|From:||Roger Mills <romilly@...>|
|Date:||Friday, December 28, 2001, 0:02|
Clint Jackson Baker wrote:
>I always feel like there should be a more active verb
>than "to be", but not quite "to do". What I mean is,
>when you have something which is essential to your
>being but which is only expressed in action. I often
>find myself butchering English trying to say things
>like, "It's not something you do, but something you
>be." To say "you are" sounds too passive for my
>meaning. So, guess what? I'll have two "to be"'s in
>my conlang. Understand that these root words in my
>language are common and will get a lot of working
>out--future posts will show my developing grammar a
>How to use this? To cover things like the difference
>I wait tables (to cover the bills), but I'm (really)
>an actor. ("regular to be" before, but "active to be"
Hah! Good. so--
(active to be?) "I'm not a doctor, but....
(regular to be?) I play (am) one on TV"