reaching there

[g***@gmail.com]

I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.

(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.

(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?

Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

Thank you. Cheers.

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).
Thank you. Cheers.

There's no there there to complain of.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.

If N'Orleans was already in the context, it would be "We reached it in the morning."

But "We got there." "We arrived there" is very formal.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.

I can't see that no native speaker would say those two. It is easy
enough to think of "there" in some situations as being a place and
therefore a pronoun/noun in some circumstances - "where we are going"
can be replaced by "there". Perhaps, with further thought, the same
speakers might correct themselves, but I can easily imagine saying "what
time will we reach there". Writing it, is of course a different story.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

"Attain", as in:

"However, we attained there at length, and made the greater haste, because our stomachs were exceedingly sharp and hungry."

But this is from "The Life and Most Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe" and may have become obsolete.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Already mentioned: "get".

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Already mentioned: "get".

But in "get there", "get" is intransitive. It's otherwise constructed
with "to" (one gets to a place), as is "go".

Post by Robert Bannister
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Mark Brader]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by g***@gmail.com
Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Already mentioned: "get".

But in "get there", "get" is intransitive. It's otherwise constructed
with "to" (one gets to a place), as is "go".

That's interesting, because "get" *isn't* normally intransitive. You
can't say "We get" as a complete sentence. And yet you *can* say
"get to a place". It feels as though "get" wants to be completed
either with a direct object or with an adverbial expression.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by g***@gmail.com
Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Already mentioned: "get".

But in "get there", "get" is intransitive. It's otherwise constructed
with "to" (one gets to a place), as is "go".

That's interesting, because "get" *isn't* normally intransitive. You
can't say "We get" as a complete sentence. And yet you *can* say
"get to a place". It feels as though "get" wants to be completed
either with a direct object or with an adverbial expression.

I think Bebercito's point stands. My understanding is that, in
order to be transitive, a verb needs to be capable of being used
with a direct object; otherwise the verb is intransitive.

"Get" is capable of taking a direct object, but not in the relevant
sense of the verb. One can _get to Hong Kong_, but that's intransitive.
One cannot *_get Hong Kong_, just as one can't *_arrive Hong Kong_.

My hypothesis is that "there" is a pro-form in "get there," "arrive
there," etc. More specifically, I think it is a pro-prepositional
phrase (a pro-PP). In "arrive there," e.g., "there" = "at/in Hong Kong."

I believe most dictionaries label this kind of "there" an adverb,
which strikes me as hogwash. The PP in place of which "there" is used
as a pro-form may be adverbial, but that doesn't make "there" an adverb.

Notice that "reach" -- in the relevant sense -- is not complemented
by prepositional phrases. One doesn't *_reach to the summit_. One may,
with Cher, "reach for the stars," but that's a different sense.

I'm putting my pro-PP hypothesis/theory out here for you guys to smash,
if you think you can smash it. Somebody might point out that it's an NP
in "come _from there_" -- but there, "there" is occurring _inside_ a PP!

Post by Mark Brader
--
Mark Brader | "You wake me up early in the morning to tell me
Toronto | I am right? Please wait until I am wrong."
My text in this article is in the public domain.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by g***@gmail.com
Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Already mentioned: "get".

But in "get there", "get" is intransitive. It's otherwise constructed
with "to" (one gets to a place), as is "go".

That's interesting, because "get" *isn't* normally intransitive. You
can't say "We get" as a complete sentence. And yet you *can* say
"get to a place". It feels as though "get" wants to be completed
either with a direct object or with an adverbial expression.

I think Bebercito's point stands. My understanding is that, in
order to be transitive, a verb needs to be capable of being used
with a direct object; otherwise the verb is intransitive.
"Get" is capable of taking a direct object, but not in the relevant
sense of the verb. One can _get to Hong Kong_, but that's intransitive.
One cannot *_get Hong Kong_, just as one can't *_arrive Hong Kong_.
My hypothesis is that "there" is a pro-form in "get there," "arrive
there," etc. More specifically, I think it is a pro-prepositional
phrase (a pro-PP). In "arrive there," e.g., "there" = "at/in Hong Kong."
I believe most dictionaries label this kind of "there" an adverb,
which strikes me as hogwash. The PP in place of which "there" is used
as a pro-form may be adverbial, but that doesn't make "there" an adverb.
Notice that "reach" -- in the relevant sense -- is not complemented
by prepositional phrases. One doesn't *_reach to the summit_. One may,
with Cher, "reach for the stars," but that's a different sense.
I'm putting my pro-PP hypothesis/theory out here for you guys to smash,
if you think you can smash it. Somebody might point out that it's an NP
in "come _from there_" -- but there, "there" is occurring _inside_ a PP!

