Re: "To be" or not "to be"? (was Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep)
| From: | Barry Garcia <barry_garcia@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Monday, February 7, 2000, 3:30 |
|---|
paulnkathy@earthlink.net writes:
>
>I maybe haven't been paying attention as much as I should, but are you
>saying that W. and Saalangal lack a simple equivalent to the verb "exist"?
No, there is a verb for "to exist" which is what I could have used
alternately (I used "to happen"). However, there is no verb "to be",
meaning no copula.
>
>
>
________________________________________________
It's worth the risk of burning, to have a second chance...