English Translation
There’s nothing in this room.
Hello German speakers!
Is there a difference between “Es ist nichts in diesem Zimmer.” and "“Es gibt nichts in diesem Zimmer.” ? (I thought only the latter was correct in this context.)
“Es gibt” is more about existence, while “ist” is just a neutral “is”.
Es gibt nichts in diesem Zimmer - Nothing exists in this room.
Es ist nichts in diesem Zimmer - Of all the things that exist, none of them are in this room.
“Da ist” has become a popular anglicism for “there is”, so “Da ist nichts in diesem Zimmer” also works.
Of course, all of these boil down to “The room is empty”, but the “es gibt” variant has that nuance of “there really is nothing that you could do anything with”.
If you add to the sentence it gets clearer. For example: “Es gibt nichts zu lesen in diesem Zimmer” - “There is nothing to read in this room”. It would sound strange if you said “Es ist nichts zu lesen in diesm Zimmer”.
I would say both work here, but "Es ist nichts … " is the more neutral version of “The room is empty”. Like, four walls, floor, ceiling, that’s it. Stating a fact. Whereas “Es gibt nichts…” either gives the feeling of unfulfilled desires or needs, or of “unbelievable! not even here, or here, or here”.
Maybe for “es gibt” it also helps to think of “nothing to be found” instead of “exists”?
2 Likes
That kind of info is so valuable, thanks!
This is a tough one to wrap my head around…
I was tempted to think of it as follows:
Es gibt = more generic statements
Es ist / Da ist = more specific situations
I did some research and found this example
1. “Es gibt noch Karten“
2. "Es sind noch Karten"
3. "Es sind noch Karten erhältlich"
So here apparently: 1 is correct, 2 is incomplete/ungrammatical and 3 is correct - Thinking about it in terms of generic (1) and (2) vs specific (3) seems to work fine here.
(translation - Difference between "Es sind" and "Es gibt" for asserting existence of something - German Language Stack Exchange – interesting read)
But then I saw:
Es gibt einen Apfel auf dem Tisch.
Here, my generic vs specific categorization doesn’t really work : we have a specific situation and our description is very factual/neutral (There is an apple on the table).
Another way of looking at it that I came across was:
Es gibt = There is/are
Es ist/sind = It is/ This is / These are
And then I asked GPT, which said:
es gibt = existence
es ist/sind = describing a state or condition
I kinda like that idea and maybe this is closest to what you mean when you say:
so if I go back to this example:
Could “nichts” be thought of as “emptiness” or “nothingness” in the 2nd example, so that “Es ist nichts in diesem Zimmer” would simply describe the “state of emptiness/nothingness” in that room, roughly translating to “It is emptiness/nothingness in this room”?
I think it’s maybe a good idea to look at the use cases of “es gibt”.
In many cases you can translate it with “is to be found”, “up for grabs”, “available”, “on the menu”, “on offer”, “is served”, “is played”, and the like - in addition to just “there is”.
Du bist zu unserer Party eingeladen. Es gibt Musik und Bier.
You are invited to our party. There’s music and beer. (music played and beer served / up for grabs, for your enjoyment/entertainment/pleasure)
Komm auf die dunkle Seite. Es gibt Kekse.
Come to the dark side. We have cookies.
Ich wollte Kekse kaufen, aber es gibt nirgends welche.
I wanted to buy cookies, but they aren’t available anywhere.
Was gibt’s zu essen? Es gibt Pizza.
What’s for lunch/dinner/…? Pizza. (… is on the menu)
So here apparently: 1 is correct, 2 is incomplete/ungrammatical and 3 is correct - Thinking about it in terms of generic (1) and (2) vs specific (3) seems to work fine here.
Yes, 2 is incomplete. The “Es” here is just a filler to enable reordering of the sentence. (See also: Es ist niemand gekommen.) It’s basically the same as “Karten sind noch …” - “Cards/tickets are still …”. It just begs the question “They are what??”
And another idea. This may simply be a false interpretation, but at least it may serve as a good mnemonic: “es gibt” literally means “it gives”. So whatever “it” is, it gives you something. That means you get something. So this matches with all the “available” and “up for grabs” translations I gave above. But sometimes you simply get something nice to look at.
This sounds weird if you just say it without any context. But with the right context it works:
Hast du denn gar nichts zu essen da? - Doch. Es gibt irgendwo einen Apfel auf dem Tisch. (Den kannst du essen.)
Don’t you have anything to eat (in your home)? - I do. There’s an apple on the table somewhere. (You can eat it.)