I don't work with pro-forms. IMO "get there" is a phrasal
verb construction (compare "get up").

[b***@aol.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by g***@gmail.com
Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Already mentioned: "get".

But in "get there", "get" is intransitive. It's otherwise constructed
with "to" (one gets to a place), as is "go".

That's interesting, because "get" *isn't* normally intransitive. You
can't say "We get" as a complete sentence. And yet you *can* say
"get to a place". It feels as though "get" wants to be completed
either with a direct object or with an adverbial expression.

I think Bebercito's point stands. My understanding is that, in
order to be transitive, a verb needs to be capable of being used
with a direct object; otherwise the verb is intransitive.
"Get" is capable of taking a direct object, but not in the relevant
sense of the verb. One can _get to Hong Kong_, but that's intransitive.
One cannot *_get Hong Kong_, just as one can't *_arrive Hong Kong_.
My hypothesis is that "there" is a pro-form in "get there," "arrive
there," etc. More specifically, I think it is a pro-prepositional
phrase (a pro-PP). In "arrive there," e.g., "there" = "at/in Hong Kong."

To me, it's just that "there" has come to substitute for "thither", which
was specifically allative, and can now have the inherent meaning of "to
there".

Post by g***@gmail.com
I believe most dictionaries label this kind of "there" an adverb,
which strikes me as hogwash. The PP in place of which "there" is used
as a pro-form may be adverbial, but that doesn't make "there" an adverb.
Notice that "reach" -- in the relevant sense -- is not complemented
by prepositional phrases. One doesn't *_reach to the summit_. One may,
with Cher, "reach for the stars," but that's a different sense.
I'm putting my pro-PP hypothesis/theory out here for you guys to smash,
if you think you can smash it. Somebody might point out that it's an NP
in "come _from there_" -- but there, "there" is occurring _inside_ a PP!

Post by Mark Brader
--
Mark Brader | "You wake me up early in the morning to tell me
Toronto | I am right? Please wait until I am wrong."
My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Snidely]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
My hypothesis is that "there" is a pro-form in "get there," "arrive
there," etc. More specifically, I think it is a pro-prepositional
phrase (a pro-PP). In "arrive there," e.g., "there" = "at/in Hong Kong."

To me, it's just that "there" has come to substitute for "thither", which
was specifically allative, and can now have the inherent meaning of "to
there".

That "has come to" s/b "has long since". "Thither" in my youth was
already archaic and only heard in set phrases like "thither and yon"
used for story-telling. It's only appearance in conversation was when
you used "thither and yon" because you didn't want to get into the gory
details of where you actually went.

/dps

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Snidely

Post by b***@aol.com
To me, it's just that "there" has come to substitute for "thither", which
was specifically allative, and can now have the inherent meaning of "to
there".

That "has come to" s/b "has long since". "Thither" in my youth was
already archaic and only heard in set phrases like "thither and yon"
used for story-telling. It's only appearance in conversation was when
you used "thither and yon" because you didn't want to get into the gory
details of where you actually went.

"hither and yon," no?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Snidely

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
My hypothesis is that "there" is a pro-form in "get there," "arrive
there," etc. More specifically, I think it is a pro-prepositional
phrase (a pro-PP). In "arrive there," e.g., "there" = "at/in Hong Kong."

To me, it's just that "there" has come to substitute for "thither", which
was specifically allative, and can now have the inherent meaning of "to
there".

That "has come to" s/b "has long since". "Thither" in my youth was
already archaic and only heard in set phrases like "thither and yon"
used for story-telling. It's only appearance in conversation was when
you used "thither and yon" because you didn't want to get into the gory
details of where you actually went.

