Interestingly, this discussion harks back to some early generative work
on "be", namely, Emmon Bach's Language article back in the mid 60s "Have
and Be in English," where he argues that both are transformationally
inserted.  Of course, a lot has happened in syntactic theory since then,
but much of his description still holds.  He probably wouldn't draw the
same theoretical conclusions.  That said, I'm not particularly
comfortable with dividing "be" from other linking verbs, although I've
often followed that practice in my grammar classes.  The problem is that
the larger class of linking verbs contains copular verbs as a
subcategory, and the pedagogical question is how much gain there is from
differentiating among them.  I don't find it sufficient to make the
teaching time worth it, but that's a pedagogical judgment that Martha
and I differ on, with good reasons on both sides.  The larger point is,
I think, that many grammatical issues we argue, and very interestingly,
do reduce to pedagogical questions, questions of how we prefer to spend
classroom time, even when there are substantive descriptive matters at
issue.  This is, I think, another instance of a descriptive/pedagogical
issue that I've pushed, the status of initial "that" in relative
clauses.  Descriptively, the evidence is overwhelming that it's a
subordinating conjunction rather than a pronoun.  Pedagogically, one can
make arguments for treating it either way, depending on what one chooses
to spend class time on.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What to do with 'put' [PPs following linking verbs]

Martha,
   I think classifying  "be" as intransitive in a sentence like "the
food
is on the table" gets us back to Bill's original question, as to
whether "on the table" is a complement or a modifier (or perhaps both?)
I don't think "on the table" modifies "be" in the same way it would
modify "dance" in a sentence like "they danced on the table". To me,
it's much closer in sense to "ready" in "Dinner is ready," being almost
equivalent in context of use.
   To me, the easiest way out is to say that the "be" verb allows three
types of complements (as Richard does) without adding the notion that
it becomes intransitive when the complements are place or time
complements.
   We can get away with time and place adverbials with "seems", though
sometimes with the "to be" addition. "Dinner seems on the table"
wouldn't raise eyebrows, I think, perhaps because "on the table"
connotes readiness as much as position. To say "the dinner appeared on
the table" would give us an ambiguity>that highlights the difference
between the intransitive and copular versions. We would put "to be' in
there to shade it toward the copular, I would think. ("The ghost
appeared on the table" is clearly intransitive in a way that "the food
is on the table" or "the food seems on the table" would not be. "The
ghost appeared to be on the table" is a different kind of meaning.)
   Bill wanted to know, I think, whether we are imagining an action like
"putting" to bring these into play as adverbial complements. In some
instances, I think we do understand these adverbials as part of
truncated expressions, but at other times we do not.
   I couldn't agree more that 'be' is a special verb and demands a very
special kind of attention. It's just a matter of how we define
intransitive, I guess, or whether it's better to come up with an
exception to the usual category of intransitive or an extension of the
range of things that can show up as copular complement (or subject
complement in traditional terminology) and still keep the expression
classified as "linking" or "copular".
   We can say, for example, that copular statements identify a subject
(or
rename, re-identify, reclassify), characterize a subject, or sometimes
locate a subject in place and/or time. (The functional equivalent to
the formal patterns.)
   To me, "be" is the prototypical copular verb and other variations
(become, seem, appear, grew, felt, and so on) tend to add mitigation of
uncertainty or instability within time. (To say "she seems smart" is
different from saying "she is smart", but what gets added is the sense
that the judgement is less than certain.) It's hard for me to think of
"be" as not being copular (as main verb.) It's easier for me to think
of it as always copular and then look at all its complements as by
definition copular. That may just be stubbornness on my part.
   I couldn't agree more that we need to look at the special way 'be'
acts
as main verb, as auxiliary, and as having more unique forms than any
other verb (by far). It is the center of many kinds of difficulties. I
think either approach would work well for those goals.

Craig
Hi Richard,
>
> In my description of sentence patterns (in
> Understanding English Grammar), Patterns 1 to 3
> are those with be as the main verb:  Pattern 1 is
> NP be ADV T/P, which stands for "Adverbial of
> Time or Place." (The other two are be with an
> adjectival and be with a nominal as subject
> complements.)  All other patterns can include
> manner adverbs--as well as others.  But Pattern 1
> is nearly always restricted to time or place, as
> in  your examples.
>
> I separate be from the linking verbs because of
> that pattern--it's not a linking verb.  It's the
> be version of intransitive verbs.  That's one
> reason.  The other is that be is a mystery to
> most students--but it's also one of the most (if
> not the most) important verbs in the language,
> and I want the students to take special note of
> its specialness: its use as an auxiliary, both
> active and passive, as well as its frequency as a
> main verb.  And consider how often writing
> teachers make a big deal out of "overuse" of  be
> as a main verb.  Understanding the patterns helps
> students recognize the verbs that they're using.
>
> Martha
>
>
>
>>Prepositional phrases and adverbs can be seen as
>>members of the larger category of "adverbials,"
>>and both do about the same things: when
>>modifying a verb they provide when, where, why,
>>or how information about the verb (e.g., ate in
>>haste, ate quickly).
>>
>>Adverbials can also follow (complement) linking
>>verbs, but only time and place (not manner)
>>adverbials:
>>
>>Place:
>>*         The plane is in the air.
>>*         The plane is here.
>>Time:
>>*         The reception will be after the wedding.
>>*         The reception will be afterwards/soon/later.
>>
>>But usually not manner:
>>*         *The craftsmanship was with great skill.
>>*         *The craftsmanship was skillfully.
>>
>>________________________
>>
>>Richard Veit
>>Department of English, UNCW
>>
>>
>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please
>>visit the list's web interface at:
>>http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/