Re: Existential clauses

Carsten Becker wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:10:07 +0200, Carsten Becker <post@...>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>[...] But I still
>>haven't understood what the the difference betweeen "to be" and "EXIST"
>>is. It must have something to do with "existencial clauses" and
>>"equational clauses". I know that Spanish uses two kinds of "to be",
>>perhaps this is also for the distinction which I do not understand?
>>
>>
>
>I thought about this and now I think I know what's the difference. Here are
>examples:
>
>     1)     You are happy.
>     2)     You are in the garden.
>
>In the first example, the verb "to be" is followed by an adjective,
>the "are" is in this case redundant, it has no meaning. Maybe it's kind of
>a linker between "you" and "happy". This is why in such sentences, there is
>no "to be" in Ayeri. You'd simply say "You happy".
>In the second example, the sentece sounds somehow odd without the "are".
>Here, "to be" is necessary because it's not an auxiliary but a full verb.
>It has a meaning here. Or at least is supposed to be. In Ayeri, you'd thus
>use "to be" here.
>
>OTOH, I don't know if I should allow verbless sentences, because in Ayeri's
>morphology, verbs are very important. They carry much important information
>(person, time, aspect, case of the triggered argument).
>
>So, am I right with my thoughts about to be/to be?
>
>

Well, in Spanish, you have 'ser' and 'estar'(as you may know).  'ser'
covers things that are inherent - something's 'features' as it were - if
discussing people, nationality, height, character, etc.

Estar, on the other hand, covers non-inherent  properties - position,
mood, etc.

Estar would be used for both of those:  'estás alegre', 'estás en el
jardín'(Spanish drops initial pronouns).  However, 'eres alegre' would
also be allowable, however, it would mean 'you are cheerful(in general)'.

Is that what you mean?