Post by Tracy Gustilo on Jun 25, 2003 13:50:54 GMT -5
There are a few more wrinkles to this most interesting grammatical problem of copulas and linking verbs...
Interesting??
Yes, interesting. 
For those of you who have Harvey's Revised, take a look at pages 116-117, which talk about the "principal elements" of a "proposition" or "clause". There is extremely important information being imparted here. It's value lies well beyond grammar to affect logic and rhetoric.
The underlying idea here is that every sentence (proposition, clause) is an *assertion*. There is a subject, about which you are going to say something, and a predicate, which is what you will affirm (or negate) about the subject. In Harvey's terminology, the copula is what unites or links together the subject and the predicate. In Harvey's terminology, the copula is NOT part of the predicate.
However... if you look at #6 on p. 117, Harvey's says that the copula and the predicate are united in one word when there is an affirmation of action, being or state. This word is the verb. (Is Harvey implying that copulas aren't verbs in and of themselves? Yes, I believe he is!) "Verbs", which show action, being (existence) or state, combine a copula and a predicate. I.e., they combine the fact that you are making an assertion with what it is that you are affirming about the subject: about what the subject is doing, about its existence, about its state. You say: Pupils study. I am. The house stands. Rain is falling. Letters are written.
Do note that NONE of these examples includes a "linking" verb as I defined it earlier, i.e. a copula as it "links" together the subject and a complement, another word that renames or describes the subject. In that case, the copula stands between the subject and the complement which renames or describes (in Harvey's terminology, the predicate). All the examples given above are intransitive verbs, whether they indicate action, being or state.
When you get into logic, one of the most important (and difficult!) things you will learn how to do is to "translate" ordinary English sentences into what is called "standard logical form". This is necessary so that you can unpack the logical form of an argument being made in ordinary speech. In order to do this, you will have to convert any sentence (any proposition or assertion) into a sentence form that has -- you guessed it -- a subject, a copula, and a predicate. In traditional logic, these are THREE different elements, not two! Those "verbs" are going to have to be unpacked into copula and predicate. The modern way of including the copula with the predicate, from the standpoint of traditional logic, will -- I guarantee it -- cause confusion. (This is yet another reason to take pains to learn Harvey's "old" more complicated way of thinking and terminology.)
Just to illustrate my point, did you know that copulas, along with subjects and predicates, can be qualified or modified? Just as you indicate which one, whose, how many, what kind for a subject or object noun; and just as you indicate when, where, why, how for a verb; you can also qualify or modify the copula itself. What does that mean? It means that you are going to indicate something about the very nature of your affirmation. How certain are you in affirming? Are you affirming or negating? Might you want somehow to "strengthen" your affirmation? Take these examples:
He seems sick.
He appears to be sick.
He is not sick.
He might be sick.
He truly is sick.
All of these variants have to do with the manner of assertion in itself. We are not modifying the subject "he". Nor are we modifying the predicate (the subject complement) "sick". We are modifying HOW the assertion itself is made.
On p. 117 #7, Harvey's talks about "strengthened copulas" which use infinitives. On p. 91 #7, he talks about "modal adverbs". In both cases, the point is to discuss these types of modifiers of copulas or assertions in themselves.
It strikes me that in some cases "linking verbs" other than variants of "to be" have to do with modifications of the copula.
He seems (to me, the one making the assertion) sick.
In other cases, the "linking verb" is more like a true verb, i.e. an action or state being performed by the subject.
He feels sick.
In all these "linking" cases, however, as Lene pointed out, what is on the other side of the copula/verb is something that refers back to the subject and not to something else, some other object. The traditional manner of diagramming subject complements is to use a back-slanting line to indicate the referral backwards to the subject. (I often use a colon instead of a backslant, and a right-pointing arrow for direct objects. That seems clearer to me.) In languages other than English, the case of the adjective or noun in the predicate would also show the difference. Subject complements would be in nominative case, the same as the subject; they would not be in accusative case, which is used for direct objects.
It still boils down to three main classes of verbs:
1) copulative or linking verbs, usually with forms of "to be" but not always, and requiring a complement; S - LV - SC
2) transitive verbs, requiring an object, which is on the receiving end of the action; S - TV - DO
3) intransitive verbs, which take neither a complement nor object, and can show being, state, or action: I am. He sleeps. The dog walks. S - IV
Hang in there, Colleen. It is much more complicated than one might wish! But I guarantee it does pay off later when you get into logic and rhetoric. Nail down these basic grammatical principles now.
Rod & Staff seems to be a pretty rigorous program of grammar. But it is not traditional enough, really, to fully capture what a classically trained student of 200-300 years ago would have learned. For that, you need Harvey's -- at least -- as well as ongoing self-education as Martha described, using multiple sources. Foreign language work in Latin and/or Greek helps as well.
We are so used to thinking today that more recent means better. In short, we believe very strongly today in PROGRESS. Progress has occurred in some realms of human knowledge. In the realm of language arts, it hasn't. The language arts have been dramatically dumbed down. Part of what it means to "recover" a truly classical education for today is to un-dumb those language arts. We need to know how they were understood -- and used! -- by all educated human beings up to a couple hundred years ago. There is a reason for all of this. It is not simply an empty exercise in jargon. It turns out all of this has a central role in determining how we perceive reality, how we think and how we communicate.
