LOL! And yet, "is" is still a verb whether or not you agree. You can either change reality to fit your "rules" or change your "rules" to fit reality. As you currently put out your rules, nobody of substance will buy them.
Be is used as a verb, because it's a
thing of happening, with related words (tense etc.) such as
being and
been, which
is/
am/
are are used IN ADDITION TO - IN COMBINATION WITH - (along with another word
will). I have not mentioned the word
be anywhere because it is part of the basic concept I've dealt with in its entirety.
The most basic rule of language is:
The type of information being communicated (content->semantics), determines how
and why its representation is used (in combination with others) (grammar->syntactics). (The basic cause and effect language adds to communication.)
The default premise should be of each type of information having its own manner of use UNLESS demonstrated otherwise. We can REVERSE ENGINEER such concepts by studying their manner of use, but must never be DEFINED as and by such a process, which is the mistake we are currently making.
The basic combinations of concept and manner of use (which I've labelled as
basic means of grammar) is what
really matters - and confusing concepts for their manner of use gets in the way of that. (Again, there are 60+ concepts in the English language.)
ALL concepts in the English language exist in a single, functional, taxonomic hierarchy that reflects their basic existence in the universe around us that we perceive - and so the concept we call
things acts as its root.
Is/am/are are used in combination with words belonging to
things of happening, which cause verbs, therefore cannot be used as verbs themselves, even though the concept they belong to is related to, if not
derived from them. (Auxiliary verb does not exist, for that is not consistent with all of their use, merely part, and is therefore inconsistent with how such basic manners of use are perceived and described in (the English) language.) If such derivation was all that was required for a single manner of use, however, then that would be all we would have (since everything is derived from
things).
Is/am/are do not have any additional properties (
e.g. adverbs). Any and all properties used in combination are those they relate to something else, for that is what they do. If you don't know, or refuse to accept that the words
is/am/are represent information that MUST belong to a different concept than words such as
be/fly/jumping/moved etc., then your understanding of the language is probably already too far gone to be of much use.
But this is the problem we have by confusing the
SINGLE, BASIC manner of use they must cause with that of a different, (but related, not that it matters for syntactics), concept.
----------------
Our understanding of how English treats time and space is also problematic, but I was leaving it until later. Needless to say that using
is to relate nouns/relative time and space, does not mean it is a verb at all. Note that relative time and space can also be treated as properties (adjectives/adverbs) which are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT concepts, meaning, and therefore manners of use:
Indoor tennis/the tennis is indoors.
Since we can also say:
The tennis is played indoors, (or
we play tennis indoors).
The words
is and
played cannot belong to the same concept. Since they don't belong to the same concept they do not require the same manner of use, which they obviously do not have, anyway.
Indoor and
indoors cannot have the same meaning, either, in the above sentences, and so must also belong to different concepts. (Relative time (both absolute and comparative (
early/earlier etc.)) and space, (e.g.
indoors,above
), that are not simple properties, are among the only concepts that DO NOT CHANGE (aswell as those representing such relationships themselves, like
is/and/have etc.) regardless of whether they are used in combination with nouns or verbs. Which makes sense, for they are the setting in which they exist, not properties they have. This is why I listed them in the combinations further above.
Note that relative, absolute comparative time, (
earliest/
latest), is used as an
adjective/verb/(noun?) rather than the manner of use above - (though its use as a
noun? requires its own concept - e.g. I'll see you tomorrow at the bar/
earliest - and I am unsure of the noun, even though it would appear similar, because it doesn't really have any additional properties (used as adjectives)).