Even in my youth I think "here and there" was more common.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Snidely

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
My hypothesis is that "there" is a pro-form in "get there," "arrive
there," etc. More specifically, I think it is a pro-prepositional
phrase (a pro-PP). In "arrive there," e.g., "there" = "at/in Hong Kong."

To me, it's just that "there" has come to substitute for "thither", which
was specifically allative, and can now have the inherent meaning of "to
there".

That "has come to" s/b "has long since". "Thither" in my youth was
already archaic and only heard in set phrases like "thither and yon"
used for story-telling. It's only appearance in conversation was when
you used "thither and yon" because you didn't want to get into the gory
details of where you actually went.

"hither and thither" too, also mainly from stories.

[Peter T. Daniels]

[Brader's screwing with the attributions too tangled to fix]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by g***@gmail.com
Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Already mentioned: "get".

But in "get there", "get" is intransitive. It's otherwise constructed
with "to" (one gets to a place), as is "go".

That's interesting, because "get" *isn't* normally intransitive. You
can't say "We get" as a complete sentence. And yet you *can* say
"get to a place". It feels as though "get" wants to be completed
either with a direct object or with an adverbial expression.

I think Bebercito's point stands. My understanding is that, in
order to be transitive, a verb needs to be capable of being used
with a direct object; otherwise the verb is intransitive.
"Get" is capable of taking a direct object, but not in the relevant
sense of the verb. One can _get to Hong Kong_, but that's intransitive.
One cannot *_get Hong Kong_, just as one can't *_arrive Hong Kong_.
My hypothesis is that "there" is a pro-form in "get there," "arrive
there," etc. More specifically, I think it is a pro-prepositional
phrase (a pro-PP). In "arrive there," e.g., "there" = "at/in Hong Kong."
I believe most dictionaries label this kind of "there" an adverb,
which strikes me as hogwash. The PP in place of which "there" is used
as a pro-form may be adverbial, but that doesn't make "there" an adverb.

Yes, it does. Unless, of course, you reject the premodern category "adverb,"
which simply means "other."

Post by g***@gmail.com
Notice that "reach" -- in the relevant sense -- is not complemented
by prepositional phrases. One doesn't *_reach to the summit_. One may,
with Cher, "reach for the stars," but that's a different sense.

"Reach" in "reach for" is no more (or less) transitive than "get" in "get to."

Seems there are two different lexical items "get," one transitive, one intransitive.

Post by g***@gmail.com
I'm putting my pro-PP hypothesis/theory out here for you guys to smash,
if you think you can smash it. Somebody might point out that it's an NP
in "come _from there_" -- but there, "there" is occurring _inside_ a PP!

[Robert Bannister]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by g***@gmail.com
Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Already mentioned: "get".

But in "get there", "get" is intransitive. It's otherwise constructed
with "to" (one gets to a place), as is "go".

That's interesting, because "get" *isn't* normally intransitive. You
can't say "We get" as a complete sentence. And yet you *can* say
"get to a place". It feels as though "get" wants to be completed
either with a direct object or with an adverbial expression.

I think Bebercito's point stands. My understanding is that, in
order to be transitive, a verb needs to be capable of being used
with a direct object; otherwise the verb is intransitive.
"Get" is capable of taking a direct object, but not in the relevant
sense of the verb. One can _get to Hong Kong_, but that's intransitive.
One cannot *_get Hong Kong_, just as one can't *_arrive Hong Kong_.
My hypothesis is that "there" is a pro-form in "get there," "arrive
there," etc. More specifically, I think it is a pro-prepositional
phrase (a pro-PP). In "arrive there," e.g., "there" = "at/in Hong Kong."
I believe most dictionaries label this kind of "there" an adverb,
which strikes me as hogwash. The PP in place of which "there" is used
as a pro-form may be adverbial, but that doesn't make "there" an adverb.
Notice that "reach" -- in the relevant sense -- is not complemented
by prepositional phrases. One doesn't *_reach to the summit_. One may,
with Cher, "reach for the stars," but that's a different sense.
I'm putting my pro-PP hypothesis/theory out here for you guys to smash,
if you think you can smash it. Somebody might point out that it's an NP
in "come _from there_" -- but there, "there" is occurring _inside_ a PP!

