Re: Copula

Jason wrote:
<<
but why would the copula be intransitive? It seems awfully transitive
to me.
 >>

And Ray responded:
<<
Hardly - the second argument never has the semantic role of patient. It
could never be considered a direct object surely?
 >>

I think I may know the linguistic pressure that Jason is responding
to.  I think I've brought up this example before on the list, but here
it is again  Read the following:

John has been a firefighter for twelve years.  His father is a
firefighter, and his father, in turn, was a firefighter before him.
There is a long and proud tradition of firefighting in his family.
One day, John arrives at a fire too late, and doesn't manage to
save a man who's trapped.  John is devastated, and thinks about
quitting.  He goes to his father for advice.  "Son," says his father,
"I may never have told you this, but I've lost several people in
my tenure as fire chief.  I remember every one.  You'd be inhuman
not to be affected by it.  But don't let it drive you away.  What
you need to do is strengthen your resolve to be the best firefighter
you can be, so that you never lose anyone ever again."  John is
heartened by this speech, shakes his father's hand, and goes out
and _____ the best firefighter he can be.

In the blank, conjugate the verb "to be".  You may *not* use the
verb "become", or change the sentence, or do anything at all to
it.  Just conjugate the verb "to be".

So, what do you think?  I put the word "bes" in there.  The word
"is" just doesn't cut it.  The reason is, I think, that "be" *isn't*
acting
as a copula in this sentence.  The act of being something is seen as
an action--something that you can do well or poorly.  In that case,
the subject and object of the sentence aren't necessarily equivalent--
kind of like with the verb "become".  Imagine a situation where you're
looking at celebrity high school photos, and you see one girl who
looks non-glamorous, let's say, that went on to be a famous actress
who dresses very glamorous.  One viewer might very well say,
"She became *her*?!"--not "She became *she*?!"  I think this is
because of the notion of transitivity inherent in the meaning of
the verb.  Actually, the same can be said about the "role" version
of "be".  E.g., with two kids discussing what they're going to be
for halloween.  Imagine they're looking through a comic book,
and one says to the other, "Okay, you be him, and I'll be him."  I
think the idea of being someone--some role--can be conceptualized
as a kind of action, and that this may be evidence of that.

Okay, there've been a couple of responses, so I'll send this along.

-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/

Reply