If you just want to state that an apple is on the table you would say
Da liegt (ja) ein Apfel auf dem Tisch. (huh, what’s it doing there?)
Es liegt ein Apfel auf dem Tisch. (completely neutral)
Could “nichts” be thought of as “emptiness” or “nothingness” in the 2nd example, so that “Es ist nichts in diesem Zimmer” would simply describe the “state of emptiness/nothingness” in that room, roughly translating to “It is emptiness/nothingness in this room”?
Hmm, interesting idea. I guess you could think that. But it may just be overthinking it. “nichts” is just the same as “not anything”.
If you really want to refer to nothingness, then you would say “das Nichts”, or “die Leere” (emptiness), but this is entering poetic territory.
1 Like
I just came across another interesting example (from the comments section of the article with the “tasty vanilla filler” chapter):
Du kannst jetzt nicht schlafen. Es sind Monster in der Nähe.
You can’t sleep now. There are monsters nearby.
What occurred to me is that there is another difference in meaning if you were to say “Es gibt Monster in der Nähe”:
Es sind Monster in der Nähe. - They are out there right now.
Es gibt Monster in der Nähe. - This place is known for there to be monsters.
Similarly:
Es sind Eisbären in der Antarktis! - There are polar bears in Antarctica! (Sensational news! How did they get there?)
Es gibt Eisbären in der Antarktis. - False statement. They live on the north pole.
1 Like
Your comments on the examples I provided as well as the examples you added, really help getting a better feel for how it all works.
I’m glad I included the “apple on the table” example (I really hesitated 
), because your insights were really interesting.
https://yourdailygerman.com is another GREAT resource and I checked the tasty vanilla filler” chapter you mentioned, as well as the comments section. After reading the comments on the “Es sind Monster in der Nähe.” example, I have another question about our example sentence here:
Would “In diesem Zimmer ist nichts” be just as valid and as commonly used as our “filler-es example”?
Oh and also, why do you guys (I assume you are German) use the “filler-es” anyway?
1 Like
Would “In diesem Zimmer ist nichts” be just as valid and as commonly used as our “filler-es example”?
Yes, and it would even sound a bit more natural, because it’s less convoluted. It would be totally equivalent to “Dieses Zimmer ist leer”.
Oh and also, why do you guys (I assume you are German) use the “filler-es” anyway?
(Oh, I just noticed the dailygerman site has a limiter. I just wanted to quote something, but I guess I’ll have to paraphrase…)
At some point the article talks about mentioning the new information at the end of the sentence. The filler-es is a way to put both “Zimmer” and “nichts” at the end to make them the news of the sentence.
This is basically what gives the sentence that “there is” nuance. The article also mentions “there is” I think near the “Es fährt ein Zug…” example.
And sometimes that nuance is what you want to convey.
A good contrasting example is the tickets:
Es sind noch Karten übrig. - You want to go to the concert? No problem. There are still tickets left. You can buy one if you want.
Karten sind noch übrig. - As for tickets, yes we still have some. But merch/… is sold out.
Übrig sind noch Karten. - We’re almost sold out on everything. But one thing we are still offering is tickets.
And I think what makes this “Es ist nichts in diesem Zimmer” so odd is that it’s weird that both “Zimmer” and “nichts” are supposed to be new information. Because in what situation are they both news? Either you’re already talking about the room and want to say that it’s empty, then you say “In diesem Zimmer ist nichts.”, or you’re checking all the rooms, and this one’s empty, then you say “In diesem Zimmer ist (auch) nichts.”
Or you would use “es gibt” instead of “es ist”:
Es gibt nichts in diesem Zimmer mit dem ich diesen Brief aufbekomme.
There’s nothing in this room that I can use to get this letter open.
1 Like
I’d say, in almost all cases, “es gibt” and “es ist” are used synonymously.
There are some exceptions, but I can’t explain them.
It’s somewhat similar to discussing the difference between “There’s nothing in this room.” and “Nothing’s in this room.” There isn’t really a difference, it’s just that in some situations, one of them sounds more natural than the other one.
Imagine a car accident and the police shouting “There’s nothing to see here. Continue as you were. (Please don’t block the road.)”
German police would say “Es gibt hier nichts zu sehen.” You wouldn’t say “Es ist hier nichts zu sehen” or shorter “Hier ist nichts zu sehen”.
Now imagine someone looking through a telescope/microscope at something: “There’s nothing to see here (Es ist nichts zu sehen.). I can’t see a thing. It’s all black.” “Did you turn it on?” “Oh. Now I see something 
”
You wouldn’t say “Es gibt nichts zu sehen” in that microscope situation.
