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


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^