<p>Yes, normally, in standard usage </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>zhūozishàng yǒu wǒde zuòyè</em> 桌子上有我的作业</p>
</blockquote>

<p>isn't supposed to be correct. You'll hear it a lot, though, especially if a different specific noun phrase is contrasted, such as</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>… <em>dàn méiyǒu nǐde zuòyè</em> 但没有你的作业.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My Better Half, a native speaker, swears there's nothing wrong with </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>… <em>yǒu wǒde zuòyè</em> 有我的作业.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Addendum</strong>: The preferred way of dealing with stating the location of a specified noun (modified by a personal pronoun (<em>wǒ</em> 我, etc.) or a deictic pronoun (<em>nà</em> 那, etc.) is to make it the topic of the sentence, giving it greatest focus, as befits a specified noun. So </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>wǒde zuòyè zài zhūozishàng</em> 我的作业在桌子上</p>
</blockquote>

<p>etc. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-08T22:58:05.683Z
2015-11-09T00:59:53.667Z
2015-11-09T00:59:53.667Z
brannerchinese
<p>hi actually Chinese people can understand both sentence and we cannot even tell which is right or wrong in grammar. I believe that for most Chinese people they think both sentence are right.this is unbelievable but trueIf you want to communicate with Chinese people is not that hard.But sorry actually I can't help you with this problem. Good luck with your Chinese studying☺️</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-09T00:28:29.793Z
2015-11-09T00:28:29.793Z
Yi Lu
<p>Maybe the video is trying to make you understand the difference between 有 and 是, which is basically "definiteness".</p>

<p>桌子上<em>有</em>一本作业 (indefinite)<br>
桌子上<em>是</em>我的作业 (definite)</p>

<p>But I wouldn't say it's wrong to say 桌子上有我的作业, even not being a native speaker.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-08T04:02:03.900Z
maybe video is about the following, ＊ 一本作业在桌子上 ungrammatical，我的作业在桌子上 correct，１st example corrected：有一本作业在桌子上，
subject before verb requires subject to be of definite reference, situation can be rectified by putting verb
有 in front of indefinite subject, another example: Two of them froze to death.他们当中有两人冻死了, consult "word order in Chinese"
user6065
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-08T11:58:12.200Z
@Enrico Brasil Yes. The video is talking about the existential sentences with 在，有，and 是, but I am more confused after I watched it. I think both "是" and "有" can carry either indefinite or definite nouns. In my opinion, 桌子上是一本作业 is also correct.
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-08T16:24:02.760Z
cf。CCG（２０１６）１６。３ ... C, unlike E lacks definite and indefinite articles, and def and indef ref is often decided simply by context. ... in narrative sentences, it is usually the position of a noun in relation to the verb that indicates its ref. A noun in a pre-verbal position, that is the subject of a sentence, gen encodes known or old inf and is therefore of def ref whereas a noun in a post-verbal pos ... tends to encode unkn or new inf and is cons of indef ref...有 is used as a dummy verb when an indefinitely referenced noun is moved to a subject, that is, pre-verbal pos
user6065
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-08T19:45:55.290Z
@cnwang09 As user6065's references supported, the video is correct and is consistent with my experience, although you may have heard both sentences in colloquial language, the 有+definite one is grammatically wrong.
NS.X.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-10T01:48:44.557Z
@user6065 How do you make a post-verbal position noun to be a definite reference then?
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-10T14:03:15.143Z
it seems the above only refers to when it is not clear from context, nouns of definite reference in post-verbal position of course seem to come to mind immediately, above comment merely seems to say, in the case of a sentence  w／o subject with verb 有 the object should (must?) be of indefinite reference (resulting from use of 有 as dummy verb
user6065
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-07T23:38:32.457Z
2015-11-07T23:38:32.457Z
Enrico Brasil
<p>Both are correct. The video is wrong.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-07T23:06:54.383Z
2015-11-07T23:06:54.383Z
Siyi Deng
<p>Sentence 1: 桌子上有一本作业 
Sentence 2: 桌子上有我的作业</p>

