Linking Verb or State of Being

[lauralie2]

Yes, that should be 'you're' I can't spell. I don't know whether ok is ok or OK is OK.

Pat-pat. Sometimes our fingers are to blame. ("OK" is the conventional way to write it--just like "i" is "I".)

Aren't all verbs 'linking verbs'?

Linking verbs are so named because they link S to SC: S = SC. They do not subcategorize for arguments as does, say, the verb "buy" in "They buy food", *They = food. All verbs are not linking verbs.

Lauralie, you are bold to say 'I get it'

Yes, or it could be that I actually know what I am talking about.

As you like to quote Quirk,

Please check again. I have never quoted from Quirk or Quirk et al.

What I'm saying is: things are neither clear cut, nor simple, ... .

I can see you are having difficulty with this topic.

 

[5jj]

Others have clearly given time and thought to this, and have largely cleared up the problem – I think.

One of the underlying problems here is that some writers and teachers attach a great deal of importance to a precise definition of terminology (I am guilty of this myself at times). I think that what we need to ask ourselves as teachers is if this is helping our students. We have had three threads on this topic, and still most of us will stick to our own pet ways of looking at BE.

Poor Jennifer has been lumbered with teaching materials that not only force learners to concentrate on working on the theory of language rather than using it, but also ask them to just use one of several ideas in the belief that it is the only one.

Many of us have had similar problems with exercises of the type underline the phrasal verbs in the following sentences … . Fine; except that, to take just one example, account for is classed as a phrasal verb by one authority, prepositional verb by another and verb + preposition by a third! (see page 13 at http://www.gramorak.com/Articles/Phrasal.pdf )

There is no simple solution to this problem. I tried to do five things when I taught:

1. Avoid using formal terminology as much as possible with my learners, unless I was convinced that it would help them use the language.
2. Inform my learners, if I did give them formal terminology, that definitions were not set in concrete; they were merely working tools.
3. Avoid using words such as always and never when talking about language usage. It can be embarrassing when a student produces evidence to the contrary. (This is really a re-wording of #2.)
4. Read around as much as possible so that I was at least aware of conflicting advice (it’s time-consuming!).
5. Remember that Wikipedia is a useful starting point, but can be wrong. The Wikipedia article you have just read may have been written by the twelve-year-old thug who lives next door.

 

[lauralie2]

There is no simple solution to this problem. I tried to do five things when I taught:

1. Avoid using formal terminology as much as possible with my learners, unless I was convinced that it would help them use the language.
2. Inform my learners, if I did give them formal terminology, that definitions were not set in concrete; they were merely working tools.
3. Avoid using words such as always and never when talking about language usage. It can be embarrassing when a student produces evidence to the contrary. (This is really a re-wording of #2.)
4. Read around as much as possible so that I was at least aware of conflicting advice (it’s time-consuming!).
5. Remember that Wikipedia is a useful starting point, but can be wrong. The Wikipedia article you have just read may have been written by the twelve-year-old thug who lives next door.

That's very sound advice.

 

[Pedroski]

Very sound advice indeed, I especially like #3. But we can learn from embarassment! Who was that US politician who corrected 'potato' to 'potatoe'?
I like self confidence, as long as it doesn't go as far as self deception. Stick with Socrates: I know that I know nothing.
*They = food. All verbs are not linking verbs.
The following are, I believe 'linking verbs'
She is hungry.
*She = hungry. She can't equal hungry, as she is a female animal, and hungry is a physiological state. Cf
She is the boss. The boss could equal a female animal. Mine is! (Very nice though, have to say that, in case she reads this.)
She seems hungry. Ditto, but more so.
She became hungry. Ditto but clear evidence of transcience.

 

[lauralie2]

The following are, I believe 'linking verbs'

She is hungry.

That's right. The verb "is" functions as a linking verb. It connects the subject "She" to the adjective that describes it "hungry".


Note, linking verbs were at one time known as 'equating verbs' and the reason an equal sign (=) is often adopted in explaining copular structures. The equal sign is not meant to be taken literally: "She = hungry" is not an equation in which each side is equal in meaning). Rather, the symbol (=) is used to represent meaning, notably "join", "connect", and "link", not "equate":

• She = hungry
  • Meaning, "hungry" describes the subject, the subject doesn't act.

 

[Pedroski]

"the subject doesn't act."
Existing is not acting? If the subject does not act: what distinguishes it from an object? Could they be one and the same?

 

[5jj]

"the subject doesn't act."
Existing is not acting? If the subject does not act: what distinguishes it from an object? Could they be one and the same? NO

Verbs can denote actions, events, processes or states. In very crude terms, the person or thing denoted by the noun or pronoun which has the grammatical function of subject of the verb can happen, change, or be, not just act or do.

