Re: "two be"

Padraic Brown wrote:

> I would guess verse vica:
>
> (regular)       "I am not a doctor, but...
> (active)        I play one on tv"
>
> Reason being, it's not "important to his being" that
> he's not a doctor; but it is that he's an actor (and
> therefore plays doctors on tv).
This is rather like "individual" and "stage" level.
Marcus Smith and Matt Pearson know more about this,
but both of them are nomail iirc, so I'll give it
a shot.

1. The snake is_poisonous:INDIVIDUAL.

2. I am_cold:STAGE.

In the first sentence the snake is poisonous from
birth. It is an inherent property. It's always
poisonous and always has been. Hence "individual".

In the second sentence I am only cold temporarily,
not inherently. It's only a stage in my life, so to
say. Thus "stage" level.

This could be applied to the doctors like this:

I am:IND a doctor. = I work as a doctor and probably
                     will for the rest of my life.

I am:STG a doctor. = I'm a doctor for the moment, but
                     it's not what I usually do. I just
                     play one (or similar).

A scene from the opening sequence of "The Pretender"
(Jarod) comes to mind:

Patient: "Are you a doctor?"
Jarod: "I am today."

This theory of stage and individual level can actually
be used to explain certain things going on in some
active languages, as well.

||| daniel

Replies