A number of languages have separate words or different inflections for
"to there, from there" and just "there", and even English once regularly
used "thither and thence". I think they are all considered to be
adverbs. I'm not sure what a pro-prepositional phrase is.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Already mentioned: "get".

But in "get there", "get" is intransitive. It's otherwise constructed
with "to" (one gets to a place), as is "go".

Fairy nuff.

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Search there and there and there.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Search there and there and there.

Shirley, those are adverbs and not pronouns; "search" is intransitive there.

Compare "Search that and that and that."

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Search there and there and there.

Shirley, those are adverbs and not pronouns; "search" is intransitive there.
Compare "Search that and that and that."

Search Reading and Altoona and Allentown.

Search there and there and there.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Search there and there and there.

Shirley, those are adverbs and not pronouns; "search" is intransitive there.
Compare "Search that and that and that."

Search Reading and Altoona and Allentown.

Computerese condensation of "search for."

Post by Horace LaBadie
Search there and there and there.

Adverbs.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Search there and there and there.

Shirley, those are adverbs and not pronouns; "search" is intransitive there.
Compare "Search that and that and that."

Search Reading and Altoona and Allentown.

Computerese condensation of "search for."

Post by Horace LaBadie
Search there and there and there.

Adverbs.

Locatives - just like Reading et al.

PS: I think he means "Search [in] Reading ..

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Search there and there and there.

Shirley, those are adverbs and not pronouns; "search" is intransitive there.
Compare "Search that and that and that."

Search Reading and Altoona and Allentown.

Computerese condensation of "search for."

Post by Horace LaBadie
Search there and there and there.

Adverbs.

Locatives - just like Reading et al.
PS: I think he means "Search [in] Reading ..

Search me.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 4:13:33 PM UTC-7, Don Phillipson

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Search there and there and there.

Shirley, those are adverbs and not pronouns; "search" is intransitive
there.
Compare "Search that and that and that."

Search Reading and Altoona and Allentown.

Computerese condensation of "search for."

Post by Horace LaBadie
Search there and there and there.

Adverbs.

Locatives - just like Reading et al.
PS: I think he means "Search [in] Reading ..

Search me.

Classical idiom. Not much more compositional than "kick the
bucket".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Search there and there and there.

Shirley, those are adverbs and not pronouns; "search" is intransitive there.
Compare "Search that and that and that."

Search Reading and Altoona and Allentown.

Computerese condensation of "search for."

Post by Horace LaBadie
Search there and there and there.

Adverbs.

Locatives - just like Reading et al.
PS: I think he means "Search [in] Reading ..

Oh. If he'd said "Search his house and his office and his club," it would have
been clear. But an order to search three entire small cities is unlikely.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Search there and there and there.

Shirley, those are adverbs and not pronouns; "search" is intransitive there.
Compare "Search that and that and that."

Search Reading and Altoona and Allentown.

Computerese condensation of "search for."

Post by Horace LaBadie
Search there and there and there.

Adverbs.

Locatives - just like Reading et al.
PS: I think he means "Search [in] Reading ..

I thought it was more like "We searched Reading for a decent restaurant
without success".

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).

In this context, the verb "reach" usually takes a specific
object, e.g. people say "We reached New Orleans in the
morning" -- not "reached there." 1c and 2c break no
rule of grammar but would not be spontaneously said
by native English speakers.

Can anyone think of another transitive verb, besides
"reach," which seems to try to take (successfully or
not) "there" as a direct object? I haven't been able to.

Search there and there and there.

Shirley, those are adverbs and not pronouns; "search" is intransitive there.
Compare "Search that and that and that."

Search Reading and Altoona and Allentown.

Computerese condensation of "search for."

I took it to mean "search" as in "the police searched me". Whatever,
"search a person" or "search a place" is a different usage from "search
there" in my opinion.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Horace LaBadie
Search there and there and there.

Adverbs.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).
Thank you. Cheers.

They're understandable, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear
native speakers say them, but I don't think I'd say them.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).
Thank you. Cheers.

They're understandable, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear
native speakers say them, but I don't think I'd say them.
--
Jerry Friedman

Surely there is somewhere a town called There.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:23:28 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).
Thank you. Cheers.

