Existential clauses are clauses that indicate only an existence. In English, they are formed with the dummy subject construction (also known as expletive) with "there", e.g. "There are boys in the yard". Many languages do not require a dummy subject, e.g. Finnish, where the sentence Pihalla on poikia is literally "On the yard is boys". Some languages have a different verb for this purpose, e.g. Swedish finnas, as in, Det finns pojkar på gården, which is literally "It is found boys on the yard" (or, more accurately, "It exists boys on the yard"). On the other hand, some languages do not require a copula at all, and sentences analogous to "In the yard boys" are used.
Possession or being under influence of something may also be indicated by existential clauses, e.g. Irish "Tá ocras orm " "There is hunger on me", or Hungarian Van egy halam "I have a fish" (literally "Is a fish-my"), or (also Hungarian) Anna szép "Anna is beautiful" (literally "Anna beautiful").
Some languages use existential clauses to indicate possession. Consider the following Hebrew sentence:
According to linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann, the Hebrew existential construction employed to mark possession was reinterpreted in "Israeli" (his term for "Modern Hebrew") to fit in with the "habere" (to have) construction, requiring the direct object, which is predominant in Yiddish and other European languages such as English (in "I have this book", "this book" is the direct object of "have"). Consider the following Israeli sentence:
Zuckermann argues that Israeli is a "habere language" (cf. Latin habere "to have", taking the direct object), in stark contrast to Hebrew. As demonstrated by the accusative marker et, the noun phrase ha-séfer ha-zè is the direct object in this sentence.
Yiddish has two options to indicate possession. The most common form is ikh hob, literally "I have", which requires a direct object (accusative). However, there is also a form which is more similar to old Hebrew: bay mir iz do, literally "By me is there", followed by the subject (nominative). According to Zuckermann, the latter form, available in the feature pool together with the erstwhile non-habere Hebrew structure yésh l-i + Subject (there is for me, followed by the nominative), did not prevail because ikh hob is more productive in Yiddish and other European habere languages that contributed to the emergence of "Israeli".[1]
A similar process occurred in Maltese: "in the possessive construction, subject properties have been transferred diachronically from the possessed noun phrase to the possessor, while the possessor has all the subject properties except the form of the verb agreement that it triggers."[2]