The horse is in the barn

[Kendall]

The horse is in the barn.

Is "is" intransitive with in the barn an adverb phrase? Or is "is" copulative.

Are copulative verbs only used to link an adjective or pronoun/noun to the subject?

If I go with the copulative verb asserts something about the subject then it seems to be copulative because it asserts that the horse is in the barn.

Just when I think I have it, I realize all too quickly that I'm not even close!LOL

Kendall

[Lene]

Your questions are excellent.

"The horse is in the barn"

Now, <G> there really are many different meanings of the word "is" (perhaps Bill Clinton was a little bit right when he asked what sense of "is")

There is "is" as in equals,
'is" as in location/existence (is here or there)
"is" as in is perceived by senses (feels, smells, looks, etc)
"is" as a helping verb


IS in this case is referring to location

"The horse **is located** in the barn" or the horse exists in the barn, is the implication here, obviously horse does not EQUAL "in the barn", so the sense of "is" is not one of identity, there is no sensory perception here either... it's an issue of location or existence, which I would call state of being... where the "located" part of the verb is omitted by common usage.

This is what I think. I shall be glad to be corrected if I missed something.

Lene
The verb "is" in this case represents a "state of being"... therefore it is a linking verb, not an intransitive verb, since there is no action here, just state of being.

[Kendall]

Lene,

Thanks! So the form of a sentence with a copulative/linking verb can be:

S-V-adjective (describing the S)
S-V-noun/pronoun (renaming the S)
S-V-adverbial complement (telling where the S exists/is located)

Kendall

[Lene Mahler Jaqua]

Harvey's Revsed says

A copulative verb joins a predicate to a subject.

Forms of "to be" are the only TRUE copulatives, but the verbs:

become, seem, appear, stand, walk,

and other words of MOTION, POSITION, and CONDITION (no action, just a state of being) ... as well as the passive verbs

is named, is called, is settled, is made, etc. ... are frequently used as copulatives .


Transitive verbs are easy because they require a direct object to complete their meaning... INTRANSITIVE VERBS can be distinguished from linking verbs in that linking verbs establish an identity between the subject and the predicate, or express a state of being.

So, yes, insofar as I understand it, your post is correct; I would only add to your last sentence "state of being" as the most general term describing that grammatical construction.

Lene

[Tracy Gustilo]

This is a tricky question.

I have always understood "is" used in this sense as, not a linking/copulative verb, but an intransitive verb. The reason is because 1) a linking/copulative verb takes a subject complement (i.e. either a predicate noun or predicate adjective that renames or describes the subject noun, i.e. that "complements" it), and 2) a transitive verb takes a direct object, which receives the action of the verb. In other words, I would *define* verb type based on what the verb requires as an object or complement.

"Is" in this case refers to existence. Existence "where" is an added adverbial modifier. So you could have:

God is.
(Meaning: God exists.)

God is in heaven.
(Meaning: God exists... where? in heaven.)

Both examples use "is" as intransitive. No subject complement (which must be either noun or adjective) and no direct object.

IF this is correct (which it may or may not be!), "to be" verbs can be used in both kinds of sentences:

S-LV-SC
S-IV - with or without a prepositional phrase modifier (usually indicating where)

They can be used as both linking and intransitive verbs.

Notice that there is no clean mapping between: "to be" vs non-"to be" verbs; use of the verb in the sentence as linking, transitive, or intransitive; the definition of verbs as words showing action, being, or state. There are some patterns or tendencies, but no totally clean mapping. So you have:

S-IV (to be) - shows existence; with or without prep phrase
S-IV (action verb)
S-IV (some other verbs like "sleeps" which don't clearly show physical action)
S-LV (to be)-SC - where SC is either pred. noun or pred. adj.
S-LV (some other verbs like "seems")-SC
S-TV (action verb)-DO
S-TV (some other verbs like "has" or "thinks" which don't clearly show action)-DO

But in all cases, linking verbs take subject complements, transitive verbs take direct objects, and intransitive verbs take neither.

I would understand "state" (from the definition of a verb as a word that shows action, being, and state) to refer to the "some other verbs" listed above, including verbs like seeming, sleeping, and having (possession). They do not show obvious physical action, but neither are they forms of "to be". The definition, which ought to provide the greatest help, is actually the slipperiest concept when it comes to making sense of how verbs are actually used in sentences.

