# Are "reach" and "die" linking verb there



## HyeeWang

1. He reached the station exhausted!
2. His son died young!
Above, "exhausted" and "young" are both adjective! 
Why they can follow verb--"reach" and "die"---immediately? 
How to explain the roles of "exhausted" and "young" in those sentences? 
Are "reach" and "die" linking verb there?


----------



## SangoireRose

I believe it is because they are adverbs. Adverbs are words which modify/change verbs, adjectives, clauses and sentences, as well as other adverbs and numbers.

Adverbs usually describe _how_ _when_ _where_ and _to what extent_ something is done.

In your examples it describes _*how* he reached the station_, and _*when*_ _he died._

I hope my explanation helps!


----------



## LQZ

SangoireRose said:


> I believe it is because they are adverbs. Adverbs are words which modify/change verbs, adjectives, clauses and sentences, as well as other adverbs and numbers.
> 
> Adverbs usually describe _how_ _when_ _where_ and _to what extent_ something is done.
> 
> In your examples it describes _*how* he reached the station_, and _*when*_ _he died._
> 
> I hope my explanation helps!


I disagree! In my dictionaries, both of them are adjectives.


----------



## allenxy111

chinese alwasy think about the grammar ,i think exhaused and yong are just show the status


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think you are right HyeeWang.

These verbs are being used copulatively here, in my view.

_Exhausted_ and _young_ are adjectives.

He was exhausted when he reached the station, and his son was young when he died.

It would be wise to wait for the view of someone who knows about grammatical terms.


----------



## LQZ

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think you are right HyeeWang.
> 
> These verbs are being used copulatively here, in my view.
> 
> _Exhausted_ and _young_ are adjectives.
> 
> He was exhausted when he reached the station, and his son was young when he died.


No, TT, my grammar book calls "exhausted" the object complement. 

In other words, "reach" isn't a linking verb, but a verb that can be followed by an object and an object complement. Here are another examples:

_I found her dead._

You can't say found is a linking verb, can you?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

LQZ said:


> No, TT, my grammar book calls "exhausted" the object complement.
> 
> In other words, "reach" isn't a linking verb, but a verb that can be followed by an object and an object complement. Here are another examples:
> 
> _I found her dead._
> 
> You can't say found is a linking verb, can you?


No, indeed, not in this case.

But, for me, _I found her dead_ is not analagous to _he reached the station exhausted._

She (the object of the first sentence, _her_) was dead.

_He_ (the subject of the second sentence) was exhausted. You seem to be suggesting that the station was exhausted, and that doesn't seem right.

Perhaps then your grammar book would call _exhausted_ a_ subject complement._

You sound frightfully certain, LQZ. I think this is a case of the partially sighted leading the blind.


----------



## catgrin

I agree. The first sentence is an example of an Object Compliment.

1. He reached the station exhausted!

where the parts are:subject verb object object compliment!

The second one is different:

2. His son died young!

In this sentence, young is the Predicate Adjective. It is used to complete the idea of the verb, and can be tested by finding the verb and asking "how?" after. 

Example: Died how? Young.


----------



## LQZ

Thomas Tompion said:


> No, indeed, not in this case.
> 
> But, for me, _I found her dead_ is not analagous to _he reached the station exhausted._
> 
> She (the object of the first sentence, _her_) was dead.
> 
> _He_ (the subject of the second sentence) was exhausted. You seem to be suggesting that the station was exhausted, and that doesn't seem right.
> 
> Perhaps then your grammar book would call _exhausted_ a_ subject complement._
> 
> You sound frightfully certain, LQZ. I think this is a case of the partially sighted leading the blind.


Dear TT, 

I stand corrected._ I think* exhausted* should be a *subject complement*_.

And I did a google search and failed to find that "die" or "reach" are linking verbs.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

catgrin said:


> [...]
> 2. His son died young!
> 
> In this sentence, young is the Predicate Adjective. It is used to complete the idea of the verb, and can be tested by finding the verb and asking "how?" after.
> 
> Example: Died how? Young.