Notice that the same English “There’s nothing to see here” was translated differently, depending on the situation.
All in all, there is obviously a (minor) difference in some situations, which I can’t explain. But even in those situations, you wouldn’t make a grave mistake if you used the unnatural-sounding words. They are practically identical. Just as there’s not really a practical difference between “There’s nothing in this room.” and “Nothing’s in this room.” At least not a difference big enough for me to lose sleep over it.
1 Like
I’d say, in almost all cases, “es gibt” and “es ist” are used synonymously.
I would say it’s the opposite. There may be a few cases where there really is no difference.
In most cases there is a difference. Is it big enough for a beginner to worry? Probably not. It’s more important to be understood than to nail all the nuances. Is it helpful to tell a learner “you don’t need to worry” when they specifically ask what the difference is and may be advanced enough to understand it? I dare say no.
At least I am not going to judge, and I will try my best to explain when someone asks.
1 Like
Well, I’m very happy hear that, because I like it better than our example sentence!
Funny, I wasn’t really expecting you to answer this one. I was mostly asking in jest, because whoever wrote the article doesn’t seem to know the answer.
I can’t quote from the original article either because of the limiter so I’m paraphrasing too, but iirc, he basically says that it’s done because… it’s possible
I’m glad I did ask though and I will definitely read the article again, especially the part about putting the new information at the end of the sentence.
Right, as @davidculley says, not a big enough difference to lose sleep over
Still, I feel like having this kind of conversations with native speakers is one of the most helpful things there is.
If I ever see a car accident in a German movie, I’ll be expecting this “Es gibt hier nichts zu sehen.” sentence (or some slight variation thereof), that’s very helpful.
Similarly the last 3 contrasting “ticket examples” given by @pitti42, also very helpful.
I think it’s the reason why this particular example really “bothered me”: I was expecting “Es gibt” (having encountered it quite a bit already), whereas I had hardly ever seen or heard “Es ist/sind” used with a similar meaning.
After having this conversation, it doesn’t bother me nearly as much.
and I am very grateful for that. I feel the same way: If someone asks for more info, I will happily go into more detail, if I feel it can benefit them.
Now, I get what @davidculley is saying and as you said @pitti42, there is also the very real possibility of overthinking it and entering poetic territory. It’s funny because when I read it, I was pretty much thinking the same thing, thinking about void, emptiness, space…
Then again, there is nothing with poetry… In fact, I think we could all use some
Anyway, thanks guys!
1 Like
Then this discussion was fruitful. Goal achieved!
Then again, there is nothing with poetry… In fact, I think we could all use some
You know, there are two types of people.
There are the ones who just want to get the job done. To them, language is just a tool to express themselves. There are people who butcher their own language because they don’t care. Use a wrench instead of a hammer to get the nail into the wall. If it works, who cares. And that’s a valid approach. There are learners who need or want to communicate in another language as quickly as possible without going into much detail how it all works. And some people do, and that’s a skill I admire very much. It’s impressive how some gifted people can speak after a very short amount of time. And they’re not afraid of making mistakes.
And then there’s people to whom language is art. Or they take the academic approach. They are hobby linguists. Language is fascinating. It’s art. It’s an intellectual puzzle. It’s a world waiting to be discovered. It’s rewarding to learn about all the little details and how it all fits together. When you learn another language, you also learn a lot about your own. Or when you try to explain a feature of your own language to a learner of your language. Those people want to be eloquent, have all the vocabulary, idioms, and tricks available to use the perfect expression at the right moment.
I belong to the second kind. A student needs the right kind of teacher. I’m here to explain the details to anyone who is interested in them. And learn something myself in the process.
And even if you are not yet ready to fully grasp the nuances, it’s still a valuable insight into the language, and very helpful to at least get a first overview of some weird feature you encountered. Explore it, dip your toes into the water, because how else are you expecting to be able to swim later? Even if you then try to use this feature and fail at first, that’s how you gain experience. It’s the only way to learn and improve.
1 Like
I’m just quoting the whole thing. I have nothing to add and I agree with everything you said.
That’s it! I remember being completely fascinated the first time I heard a language I did not understand. It was like magic to me, like some kind of secret code.
Ever since then, that is how I see languages.
It’s quite amazing how easily humans acquire their native language, when really the mechanisms involved are anything but trivial. (Language is a bit similar to vision in that regard.)
Language is art.
1 Like