In a certain debating chamber, it is routinely stated ("content" means a yes vote):

There have voted — [such-and-such]: content; [such-and-such]: not content."

I'm not sure that this is grammatically correct. I think you can only have "been" or "not been" after "there have" at the start of a sentence. Could someone educate me as to why this is grammatical, or if it isn't, why they choose to repeatedly use an ungrammatical construction?


1 Answer 1


This is in fact a legitimate construction, though formal and old fashioned, and limited by certain conditions not all of which I am fully aware of. Consider this quote from the standard modernised rendering of the Declaration of Arbroath, the famous declaration of independence of the Scots in 1320:

In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken by a single foreigner.

This construction is a case of balance inversion, where putting the subject in first position would result in a very late position of the finite verb, which is often considered uncomely and ponderous:

*In their kingdom, one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken by a single foreigner, have reigned.

I agree that the "there have reigned" construction is rare and out of place in informal language, and unnecessarily pompous in short sentences. It is probably a matter of tradition in your case, since this exact formula is standard in the House of Lords, as Nico has mentioned.

  • 4
    +1; "In their kingdom there have reigned" was the example I was trying to think of. There is a slight difference in this sentence in that it opens with "In their kingdom..." In my opinion, that makes this construction much easier on the ear. Also of note: have is not the only option. "In this meal there were eaten many steaks."
    – MrHen
    Apr 15, 2011 at 19:04
  • Ah, excellent, I don't have to go do the work of hunting for this now :-)
    – user1579
    Apr 15, 2011 at 19:12
  • @MrHen: While an adverbial constituent in first position is common with this construction, I don't believe it is required; cf. this quote: books.google.com/… I think it is rather the length of the subject and its attributes that matters: all that normally has to come first. Apr 15, 2011 at 19:28
  • Maybe I'm completely wrong, but isn't it the same type of construction as, for instance, There should be ....?
    – nico
    Apr 15, 2011 at 23:14
  • @nico: Yes, but I think this particular question is about the present perfect used in the active voice... Apr 15, 2011 at 23:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.