I'm not very happy with your litmus test, Catgrin.

I wouldn't say that _young_ was a way of dying.

In response to the question _Died, how?_ I'd say something like _Fell off a precipice._

I agree that it's an adjective, though. It describes his state when he died.


----------



## catgrin

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm not very happy with your litmus test, Catgrin.
> 
> I wouldn't say that _young_ was a way of dying.
> 
> In response to the question _Died, how?_ I'd say something like _Fell off a precipice._
> 
> I agree that it's an adjective, though. It describes his state when he died.



Hi Thomas,

Would it make you more comfortable if it was worded _He died in what state?  _The word "how" can have more than one meaning, as these examples demonstrate:

_How do you feel? I feel good. _

_How do you feel? I use my hands._


----------



## LQZ

The following definition of linking verbs is taken from www.yourdictionary.com



> Since linking verbs, also referred to as copulas or copular verbs, don't function in the same way as typical verbs in showing action, it can sometimes be tricky to recognize them. These types of verbs show a relationship between the subject and the sentence complement, the part of the sentence following the verb. They connect or link the subject with more information – words that further identify or describe the subject. While standard verbs are indicative of action, linking verbs identify a relationship or existing condition. _*These are sometimes described as performing the function of an equal sign because they provide the connection between a subject and a certain state.*_


 
Based on the above, we can try transfering some examples this way:

he looked tired ---> he was tired, or he = tired;
she acted suprised---> she was surprised, or she = surprised
she remains young ---> she is young, or she = young.

But, it manner doesn't work on the original sentence.

He died young.
He was young.
They have definitely different meanings.

Thus, both reach and die don't do the linking verb job, at least to me.


----------



## HyeeWang

Thank you! LQZ.
It seems we can not call them (die and reach) link verb.
But any terminology can be given to such a usage?


----------



## LQZ

HyeeWang said:


> Thank you! LQZ.
> It seems we can not call them (die and reach) link verb.
> But any terminology can be given to such a usage?


 
I am afraid that my attempt may be a disputable one.

He reached the station exhausted.
He died young.

To my way of thinking, both exhausted and young are subject complements that are saying the subjects' states.

I may be wrong, since I am just a learner.


----------



## bluegiraffe

HyeeWang said:


> Thank you! LQZ.
> It seems we can not call them (die and reach) link verb.
> But any terminology can be given to such a usage?


 Does it really need terminology?  Does it have to be labelled?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

bluegiraffe said:


> Does it really need terminology? Does it have to be labelled?


 
I think the terminology helps learners enormously, because they can see similar behaviour in different verbs, and that means that if they can handle one, they ought to be able to handle another.


----------



## bluegiraffe

Even in this complex language which has many exceptions to rules?  When learning languages I've always found it much easier not to get bogged down in terminology and rules.


----------



## LQZ

bluegiraffe said:


> Even in this complex language which has many exceptions to rules? When learning languages I've always found it much easier not to get bogged down in terminology and rules.


Learning English just like a game, and first we need to know the rule of game clearly, especally in a complicated game.


----------



## Loob

HyeeWang said:


> 1. He reached the station exhausted!
> 2. His son died young!
> Above, "exhausted" and "young" are both adjective!
> Why they can follow verb--"reach" and "die"---immediately?
> How to explain the roles of "exhausted" and "young" in those sentences?
> Are "reach" and "die" linking verb there?


Sorry to come late to this party...

I think there are two issues here.

*(1) whether reached and died are linking/copular verbs *

No, I don't think they are, for the reasons given earlier by LQZ. We can replace HyeeWang's _He reached the station exhausted_ with _When he_ _reached the station, he was exhausted;_ we can replace his _His son died young _with _His son was young when he died._ But we can't do a similar translation with clearly-copular verbs:_ He became exhausted ≠  when he became, he was exhausted _and _he felt young ≠  when he felt, he was young._

*(2) whether exhausted and young are complements *

Again, I don't think they are, because they aren't necessary to complete the sense of the verb (compare: _the training made him exhausted _and _she looked young.)_
I'd say that both _exhausted_ and _young_ are adjuncts: if we omitted the adjectives, the sentences would still make sense.