They're understandable, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear
native speakers say them, but I don't think I'd say them.
--
Jerry Friedman

Surely there is somewhere a town called There.

Not quite. The town is waiting and asking "Are we there yet?"

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).
Thank you. Cheers.

They're understandable, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear
native speakers say them, but I don't think I'd say them.
--
Jerry Friedman

Surely there is somewhere a town called There.

The only There I've found with Google Maps is in Assam, India. Judging
from the satellite view, however, it resembles Oakland.

Otherwise Google Maps suggests Thira, in Greece, usually known as
Santorini. Curiously, however, if you zoom in on it you get to Ios, not
Thira, though the photo illustrating it is Thira.

[LFS]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).
Thank you. Cheers.

They're understandable, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear
native speakers say them, but I don't think I'd say them.
--
Jerry Friedman

Surely there is somewhere a town called There.

You'd think but sadly nothing shows up when you search Google Maps...

[RH Draney]

Post by LFS

Post by David Kleinecke
Surely there is somewhere a town called There.

You'd think but sadly nothing shows up when you search Google Maps...

None searching the GNIS place name server either, so apparently Gertrude
Stein was right...I do find a couple of towns called "Theresa", and a
number of churches and schools...however, no evidence exists of Theresa
Tavern in the town....r

[b***@aol.com]

Post by RH Draney

Post by LFS

Post by David Kleinecke
Surely there is somewhere a town called There.

You'd think but sadly nothing shows up when you search Google Maps...

None searching the GNIS place name server either, so apparently Gertrude
Stein was right...I do find a couple of towns called "Theresa"

There, South Africa?

, and a

Post by RH Draney
number of churches and schools...however, no evidence exists of Theresa
Tavern in the town....r

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by RH Draney

Post by LFS

Post by David Kleinecke
Surely there is somewhere a town called There.

You'd think but sadly nothing shows up when you search Google Maps...

None searching the GNIS place name server either, so apparently Gertrude
Stein was right...I do find a couple of towns called "Theresa", and a
number of churches and schools...however, no evidence exists of Theresa
Tavern in the town....r

Or Theresa Road (no simple highway).

[Robert Bannister]

Post by LFS

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).
Thank you. Cheers.

They're understandable, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear
native speakers say them, but I don't think I'd say them.
--
Jerry Friedman

Surely there is somewhere a town called There.

You'd think but sadly nothing shows up when you search Google Maps...

A surprising number of places I look for on Google Maps give me the
message: "Add a new place to Google Maps?"

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).
Thank you. Cheers.

They're understandable, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear
native speakers say them, but I don't think I'd say them.
--
Jerry Friedman

Thank you all for your feedback, and for the amusing
side discussion. I'm glad to know that at least some
of you experience some grammatical discomfort at the
thought of using (1c) & (2c). Check out these COCA stats:

arrive there: 88
arrives there: 24
arrived there: 263
arriving there: 52

get there: 6270
gets there: 361
got there: 3376
getting there: 1498
gotten there: 266

reach there: 18
reaches there: 0
reached there: 17
reaching there: 6

Technically, there is 1 COCA hit for "reaches there,"
but it's for the grammatically irrelevant sentence
"In the upper reaches there is a cocoon," in which "reaches"
is a noun. Now, look at the COCA stats for the "it" version:

reaches it: 48
reach it: 537
reached it: 268
reaching it: 64

[Harrison Hill]

Post by g***@gmail.com
I've discovered that I don't think "there" works (well)
as the direct object of "reach." I've also discovered
that not all native speakers feel as I do about this.
(1a) We arrived there in the morning.
(1b) We got there in the morning.
(1c) We reached there in the morning.
(2a) What time will we arrive there?
(2b) What time will we get there?
(2c) What time will we reach there?
Would you say those sentences all work? I know the
(a) and (b) sentences do. They're just objects of
comparison. My sole concern is with (1c) and (2c).
Thank you. Cheers.

I agree with the others.

1a/2a I might say in a formal setting.
2a/2b in an informal setting.
3a/3b never.

"Reach" goes with a specific place on a leg of a journey.
You might "reach" Singapore at dawn, on your way to Australia.
Unless "there" had been predefined, you would never "reach"
plain old "there".