----

Here is a related problem that I still have a hard time with. What if the SC is a verbal? How do you tell that from a verb phrase?

He is sleeping.

Is that:

He - is - sleeping (LV-SC).
or
He - is sleeping (IV).
?? :-)

I don't think you can say for sure. You have to make a call. The easiest thing is to assume that there can be no verbals as subject complements. You go with "is sleeping" as an intransitive verb.

Tracy

[Kendall]

I have the same struggle with the sentence mentioned
She is swimming. Every time it comes up I push it to the back of my mind hoping it will clear up later:).

I also only knew of the two types of linking - to a predicate noun or predicate adjective.

I did a little goggle searching and found the following. link followed by excerpt. I have no idea if the sites are to be trusted as authoritative.

To conclude this post I will say that sometimes I'm not sure where to stop, when to say this doesn't really matter, this isn’t going to effect anything. I am comfortable in the mathematics realm where life is more concrete and if I work hard enough I can completely understand the concept. I'm beginning to wonder if this is possible in grammar!

Kendall


www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/vanassch.htm

Linking verbs or copular verbs link a subject to a complement. Linking verbs MUST be followed by a complement in order to make the sentence complete. The complement can be a subject complement or an adverbial, and occurs in two sentence types which are of the Subject-Verb-Complement (SVC) and Subject-Verb-Adverbial (SVA) pattern.

papyr.com/hypertextbooks/engl_126/cl_ad&ac.htm


Another functional constituent that suggests a copular relationship with some other clause constituent is the adverbial complement. It occurs only in explicit copular relationships referring to the subject, as in

Liz (S) is in the park (AC).

or in implicit copular relationships referring to the object, as in

I put the cookies (DO) in the pantry (AC).

The adverbial complement referring to the object can be paraphrased in a SVC clause, as in

The cookies (S) are in the pantry (AC).

Adverbial complements occur only in those two positions. Adverbials on the other hand are not usually as restricted in position or in reference.

[Kendall]

Here is another site to muddy the water some more:) I'm wondering if I should not have pasted excerpts in my previous post? I will paraphrase here. This site


wiktionary.org/wiki/Be#Intransitive_Verb


says that "to be" is intransitive if it means to exist or to occur or take place

And gives examples similar to
The horse is in the barn.
The town is over the hill.

Which pushes me again to the question what difference will this make. This is a genuine question and not an expression of frustration!

[Tracy Gustilo]

Thanks very much for the research, Kendall. I had never heard of an adverbial complement before. I can see how that would work, either as subject complement or object complement.

If one took this approach, one could make "to be" verbs always linking/copulative *except* for this case:

God is.

Here there is no complement. Being (existence) is being asserted without qualification.

As for which way is better to go... well, what is the criterion of choice?

IF one were to make ease of diagramming the criterion, I think I would go with not having adverbial complements -- that is, I'd always take adverbial elements as modifiers. Otherwise you will have to diagram these special prepositional phrases up on pedestals as stand-ins for a subject complement. (I'm assuming the diagramming convention of putting things below the line indicating a modifier.) One will always have to watch the verb carefully to see which way to diagram an adverbial phrase.

Now, obviously, that's not a very theoretical criterion. I'm using sheer convenience there. Philosophically, Lene may be correct in viewing even adverbials as complementary ideas, to be linked with a linking verb. Her approach might have the advantage in recognizing adverbial phrases as sometimes essential to the meaning of the sentence (vs. non-essential as in the case of modifiers). The use of "to be" verbs would indicate essence -- maybe.

When we say, "The horse is in the barn," what are we really saying? "The horse IS (in the barn)," or "The horse (is) IN THE BARN"? :-)

Bottom line, Kendall. I don't know. It could go either way. My tendency (when teaching this stuff to my kids) is to use the practical criterion of easier teaching and diagramming as my deciding factor. That may not be wise, however, because it may catch up with me later when we get into logic and philosophy.

I wouldn't sweat over it too much, though. ;-) There are always going to be gray areas like this. Language is too fluid a medium to make it as strict as mathematics. That is its beauty as well as its flaw.

Tracy