Re: Existential clauses

Carsten wrote:

<< I heard about this, it's roughly what I mean. I've just wrote a paragraph
 with my thoughts on the topic of "'to be' or not 'to be'" and uploaded it to
 my server: www.beckerscarsten.de/conlang/ayeri/#tobe>>

The Spanish verb "estar" fulfills the function of what you're talking about,
but it's not exactly what you're talking about.  After all, you can say, "Estoy
contento", and that'd mean "I'm happy".  What you're thinking of (unless
you have further examples you haven't listed) is a locative "to be".  This
exists in plenty of languages.  In fact, the exact system you're thinking of
is I believe in...Sranan?  (Help me out, fellow creolists!)  Basically, if you
want to say "I am" whatever, you usually just use the pronoun plus whatever
it is you are:

(1) Mi wrokoman.  "I'm a worker."
(2) Mi gudpela.  "I'm good."

However, when you want to express a location, you have to add "de":

(3) Mi de long haus.  "I'm in the house."

Is that what you're thinking of?

[Note: I just mixed up about a dozen different English-lexifier creoles
rather indiscriminately.  (I'm too lazy to get up!)  But I assure you that
the basic system I described above *does* exist in at least one English-
lexifier creole.]

-David

Reply