----------



## HyeeWang

Loob said:


> Sorry to come late to this party...
> 
> I think there are two issues here.
> 
> *(1) whether reached and died are linking/copular verbs *
> 
> No, I don't think they are, for the reasons given earlier by LQZ. We can replace HyeeWang's _He reached the station exhausted_ with _When he_ _reached the station, he was exhausted;_ we can replace his _His son died young _with _His son was young when he died._ But we can't do a similar translation with clearly-copular verbs:_ He became exhausted ≠  when he became, he was exhausted _and _he felt young ≠  when he felt, he was young._
> 
> *(2) whether exhausted and young are complements *
> 
> Again, I don't think they are, because they aren't necessary to complete the sense of the verb (compare: _the training made him exhausted _and _she looked young.)_
> I'd say that both _exhausted_ and _young_ are adjuncts: if we omitted the adjectives, the sentences would still make sense.


 
Thank you! Loob.
In the original 2 sentences,it would does still make sense if we omit the adjectives.
But the informations provied are not full and different from the original ones.


----------



## JungKim

Having read the entire thread, I was wondering if there are any tangible benefits to ESL students to differentiating typical copular verbs from verbs like "die" as in "He died young."


----------



## Tazzler

Sometimes it's hard to tell because of the lack of agreement but adjectives are not restricted to before a noun. They can be placed anywhere in the sentence and still relate to a word placed quite a ways away.


----------



## wandle

There is a traditional grammatical explanation of this usage: namely, that, in the original examples, 'exhausted' and 'young' are predicative adjectives.

In other words, (1) 'reach' and 'die' are not copulas, (2) 'exhausted' and 'young' are indeed adjectives and (3) 
'exhausted' and 'young' are being used predicatively.
This means that they contribute meaning to the predicate (what is being asserted about the subject by the verb and its associated expressions).

When an adjective accompanies its noun closely it is termed 'attributive', as in 'The young man died'.
It is playing its normal role of qualifying or defining its noun.

When it is used predicatively, as in 'The man died young', the adjective acquires a sense approaching that of an adverb.
As well as describing the man, it is also affecting the sense of the verb, almost as if to say:  'The man died, despite the fact that he was young'.


----------



## JungKim

wandle said:


> There is a traditional grammatical explanation of this usage: namely, that, in the original examples, 'exhausted' and 'young' are predicative adjectives.
> 
> In other words, (1) 'reach' and 'die' are not copulas, (2) 'exhausted' and 'young' are indeed adjectives and (3)
> 'exhausted' and 'young' are being used predicatively.
> This means that they contribute meaning to the predicate (what is being asserted about the subject by the verb and its associated expressions).
> 
> When an adjective accompanies its noun closely it is termed 'attributive', as in 'The young man died'.
> It is playing its normal role of qualifying or defining its noun.
> 
> When it is used predicatively, as in 'The man died young', the adjective acquires a sense approaching that of an adverb.
> As well as describing the man, it is also affecting the sense of the verb, almost as if to say:  'The man died, despite the fact that he was young'.



Yeah, your more complex and perhaps more precise explanation, that's good and all.
But actually, I like your simpler explanation of an adjective better. 
According to the simpler version, you don't have to split hairs between "typical" copulas and all other verbs.

What I was asking is if the more complex and precise analysis is pedagogically worth the extra complexity when it comes to having an ESL student understand the construction.


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> Yeah, your more complex and perhaps more precise explanation, that's good and all.
> But actually, I like your simpler explanation of an adjective better.
> According to the simpler version, you don't have to split hairs between "typical" copulas and all other verbs.
> 
> What I was asking is if the more complex and precise analysis is pedagogically worth the extra complexity when it comes to having an ESL student understand the construction.


