Okay, one more time:

SOMETIMES I think it's really only a simple matter of syntax - "Be" as
linking verb (Martha Kolln's sentence Patterns I, II, and III), as in "A
shipwreck is up ahead;" or "Be" as an intransitive verb (pattern VI), as in
"I think, therefore I am."

And that's all folks!

(?)

Paul D.
----------
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: "I am" vs. "I am not"
> Date: Friday, March 26, 1999 12:32 AM
>
> Paul E. Doniger wrote:
>
> >Yes, of course "BE" has these two meanings. It seems to me, however,
that
> >we wouldn't say, "I am happily." Instead we would say, "I exist
happily."
> >In fact, "I am happily" sounds like a case of first language
interference
> >in a non-native speaker. This meaning of "BE" doesn't seem to take an
> >adverbial modifier (at least I can't think of one). How, I wonder, would
we
> >explain this phenomenon?
>
> well, now tha'cha mention it, of course! (this meaning of BE really
doesn't
> take such adverbials... what WAS I thinking (or not...)).
>
> What may be going on is that we are dealing with a fixed, archaic form.
Note
> that we don't walk around routinely asserting, "I am!". Instead, we
garner
> this from rather long-past historical use, "I think, therefore I am." Or
> similarly, "to be, or not to be...."
>
> Certainly these uses are not "productive"; that is, we don't routinely
use
> them in normal situations, or as you point out, with normal modifiers.  I
> don't know, but this reminds me of how idioms function.  Idioms are fixed
> chunks of language (e.g., "kick the bucket", "tie one on", etc. etc.).
And one
> trait of idioms is that you can't invert the word order, or add
modifiers, or
> change the words in the idioms (except perhaps very very minutely). Thus,
for
> example, we don't get the idiomatic meaning if we say "kick seven buckets
> hard!" or "swiftly kick a bucket." So, idioms are fused form/meaning
chunks.
>
> Now, this may be totally off, as I'm no expert in language history, but,
I
> wonder if such a non-current/non-productive term ends up being fused in
its
> form (like idioms), hence not much amenable to modification... check out
the
> Webster III definition and examples... "2a.to exist either absolutely or
in
> relations under conditions specified: have an objective existence: have
> reality or actuality: ("Thee which wert and art, and ever shall be"; "I
think
> therefore, I am.") Often used with 'there' (Once upon a time, there was a
> knight.") ("A shipwreck is up ahead").
>
> Actually, this is an instance where I'd have to challenge the dictionary
on
> lumping together "I think therefore I am" with "A shipwreck is up ahead",
as
> the former occurs apparently necessarily in bare form, while the latter
has to
> have some actual or understood descriptor (or noun) after BE.
>
> Back to Peter's question.
>
> So, I wonder if two things are going on -- the "I am" of existence seems
a
> relic from past times. As a nonproductive form, perhaps we can't modify
it,
> just like we can't change the inner structure of idioms.  Hey! Look! I
don't
> think you can even negate it: *I am not. Indeed, if you heard "I am not",
> you'd call up some close by understood attribute ("I am not sleepy....
etc.")
> and that would not be the BE of existence.
>
> One could muse about the meaning itself of BE ...
>
> Indeed all the above are just musings.
> Good question, Peter!
>
> Other thoughts?
>
> :)
> rebecca
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> until 5/15/99
> Rebecca S. Wheeler, Ph.D.       [log in to unmask]
> 1201 University Circle
> Department of English                office phone: (801) 626-6009
> Weber State University          office fax:       (801) 626-7760
> Ogden, UTah 84408-1201
>                  USA
>
> After 6/1/99
> Rebecca S. Wheeler, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor of English
> Department of English
> Christopher Newport University
> Newport News, VA 23606
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>