 

[Pedroski]

I don't like that: 'the subject can happen' ?!? I happen. ?? 'happen' is in your category 'linking verbs'

If you relegate 'linking verbs' simply to 'linking their aguments', why do you think there is a difference between the following? If they do more than that, then where is the difference to linking of arguments in 'ordinary' verbs?

She is hungry.
She seems hungry.
She became hungry.

You answer the phone. Someone asks, "Am I speaking to fivejedjon?" Which is correct, in your opinion:

1) This is he.
2) This is him

 

[lauralie2]

If you relegate 'linking verbs' simply to 'linking their a[r]guments', ...

Linking verbs do not have (i.e., subcategorize for) arguments. That's what makes them different from non-linking verbs.


______________________New Topic_______________

You answer the phone. Someone asks, "Am I speaking to fivejedjon?" Which is correct, in your opinion:

1) This is he.
2) This is him

Both are fine. The first one follows the rules of Latin grammar. The second one, Modern English grammar.

 

[Pedroski]

Linking verbs do not have (i.e., subcategorize for) arguments. I was wondering what you meant by that enigmatic phrase.

A subject is not an argument of a verb? Then how can you say that an argument is the subject of a sentence?
Not a new topic: the same topic in another guise.
'he' is nominative. 'him' is accusative. Assuming 'This is he' is correct, then the subject is the object, assuming SV then C/O, as you do.

 

[5jj]

Linking verbs do not have (i.e., subcategorize for) arguments. I was wondering what you meant by that enigmatic phrase.
A subject is not an argument of a verb? Then how can you say that an argument is the subject of a sentence?
Not a new topic: the same topic in another guise.
'he' is nominative. 'him' is accusative. Assuming 'This is he' is correct, then the subject is the object, assuming SV then C/O, as you do.

Pedroski,
Raymott, Tdol, Lauralie2 and I and many others, including you at times, are trying to help people who send in questions. We try to do so as simply and clearly as we can. Our answers may not satisfy teachers of formal logic, but we are not dealing with formal logic - we are dealing with living language. In the English of today, 'nominative' and 'accusative' are meaningless terms. They may be relevant to classical Latin or modern German, but not modern English.

On the point on which you took issue with me, that 'subjects can happen': I actually wrote, "In very crude terms, the person or thing denoted by the noun or pronoun which has the grammatical function of subject of the verb can happen, change, or be, not just act or do". I did not write, "subjects can happen".

It would make life easier - for me, at least - if you would read what we say carefully and try to comprehend the message we are trying to convey before criticising us for things we did not write, or trying to judge us by inappropriate standards.

 

[philo2009]

Could you please clarify the grammatical usage of is in the following sentence? The answer is in the question. Is the verb "is" in the sentence a state of being or linking verb. What is the grammatical explanation for in the qustion in this sentence. Thank you/

As was clearly established in a recent, similar thread, the use of 'be' exemplified by your sentence fits precisely the dictionary definition* of a copular (a.k.a. linking) verb.

I have never come across the term 'state-of-being verb'.

(*See e.g. Collins Millennium, p.352)

 

[lauralie2]

Then how can you say that an argument is the subject of a sentence?

Learn more here.

'he' is nominative. 'him' is accusative. Assuming 'This is he' is correct, then the subject is the object, assuming SV then C/O, as you do.

First, English doesn't have accusative case. You're thinking of Latin.

Second, in "This is he", the structural subject is "This". The SC "he" (Note that, speakers who use "he" in that context do not view that pronoun as a subject. If they did, then "He is this" would mean the same thing to them as "This is he").


Lastly, in "This is him", the structural subject is "This", the SC is "him". Speakers who use "him" in that context view that pronoun as an object. Again, we are dealing here with Modern English grammar, not Latin grammar.

 

[lauralie2]

I have never come across the term 'state-of-being verb'.

Here's your chance to do that, Click

 

[philo2009]

Fascinating, but a thoroughly useless category apparently resting on the eccentric notion that various tense-forms and persons of one single verb, copula 'be', are eight different ones. No doubt a reaction against the notorious dumbing-down of grammar-teaching via an attempt to "dumb it up" through the introduction of needless additional terminology.

Doubtless also, following that model of linguistic analysis, we'll soon have 'man' and 'men' classified as two separate words (but both listed as state-of-being-masculine nouns, perhaps or something like that).

Best of all in this link is the idiotic non-definition offered at the end:

You should have learned in this story that state-of-being verbs are verbs that state that something IS.

No, try again: according to what has just been said, far more than that, they are verbs that state that something IS, WAS, WERE, ARE, (HAS) BEEN, (COULD) BE....oh, wait a minute, I've just listed them all!!

 

[philo2009]

Learn more here.

I've said it before, my dear, and - philanthropic soul that I am - I'll say it again: attempting to reason with Pedroski is an utter waste of time and energy.

He doesn't want to learn, just to argue, endlessly and pointlessly, about anything and everything!!