come across it's meaning "there was (glass everywhere)", Shameless US S09E12, minute 55:18.
Is my interpretation right? Even closed captions agree with it.
american-english formality speech contractions
american-english formality speech contractions
asked Mar 19 at 15:22
GJCGJC
340212
asked Mar 19 at 15:22
GJCGJC
340212
asked Mar 19 at 15:22
GJCGJC
340212
asked Mar 19 at 15:22
GJCGJC
340212
asked Mar 19 at 15:22
GJCGJC
340212
340212
put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Janus Bahs Jacquet, Jason Bassford, tchrist♦ 1 hour ago
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Janus Bahs Jacquet, Jason Bassford, tchrist♦ 1 hour ago
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
4
This is all very unclear. Add more context to your question. Give sentences around your phrase. Also links. What exactly do you want the meaning of? "there was"? Are there two sources, sound and text?
– Mitch
Mar 19 at 17:46
add a comment |
4
This is all very unclear. Add more context to your question. Give sentences around your phrase. Also links. What exactly do you want the meaning of? "there was"? Are there two sources, sound and text?
– Mitch
Mar 19 at 17:46
4
4
This is all very unclear. Add more context to your question. Give sentences around your phrase. Also links. What exactly do you want the meaning of? "there was"? Are there two sources, sound and text?
– Mitch
Mar 19 at 17:46
This is all very unclear. Add more context to your question. Give sentences around your phrase. Also links. What exactly do you want the meaning of? "there was"? Are there two sources, sound and text?
– Mitch
Mar 19 at 17:46
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I think the two terms are finding a common use without being related.
If a sentence said "It's (it is) glass everywhere" or "there was glass everywhere" I would take them to be reporting the result of, say, a baseball breaking through the window. Each answers the question, "What happened when the window broke?"
Depending on the context and goal of the speaker both terms would work. Using them interchangeably elsewhere would not be clear.
answered Mar 19 at 18:42
ElliotElliot
742
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think the two terms are finding a common use without being related.
If a sentence said "It's (it is) glass everywhere" or "there was glass everywhere" I would take them to be reporting the result of, say, a baseball breaking through the window. Each answers the question, "What happened when the window broke?"
Depending on the context and goal of the speaker both terms would work. Using them interchangeably elsewhere would not be clear.
answered Mar 19 at 18:42
ElliotElliot
742
add a comment |
I think the two terms are finding a common use without being related.
If a sentence said "It's (it is) glass everywhere" or "there was glass everywhere" I would take them to be reporting the result of, say, a baseball breaking through the window. Each answers the question, "What happened when the window broke?"
Depending on the context and goal of the speaker both terms would work. Using them interchangeably elsewhere would not be clear.
answered Mar 19 at 18:42
ElliotElliot
742
add a comment |
I think the two terms are finding a common use without being related.
If a sentence said "It's (it is) glass everywhere" or "there was glass everywhere" I would take them to be reporting the result of, say, a baseball breaking through the window. Each answers the question, "What happened when the window broke?"
Depending on the context and goal of the speaker both terms would work. Using them interchangeably elsewhere would not be clear.
answered Mar 19 at 18:42
ElliotElliot
742
I think the two terms are finding a common use without being related.
If a sentence said "It's (it is) glass everywhere" or "there was glass everywhere" I would take them to be reporting the result of, say, a baseball breaking through the window. Each answers the question, "What happened when the window broke?"
Depending on the context and goal of the speaker both terms would work. Using them interchangeably elsewhere would not be clear.
answered Mar 19 at 18:42
ElliotElliot
742
answered Mar 19 at 18:42
ElliotElliot
742
answered Mar 19 at 18:42
ElliotElliot
742
answered Mar 19 at 18:42
ElliotElliot
742
742
add a comment |
add a comment |
4
This is all very unclear. Add more context to your question. Give sentences around your phrase. Also links. What exactly do you want the meaning of? "there was"? Are there two sources, sound and text?
– Mitch
Mar 19 at 17:46