Re: Copula

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:57:56 -0700, David J. Peterson
<dedalvs@...> wrote:

>Jason wrote:
><<
>Why is it that the copula takes two nominatives, rather than a
>nominative and
>an accusative, even though it seems to me at least to be a bivalent
>verb?
>
>While I know that prescriptively, in answer to the question, "Who is
>Jason?" I
>should technically answer "It is I", but in reality, most of us (at
>least, speakers
>of American English) would answer, "It's me" instead.
> >>
>
>That partly answers your own question, doesn't it?  In Engish,
>the copula doesn't always take the nominative--you've given us
>an example in "It's me".  There is no technically this or that: if
>you're a native English speaker, it is how you say it.
>
>I think the notion with the copula is that if the two things are
>equivalent (e.g., if the two can be flipped around without changing
>the meaning), then they should have the same case, e.g, "I am
>Sam", "Sam am I" (or should that be "Sam is I"?).  In English, there
>is certainly pressure to think of "be" as an ordinary verb, because
>you can't just flip the two NP's around all the time:
>
>That man is a teacher.
>?A teacher is that man.
>
>That type of error is certainly different from this one:
>
>I see him.
>*Me see he.
>
>But given the fact that we rarely put pronouns after "to be", it
>would seem natural that there would be some confusion about
>what form they should take when we do have to.
>
>In the one (?) conlang I have that does have a copula, the two
>NP's are treated very differently--as is an adjectival predicate.
>
>Zhyler:
>za sexa vestit (mek).
>/that man-NOM. writer-INS. (be)/
>"That man's a writer."
>
>za sexa gMri (mek).
>/that man-NOM. strong-ADV. (be)/
>"That man is strong."
>
>Both "strong" and "writer" (the man's profession) are treated as
>kind of adverbial modifiers--that is, things that modify his existence,
>not define it.  The kind of default adverbial marker for nouns i
>the instrumental; for adjectives, the adverbial.  For sentences
>where you really meant that the two were equivalent (e.g., Superman
>is Clark Kent, or vice versa), you'd probably use the same strategy,
>but an explanation would be necessary.  To convey it properly,
>you'd probably use a different verb (e.g., "the same as".  I think
>it's /l2Zel/...).
>
>-David
>**********************************************************
*********
>"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
>"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
>
>-Jim Morrison
>
>http://dedalvs.free.fr/
David,

Wow! I think Zhyler was one of first few conlangs I've ever encountered (that
I knew were conlangs at the time). Okay, brown-nosing aside, thank you for
your reply.

So what you're saying is that I am free to treat 'be' as a transitive and
intransitive verb in my own conlangs without being 'unnatural'?

I would treat it as a normal, transitive verb when copular (That is a dog); and
as a normal, intransitive verb when existential (There he is!) in my own
conlang.

Speaking of which, I'm thinking of making it OV again, where pronouns follow
the verb if there are any, but regular SOV in 3rd-person sentences with an
actual nominal subject (as opposed to a pronominal subject).

Reply