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 > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >