Does the liguistic copula have more than a gestural meaning?

The two examples alone you give clearly imply different descriptions. "is" implies " a state already existing", whereas "becomes" implies "a gradual transition". But contrast of two "sentences" separated from the events they describe, or the linguistic context in which they are embedded becomes academic. Note that grammarians differ as to their favoured focal element. Some (e.g. Chomsky) took the "sentence" whereas others (e.g. Halliday) took the whole discourse. Furthermore from philosophical points of view the status of a linguistic string ranges from "structural coupling" (="social dancing" Maturana) through "correspondence theory" (early Wittgenstein) through to "reality structuring" (Foucault).

The topic is contained within the title. When I say something like, "The dawn is red" and "The dawn becomes red" am I saying distinct things, or the same thing twice over? Do different uses of the copula mean different things, or do different events happen to which the same verbal gesture apply? ...Feel free to criticize the question...

The term copula is generally used to refer to the main copular verb(s) in a language. In the case of English, this is the verb to be. The term can also be used to refer to some other verbs in the language which fulfill similar functions. Other English copulae include to become, to get, to feel, and to seem

My problem is that I don't think I understand the sentences, "the dawn is red" or "the dawn becomes red". Perhaps I understand the first as, meaning that the dawn looks red (poetically, a "red dawn"). But I really don't have much of a grasp of , "the dawn becomes red". Do you, perhaps mean that the dawn started out looking gray, but then began to look red? I wonder why, if you were interested in the semantic value of the copula, you did not choose as examples simple sentences like, the dog is brown, so that we can concentrate on the issue and not be diverted by the peculiarity of the example. After all, it is the issue, not the particular example that we want to discuss. Don't we. Classically, the copula which connects subject and predicate is some form of the verb "to be". So that "becomes" is not even a copula. So that is a problem right from the start. I mean that your use of the term "copula" is not a clear one, since you imply that a verb which is not a copula is one.

Don't we.

I'm still not exactly sure what you are getting at with the question, but here's a more obscure example to chew on.

I work with a language family that has a true copula, meaning there is no word for is/am/are be/being/become as an isolated word if i were to say 'I am old' i would just say 'I old' possibly adding an aspect suffix to make an aspectual determination such as duration or change of state. This brings me to my comments on the function of be versus becoming. These languages and many like them with true copulas, employ a dummy verb of sorts, a place holder on which they can affix needed parts of the sentence like the suffix for becoming, (change of state) or the suffix for duration (has been for a long time and will stay that way for the foreseeable future) So functionally the difference between be and becoming is not in the verb itself but more the aspect of the state of being of the noun, as the verb is basically inert in a copulate sentence.

kennethamy wrote:

My problem is that I don't think I understand the sentences, "the dawn is red" or "the dawn becomes red". Perhaps I understand the first as, meaning that the dawn looks red (poetically, a "red dawn"). But I really don't have much of a grasp of , "the dawn becomes red". Do you, perhaps mean that the dawn started out looking gray, but then began to look red? I wonder why, if you were interested in the semantic value of the copula, you did not choose as examples simple sentences like, the dog is brown, so that we can concentrate on the issue and not be diverted by the peculiarity of the example. After all, it is the issue, not the particular example that we want to discuss. Don't we. Classically, the copula which connects subject and predicate is some form of the verb "to be". So that "becomes" is not even a copula. So that is a problem right from the start. I mean that your use of the term "copula" is not a clear one, since you imply that a verb which is not a copula is one.

Well, first, I agree my examples were not carefully chosen. They were very off the cuff sentences wherein I thought the two examples of the different copulae seemed grammatically interchangeable. (You may be uncomfortable with the expanded definition of "copula", feel free to disregard the term. I felt that in the case being considered the two words belonged to the same family of words due to the similarity of use.)

But I'm not convinced that the two example sentences are totally opaque to you, since you unpacked them quite handily. The first, "the dawn is red", does seem to paraphrase into the sentence "the dawn seems red" without suffering too much damage, but it seems to me to have lost some of its semantic implications. For example, the use of "is" in this sentence seems to imply that red is a perceptible attribute of the dawn, while the use of "seem" seems to attribute the adjective to the perception. Surely a pedantic distinction, but indulge me.

Similarly, saying "the dawn becomes red" could be restated as "the dawn looked gray, and now it seems red". I think the two sentences are near cognates, but some of the implications are subtly different. For example, in the first it seemed to describe a process we might name "the dawn" and red being a particular attribute of this process, or possibly describes a "reddening" as being a supplementary process to the larger "dawning" process. Whereas when one says that "the dawn seemed gray, and now it seems red" the semantic implications are different. For example, in the "becoming" sentence there would be no reason to confuse the term "dawn" and "sky", but in the second "seeming" sentence there isn't any apparent reason why the two couldn't be interchanged.

You were confused by the two sentences, and had to unpack them for them to seem appropriately precise to you. But I can imagine two people saying my original example sentences to one another without needing to supplement them with explanations. Are they simply examples of lazy grammar, or do they harbor a particular set of preconceptions about objects, perception, and psychology as a consequence of the way they were phrased?

The two words also seemed readily interchangeable to me on a purely grammatical level, thus why I consider them to both be copulae. "Becoming" names no specific process, nor "being" an actual relationship. If they don't have concrete referents, nor are grammatically differentiated in usage, to what do we ascribe their different meanings? Is it simply a case of convention, or do their different meanings have metaphysical implications?

All of these questions that I am developing are idle questions, and probably quite frivolous. I'm not broaching them with a particular argument in mind. I'm just kind of running with the line of inquiry as it evolves, hoping for useful references or contributions from others. My examples may be misleading fringe cases of word usage, but they seem to be examples of a linguistic situation that crops up often enough to warrant my interest. I don't presume that they will be of interest to anyone else.

By the way:

kennethamy wrote:

Don't we.

Was this a question, or were you just being stern with me? * Insert appropriately stupid emoticon here*

What does " the dawn seems red" mean? How about switching to, "the dog is brown", a sentence I firmly grasp? Now, just what is it that you want to ask about that sentence? The standard view is that the "is" in that sentence is the "is" of predication. The predicate "brown" is being predicated of the subject term, "dog". And, in terms of traditional logic, the sentence, "the dog is brown" states that the class of dog is included within the class of brown things. But that the converse is not true. But you seem to have some further question about this. Could you say what that question is?

kennethamy wrote:

What does " the dawn seems red" mean? How about switching to, "the dog is brown", a sentence I firmly grasp? Now, just what is it that you want to ask about that sentence? The standard view is that the "is" in that sentence is the "is" of predication. The predicate "brown" is being predicated of the subject term, "dog". And, in terms of traditional logic, the sentence, "the dog is brown" states that the class of dog is included within the class of brown things. But that the converse is not true. But you seem to have some further question about this. Could you say what that question is?

Well, I can't understand why you don't understand what "the dawn seems red" means while you are able to understand what "the dog is brown" means? But if you'll allow it, perhaps we can use your incomprehension to further the conversation: What is the difference between these two statements that makes one the object of understanding and one the cause of confusion? They seem to be similarly structured sentences. I do not think that "seems" carries any exotic "philosophese" overtones that "is" lacks. "Red" and "brown" both name colors. "The dog" and "the dawn" also both serve nominal roles. What do you perceive the difference to be? I'm not saying there isn't a difference, but what is it from your perspective? If both statements operate in similar ways why is only one accessible to you, what blocks your access to the other sentence?

Does the statement, "the dog seems brown," mean anything to you? It seems similar to me to "the dog is brown", although the copulae have slightly different connotations. Would you say that the "seems" dog-sentence has a logical structure that you could diagram in a similar way to the "is" statement? What if I suggested that the term "seems" classified dog as a brown thing, so that the end result is much like the "is" statement. But "seems" does so by classifying both under things under appearances, with dog being placed in the subcategory of subjects and brown in the subcategory of an adjectives. The use of seem is conditional, and refers only to a particular case in which this adjective applies to this subject, although it need not apply. Does this mean anything to you? If not, how would you correct my mistake? Since both "is" and "seem" seem to be used in similar ways, does this make them semantically interchangeable? Or could the substitution of one for the other mean something different despite their similar use?

I'm not sure that "the dog is brown" alone quite displays the ambiguity I am trying to track. If for no other reason that it lacks an obvious complementary sentence, like my two "dawn" examples. How about these statements: "The weather is wet" and "The weather is getting wet."

Consider a hypothetical situation: Two people are leaning against the outside of a building together, drops of water begin to fall from the dark clouds above. One turns to the other and says, "This weather is certainly wet." And the other person responds, "It's sure getting there." Both statements are doubtlessly displaying some use of a local idiom, but I think the dialect is diffuse enough that any native speaker of English shouldn't have any problems understanding our two speakers.

What is the relationship between these two statements? Is the second a less than emphatic agreement with the first? Is the second statement qualifying our "is" pronouncement? Is the "getting" comment disagreeing with the first, possibly redefining basic terms?

Let's adjust our imagined situation: Person 1 is walking down the street, drops of water start to fall from the dark clouds above. Person 1 takes a small tape recorder from an inside pocket and records the statement, "This weather is certainly wet," and then shuts off the microphone. A few blocks away and out of earshot, Person 2 feels a few raindrops hit the shoulders of their jacket. Person 2 quickly makes a note in a small writing tablet: The weather is getting wet out here.

Both statements have a similar use, but do each of them draw the same picture? If the pictures are different, how so? Does their difference have semantic implications? The two statements obviously play different roles depending on the situation, but are the roles of each statement in one context related in some way to their roles in another?

Obviously I'm lobbing a lot of verbiage and questions at you. I won't be insulted if you don't address all or any of them. And I won't be surprised if you say that you don't understand most of my above statements.

Hmmm...I invite you to consider a final hypothetical. Imagine you and I have stumbled onto a group of children playing on a sports field. They seem quite organized, but I'm not sure what they are doing. I am trying to figure out the rules, roles, and relationships just from watching the action on the field. Do you think they are just running around?

I don't believe that any fluent English speaker would ever say, "The weather is wet" or "The weather is getting wet". It is just not English.

Quote:

I don't believe that any fluent English speaker would ever say, "The weather is wet" or "The weather is getting wet". It is just not English.

I'm beginning to get the picture that you just put up rubbish like this as a hobby!
I hope I'm wrong .

I don't believe that any fluent English speaker would ever say, "The weather is wet" or "The weather is getting wet". It is just not English. Why use as examples to get at how the copula is used, such dubious examples of English? Why not use clear examples of English like, "the dog is brown"? I expect you have a theory, and that your theory is supported by dubious examples, and not supported by clear examples. And that fact alone makes whatever theory you are trying to push, dubious.

Well, I can't understand why you don't understand what "the dawn seems red" means while you are able to understand what "the dog is brown" means? But if you'll allow it, perhaps we can use your incomprehension to further the conversation: What is the difference between these two statements that makes one the object of understanding and one the cause of confusion? They seem to be similarly structured sentences. I do not think that "seems" carries any exotic "philosophese" overtones that "is" lacks. "Red" and "brown" both name colors. "The dog" and "the dawn" also both serve nominal roles. What do you perceive the difference to be? I'm not saying there isn't a difference, but what is it from your perspective? If both statements operate in similar ways why is only one accessible to you, what blocks your access to the other sentence?

Does the statement, "the dog seems brown," mean anything to you? It seems similar to me to "the dog is brown", although the copulae have slightly different connotations. Would you say that the "seems" dog-sentence has a logical structure that you could diagram in a similar way to the "is" statement? What if I suggested that the term "seems" classified dog as a brown thing, so that the end result is much like the "is" statement. But "seems" does so by classifying both under things under appearances, with dog being placed in the subcategory of subjects and brown in the subcategory of an adjectives. The use of seem is conditional, and refers only to a particular case in which this adjective applies to this subject, although it need not apply. Does this mean anything to you? If not, how would you correct my mistake? Since both "is" and "seem" seem to be used in similar ways, does this make them semantically interchangeable? Or could the substitution of one for the other mean something different despite their similar use?