Re: Existential clauses

--- Carsten Becker <post@...> wrote:
> I'd be thankful for other examples where "to be" is
> a full verb and not only
> a linker between the described and the description.
>
"To be, a full verb" ? Depends what you're
considering. Is it just English you're talking about ?
Because other languages might handle the same concepts
rather differently. For ex, in Russian, you normally
omit the copula in present time, or you figure it by a
stroke when you write. Even when considering only the
existential use, in English, you may say "There is a
house", but in French, you say "Il y a une maison"
(verb avoir = to have), and in German, you may say "Es
gibt ein Haus" (verb geben = to give) [or other verbs]
; (Russian: Est' dom).

I once tried to list the uses of the verb "être" (to
be) in French. It looked more or less like this (I'll
comment later) :
- existence, or presence : Il est un pays cher à mon
coeur (old style, seldom used by now). Et la lumière
fut (literary style).
- identity. Ex: L'assassin, c'est le notaire. Ceci est
ma maison. Paris est la capitale de la France.
- instantiation (sort-of) : Un moineau est un oiseau.
Je suis un homme.
- intrinsic quality : Ces cerises sont rouges. Les
basketteurs sont souvent grands. Ce problème est
difficile (see NB)
- temporary, reversible state : Elle est malade.
- transitory, irreversible state : Il est encore
jeune.
- cyclical state : Le feu est au rouge. Il est dix
heures.
- [social] function : Il est facteur.
- spatial relation : Le Tibet est en Asie.
- various comparisons : Il est plus grand que moi. Tu
es moins riche que lui...
- (probably many more)
Plus purely grammatical uses, like :
- part of 'passé composé' tense : Il est parti.
- passive forme : Il a été frappé par des hooligans.

The expression "C'est... qui/que" has no real meaning
by itself, it just allows to insist on one term of the
proposition. Ex: C'est Jean qui revient (vs Jean
revient).

NB: Under 'intrinsic quality', I here included all
levels of subjectivity.

I have a small reference book for Tibetan at hand.
Let's see what happens in Tibetan (I translate from
French) :
"There are different ways in Tibetan to express the
verb 'to be'. Depending on the situation, one should
use 'rè', 'dou' or 'yorè'.
- 'rè' is used to express : 1. a quality (ex: He is a
teacher) ; 2. a state (ex: this hat is mine)
- 'dou' is used to express : 1. a localisation (ex:
the post-office is not far from here) ; 2. the result
of a personal experience (ex : it is very hot today) ;
3. possession ; 4. impersonal mode (expressing
sensations) [NB. 3 and 4 like in Russian, apparently]
- 'yorè' is used to express a general statement that
seems evident (French : often 'il y a'). Ex : There
are many yaks in Tibet."

So clearly to me, this is all an awful mess and the
verb "to be" has intrinsically no other meaning than
"existence" (funny, in French we use the verb 'avoir'
in that case !) In all other cases, languages use "to
be" (or sometimes other verbs, see French : Il fait
nuit) to express just whatever relation, or rather,
any a-dynamic relation. It just means : there is a
Concept-A, and there is a Concept-B, and I want to
join them in a predicate, and there is no action or
process implied. (In the case of "Il fait nuit", what
could be Concept-A and Concept-B ? Perhaps "Now -
night" or "Now - dark"; in Russian, "Temno." means "It
is dark" (in this place, or at this time, or both),
but not : "There is such a thing as darkness"
(existence); in past time: bylo temno, bylo=was).

So the problem changes. It is no more "what are the
possible uses of the verb 'to be' ", but rather "what
are the possible kinds of semantic relations between
two concepts". Action relations will need special
verbs, like in : The dog ate the sausage (you can
hardly say, in any language I guess, "dog - sausage",
you have to define the action). But other relations,
either don't need a verb to be expressed, or will use
general-purpose verbs like "to be", "to have", "to
do", "to give"... These verbs are usually
meaning-empty in such uses, even if, of course,  they
have a meaning in other situations. It's what we call
in French "une béquille" (a crutch, you can lean on).
I could well imagine saying in French "Ces cerises,
béquille, rouges" instead of "Ces cerises sont
rouges", or "Ces cerises <tongue-click> rouges", I
wouldn't lose any of the meaning (1), which is not the
case in "Le chien <click> saucisse" (did the damned
dog eat the sausage, play with it or just have a
concupiscent look at it ? this would be very
different). When we use crutches, the meaning is
implied by the very concepts we rely, we don't need to
have anything to add, we just do so to comply to
syntax or style rules.

(1) It is possible to say, in spoken style : "Rouges,
ces cerises, hein ?" (Red, those cherries, aren't they
?)


=====
Philippe Caquant

"High thoughts must have high language." (Aristophanes, Frogs)


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail