Re: Copula

Elliott wrote:
<<
Indeed. This is a different verb, it means 'to act
as', as such it's incomparable, I think, to the
copula, which is a semantically linker between two
words
 >>

To clarify, my point is that I think it's *becoming* a different
verb (which is what would warrant the divergent present and
past tense morphology [cf. "bes" and "beed"]).  As it stands now,
though, it's identical in form to the copula, whatever its function
actually is, which means that a native speaker can think of the
two as being the same.  That the two are different in use is
obvious.  I was trying to use it to explain why one might then
analogize to copular "be", thinking of both as transitive verbs.
Again, this doesn't have to do with what the actual functions of
the verbs are, but with the way a speaker conceptualizes the
two (and, then, how they would go on to use them, based on
that conceptualization).  It's doubtful that you could come up
with a version of the *copula* that acts transitively with the
nouns fulfilling different roles--but you can come up with a
version of "be" which does it.

-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/