Rí.na.dTeangacha wrote:Okay, that's interesting. The "there are..." structure in English would emphasis the object more, so it seems that sometimes a zero copula is actually a better translation of "there is/are" than "есть" is.
That depends. Sometimes a sentence with zero copula can describe a context which cannot be easily translated into English using "there is/are", for example, "На столе твоя тарелка" - "Your plate is on the table". You could probably say something like "There's a plate of yours..." but that sounds awkward, I think.
Rí.na.dTeangacha wrote:I would not have thought you could drop "есть" from the "У + dat.pronoun + есть" structure too, good to know!
Yes, the grammatical context looks equivalent to me in both cases. (By the way, the noun/pronoun is in accusative, not dative)
Rí.na.dTeangacha wrote:It's interesting that it sounds so much more acceptable with a different noun. From a learner's perspective, is it a case of "when in doubt, use есть", do you think?
Probably yes, but you definitely should not use it if the object is a disease or social problem which you can only have one of - like "у меня коронавирус" or "в стране кризис". In each case the copula would look weird. This also means you can use the copula to say you have lab worms (у меня есть [лабораторные] черви) but not pinworms (у меня глисты).
Maybe there are other clear-cut exceptions, I just cannot readily think of one.
Fruchtenstein wrote:I would agree with most of your examples, but not with this one. Mice are just as awkward as plates.
Hmm, probably yes, it sounds a bit off. Do you think "На столе уже беспорядок" would be a better example, like when you're talking about an ongoing party?