Tracy
Interesting??
Yes, interesting. 
For those of you who have Harvey's Revised, take a look at pages 116-117, which talk about the "principal elements" of a "proposition" or "clause". There is extremely important information being imparted here. It's value lies well beyond grammar to affect logic and rhetoric.
The underlying idea here is that every sentence (proposition, clause) is an *assertion*. There is a subject, about which you are going to say something, and a predicate, which is what you will affirm (or negate) about the subject. In Harvey's terminology, the copula is what unites or links together the subject and the predicate. In Harvey's terminology, the copula is NOT part of the predicate.
However... if you look at #6 on p. 117, Harvey's says that the copula and the predicate are united in one word when there is an affirmation of action, being or state. This word is the verb. (Is Harvey implying that copulas aren't verbs in and of themselves? Yes, I believe he is!) "Verbs", which show action, being (existence) or state, combine a copula and a predicate. I.e., they combine the fact that you are making an assertion with what it is that you are affirming about the subject: about what the subject is doing, about its existence, about its state. You say: Pupils study. I am. The house stands. Rain is falling. Letters are written.
Do note that NONE of these examples includes a "linking" verb as I defined it earlier, i.e. a copula as it "links" together the subject and a complement, another word that renames or describes the subject. In that case, the copula stands between the subject and the complement which renames or describes (in Harvey's terminology, the predicate). All the examples given above are intransitive verbs, whether they indicate action, being or state.
When you get into logic, one of the most important (and difficult!) things you will learn how to do is to "translate" ordinary English sentences into what is called "standard logical form". This is necessary so that you can unpack the logical form of an argument being made in ordinary speech. In order to do this, you will have to convert any sentence (any proposition or assertion) into a sentence form that has -- you guessed it -- a subject, a copula, and a predicate. In traditional logic, these are THREE different elements, not two! Those "verbs" are going to have to be unpacked into copula and predicate. The modern way of including the copula with the predicate, from the standpoint of traditional logic, will -- I guarantee it -- cause confusion. (This is yet another reason to take pains to learn Harvey's "old" more complicated way of thinking and terminology.)
Just to illustrate my point, did you know that copulas, along with subjects and predicates, can be qualified or modified? Just as you indicate which one, whose, how many, what kind for a subject or object noun; and just as you indicate when, where, why, how for a verb; you can also qualify or modify the copula itself. What does that mean? It means that you are going to indicate something about the very nature of your affirmation. How certain are you in affirming? Are you affirming or negating? Might you want somehow to "strengthen" your affirmation? Take these examples:
He seems sick.
He appears to be sick.
He is not sick.
He might be sick.
He truly is sick.
All of these variants have to do with the manner of assertion in itself. We are not modifying the subject "he". Nor are we modifying the predicate (the subject complement) "sick". We are modifying HOW the assertion itself is made.
On p. 117 #7, Harvey's talks about "strengthened copulas" which use infinitives. On p. 91 #7, he talks about "modal adverbs". In both cases, the point is to discuss these types of modifiers of copulas or assertions in themselves.
It strikes me that in some cases "linking verbs" other than variants of "to be" have to do with modifications of the copula.
He seems (to me, the one making the assertion) sick.
In other cases, the "linking verb" is more like a true verb, i.e. an action or state being performed by the subject.
He feels sick.
In all these "linking" cases, however, as Lene pointed out, what is on the other side of the copula/verb is something that refers back to the subject and not to something else, some other object. The traditional manner of diagramming subject complements is to use a back-slanting line to indicate the referral backwards to the subject. (I often use a colon instead of a backslant, and a right-pointing arrow for direct objects. That seems clearer to me.) In languages other than English, the case of the adjective or noun in the predicate would also show the difference. Subject complements would be in nominative case, the same as the subject; they would not be in accusative case, which is used for direct objects.
It still boils down to three main classes of verbs:
1) copulative or linking verbs, usually with forms of "to be" but not always, and requiring a complement; S - LV - SC
2) transitive verbs, requiring an object, which is on the receiving end of the action; S - TV - DO
3) intransitive verbs, which take neither a complement nor object, and can show being, state, or action: I am. He sleeps. The dog walks. S - IV
Hang in there, Colleen. It is much more complicated than one might wish! But I guarantee it does pay off later when you get into logic and rhetoric. Nail down these basic grammatical principles now.
Rod & Staff seems to be a pretty rigorous program of grammar. But it is not traditional enough, really, to fully capture what a classically trained student of 200-300 years ago would have learned. For that, you need Harvey's -- at least -- as well as ongoing self-education as Martha described, using multiple sources. Foreign language work in Latin and/or Greek helps as well.
We are so used to thinking today that more recent means better. In short, we believe very strongly today in PROGRESS. Progress has occurred in some realms of human knowledge. In the realm of language arts, it hasn't. The language arts have been dramatically dumbed down. Part of what it means to "recover" a truly classical education for today is to un-dumb those language arts. We need to know how they were understood -- and used! -- by all educated human beings up to a couple hundred years ago. There is a reason for all of this. It is not simply an empty exercise in jargon. It turns out all of this has a central role in determining how we perceive reality, how we think and how we communicate.
Tracy
Modifiers have an amazing ability to pile on top of each other!