In English "there is/are" can be used either in a general sense (there is a stone, i.e. a stone exists) or a specific one (there is a stone, i.e. there is a stone right there). In German the two are distinct - "es gibt" for the general and "da ist/sind" for the specific.
Can somebody explain the differences between "es gibt", "es sind" and "da ist"? They all seem to have the same literal meaning in English
I'm just copying this from another comment in case you've not seen it- In English "there is/are" can be used either in a general sense (there is a stone, i.e. a stone exists) or a specific one (there is a stone, i.e. there is a stone right there). In German the two are distinct - "es gibt" for the general and "da ist/sind" for the specific.
Not necessarily, the preposition "in" can use the accusative or dative case. Accusative is for movement (e.g., Wir gehen in das Kino - We are going to the cinema) and dative is for describing where something is (e.g, Wir sind in dem Kino - We are in the cinema).
Would ‚Es gibt ein Stein in meinem Schuh‘ convey any different meaning than the da ist-construction of the same sentence?
The problem I see with that is that "pebble" is too narrow of a translation. The German word "Stein" just means a rock in general, whereas (I think, I've kind of just googled this) "Kiesel" is the word for pebble.
Yes, I agree. Presumably there is a foot in the shoe, which would leave very little room for a stone - can't imagine a fist-sized stone as well as my foot in a shoe :-). I also reported it. I subsequently tried: 'There is a rock in my shoe.', and was astounded that it was accepted! I should have thought bigger and tried a boulder or a meteorite!!
This sentence makes me remember to an other sentence: "Die Sauerkraut ist in mein Lederhosen."
Because "that" translates into "das" in this case. It puts an indicating accent on the object. Both you and the listener can see it and know where it is. The sentence as it is just opens the concept of a stone occurring somewhere in the shoe.