<p>I think both sentences are correct. However, I just watched a grammar video which mentioned the existential sentence with "有" can only carry a non-specific noun. If so, "桌子上有我的作业“ wouldn't be correct, because "我的作业" is specific. So I am confused. Can anyone explain this?  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-08T08:21:58.680Z
Any link to the video?
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-08T11:53:49.393Z
@Stan There isn't a link to the video, since the video is part of a registered course. You can register the course for free to watch. The website is: https://www.edx.org/course/zhong-ji-yi-yu-yu-fa-intermediate-pekingx-20000001x (中级汉语语法)
cnwang09
<grammar>
Does an existential sentence with "有" only carry a non-specific noun?
# Does an existential sentence with "有" only carry a non-specific noun?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-11-07)

Sentence 1: 桌子上有一本作业
Sentence 2: 桌子上有我的作业

I think both sentences are correct. However, I just watched a grammar video which mentioned the existential sentence with "有" can only carry a non-specific noun. If so, "桌子上有我的作业“ wouldn't be correct, because "我的作业" is specific. So I am confused. Can anyone explain this?

**Tags:** grammar

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Any link to the video?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 There isn't a link to the video, since the video is part of a registered course. You can register the course for free to watch. The website is: https://www.edx.org/course/zhong-ji-yi-yu-yu-fa-intermediate-pekingx-20000001x (中级汉语语法)  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-11-08. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Yes, normally, in standard usage

> *zhūozishàng yǒu wǒde zuòyè* 桌子上有我的作业

isn't supposed to be correct. You'll hear it a lot, though, especially if a different specific noun phrase is contrasted, such as

> … *dàn méiyǒu nǐde zuòyè* 但没有你的作业.

My Better Half, a native speaker, swears there's nothing wrong with

> … *yǒu wǒde zuòyè* 有我的作业.

**Addendum**: The preferred way of dealing with stating the location of a specified noun (modified by a personal pronoun (*wǒ* 我, etc.) or a deictic pronoun (*nà* 那, etc.) is to make it the topic of the sentence, giving it greatest focus, as befits a specified noun. So

> *wǒde zuòyè zài zhūozishàng* 我的作业在桌子上

etc.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-11-09. Score: 0

hi actually Chinese people can understand both sentence and we cannot even tell which is right or wrong in grammar. I believe that for most Chinese people they think both sentence are right.this is unbelievable but trueIf you want to communicate with Chinese people is not that hard.But sorry actually I can't help you with this problem. Good luck with your Chinese studying☺️


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2015-11-07. Score: -1

Maybe the video is trying to make you understand the difference between 有 and 是, which is basically "definiteness".

桌子上*有*一本作业 (indefinite)  
桌子上*是*我的作业 (definite)

But I wouldn't say it's wrong to say 桌子上有我的作业, even not being a native speaker.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: maybe video is about the following, ＊ 一本作业在桌子上 ungrammatical，我的作业在桌子上 correct，１st example corrected：有一本作业在桌子上， subject before verb requires subject to be of definite reference, situation can be rectified by putting verb 有 in front of indefinite subject, another example: Two of them froze to death.他们当中有两人冻死了, consult "word order in Chinese"  
> **username_0**: @username_4 Yes. The video is talking about the existential sentences with 在，有，and 是, but I am more confused after I watched it. I think both "是" and "有" can carry either indefinite or definite nouns. In my opinion, 桌子上是一本作业 is also correct.  
> **username_5**: cf。CCG（２０１６）１６。３ ... C, unlike E lacks definite and indefinite articles, and def and indef ref is often decided simply by context. ... in narrative sentences, it is usually the position of a noun in relation to the verb that indicates its ref. A noun in a pre-verbal position, that is the subject of a sentence, gen encodes known or old inf and is therefore of def ref whereas a noun in a post-verbal pos ... tends to encode unkn or new inf and is cons of indef ref...有 is used as a dummy verb when an indefinitely referenced noun is moved to a subject, that is, pre-verbal pos  
> **username_6**: @username_0 As username_5's references supported, the video is correct and is consistent with my experience, although you may have heard both sentences in colloquial language, the 有+definite one is grammatically wrong.  
> **username_4**: @username_5 How do you make a post-verbal position noun to be a definite reference then?  
> **username_5**: it seems the above only refers to when it is not clear from context, nouns of definite reference in post-verbal position of course seem to come to mind immediately, above comment merely seems to say, in the case of a sentence  w／o subject with verb 有 the object should (must?) be of indefinite reference (resulting from use of 有 as dummy verb  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2015-11-07. Score: -2

Both are correct. The video is wrong.


---

