Talk:here you are

here you are
Here ya go: an entire series of non-idiomatic sum-of-parts entries. --Connel MacKenzie 23:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, as a non-native speaker, it is certainly not simply a sum of parts. I know, for example, that it does have a different meaning from the modified phrase "you are here", but I have yet to find the grammatical rule to explain *why* they differ. Furthermore, I have never understood *why* you use a form of "to be" in this expression, as you actually won't *be* something, but you may *have*, or *receive* something. So why not use "*here you have" instead? That would have made sense as a sum of parts, I think. \Mike 00:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think &#x20;(hinékha) is what's sum-of-parts: it means exactly the sum of its word &#x20;(hinékha) "here you are." :-)  In all seriousness, though, I think I agree with Connel: this seems like a fairly straightforward use of here is/are. The fact that we say "here we/you/they are" instead of *"here are we/you/they" warrants a usage note at the entry for one of the parts.  —Ruakh TALK 01:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would mean you are here then? --Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite, no; "you are here" would be something like כאן אתה (kán ata). הינך (hinékha) really means "here you are" in the sense of "Oh, so it turns out this is where you are; I've been looking for you, and here you are." It's the same distinction as in English, except that "here you are"'s additional sense of "here ya go" is simply הינה (híne). (Note: These examples are not completely consistent, register-wise. If you expect to actually need to say these things in Hebrew, ask me for a fuller explanation on my talk-page.) —Ruakh TALK 22:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I disagree with Connel and Ruakh, and agree with Mike. I'm going to explain why using there you are, because it is more straightforward.  Consider that I can hand someone an item and say "There you are."  I can also say, "Wherever you go, there you are."  In each sentence, there you are has an entirely different meaning.  It is the second sentence that carries the more expected meaning from a sum of parts, with "there" indicating location associated with "you", and the copula making the association.  In the first example, however, "there" is associated with an unnamed and unreferenced object.  The verb "are" is not a copula, and "you" is not the subject of the sentence!  Now to replay the argument using here you are: (1) A person enters the room, and I say "Here you are!" (2) A person walks up to me with a hand held out; I put a dollar in his hand and say, "Here you are!"  We have two completely different meanings of exactly the same spoken phrase, where the particular sense intended is determined solely by the nonverbal interaction and circumstances. Therefore, here you are is a phrase that should be retained for the English phrasebook. --EncycloPetey 05:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * keep, I agree with EncycloPetey. Thryduulf 09:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well put. Keep as idiomatic in English. DAVilla 23:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, you're right. I somehow managed to totally misread the definition as referring to (3) I enter a room, see the person I've been looking for, and say, "here you are!"; and the other senses didn't occur to me. So, keep. —Ruakh TALK 13:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, kept. But I still think it is just sum-of-parts in English.  --Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If so, I'd like to know which of the senses of are (be) is used in this SOP expression. Not to argue any point here, but for my own education, as I'm unable to find any sense in be which makes any sense to me in this context. \Mike 19:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional UK sense
Illogically enough, I've heard "here you are" (reduced to "'ere y'are") as a request for something, as when holding out one's hand for the car keys. This is in slangy, lower-class UK speech. Equinox ◑ 14:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)