It is helpful to call some verbs copular and others not because if all verbs are copular, then "copular" tells us nothing.

It is useful to call these adjectives predicative, and it is useful to distinguish sentences in which they say something about the subject...

_He sat down and ate his sandwich, exhausted._

...from those in which they say something about an object:

_He sat down and ate his sandwich raw._

Of course if the verb is intransitive (another useful concept), they must say something about the subject since there is no object for them to say anything about:

_He died young._


----------



## JungKim

Forero said:


> It is helpful to call some verbs copular and others not because if all verbs are copular, then "copular" tells us nothing.
> 
> It is useful to call these adjectives predicative, and it is useful to distinguish sentences in which they say something about the subject...
> 
> _He sat down and ate his sandwich, exhausted._
> 
> ...from those in which they say something about an object:
> 
> _He sat down and ate his sandwich raw._
> 
> Of course if the verb is intransitive (another useful concept), they must say something about the subject since there is no object for them to say anything about:
> 
> _He died young._



As long as we understand that "exhausted", "raw" and "young" describe "he", "sandwich" and "he", respectively, what's the use of grammar terms really? In fact, such understanding is possible not because of the terms but because of the context.


----------



## Tazzler

JungKim said:


> As long as we understand that "exhausted", "raw" and "young" describe "he", "sandwich" and "he", respectively, what's the use of grammar terms really? In fact, such understanding is possible not because of the terms but because of the context.



So that we can talk about grammar? You can explain things without too much terminology because no student likes that but sometimes it's simpler to use terms and not use roundabout descriptions.


----------



## wandle

Grammar enables us, among other things, (1) to make general statements which apply to a range of expressions, not just the one in front of us, and (2) to explain why one expression is right and another is wrong. 

Young children learn by listening and relying on context. They do not yet have the mental development to let them think in abstract terms or make explicit generalisations. They learn simply by experience of one situation after another.

By the age of puberty, if not earlier, most young people are capable of abstract thought. Once they have that ability, the task of learning can be speeded up by formulating and learning abstract rules which express general ideas, applicable to a range of particular situations.

In this way, each grammar rule becomes a short cut to understanding many individual situations.


----------



## JungKim

I found a list of copulas, but some of them are not marked as such in dictionaries that I use.
For example, 'sit', 'come', 'fall', etc. 
The list is here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_English_copulae

So what do I do now?


----------



## PaulQ

HyeeWang said:


> 1. He reached the station exhausted!
> 2. His son died young!
> Above, "exhausted" and "young" are both adjective!
> Why they can follow verb--"reach" and "die"---immediately?
> How to explain the roles of "exhausted" and "young" in those sentences?
> Are "reach" and "die" linking verb there?





PaulQ said:


> A test for an adjective/adjectival phrase as  opposed to an adverb is to place it after "He is ..." and place nothing  after it. If it sounds natural, it is an adjective.
> 
> He is unwitnessed.
> He is soaked to the skin.
> He is quickly.
> He is wetly.
> 
> Adjectives.



He is exhausted 
He is young 

They are adjectives.


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> I found a list of copulas, but some of them are not marked as such in dictionaries that I use.
> For example, 'sit', 'come', 'fall', etc.
> The list is here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_English_copulae


The link you give refers that list of verbs to transformational grammar.
My own view, based on traditional grammar, is that the verb 'to be' is the copula and the other verbs are not.
I would analyse the examples in that list as cases of a predicative adjective following an ordinary verb which is intransitive.


JungKim said:


> So what do I do now?


What do you want to do now?


----------



## entangledbank

Loob has already mentioned that a key distinction is that some of the adjectives are adjuncts - words not necessary for the grammaticality of the sentence - but I'll reiterate that here, and make another distinction. All the adjectives under discussion are predicated of a preceding noun phrase, either the subject or the object, without being part of it; in that sense the adjectives all have the same function. I don't think the function depends on the adjective as such (it's not the case that 'tired' goes with subjects and 'wet' with objects, for example). They can also indicate that the predicand was already that way, or became that way as a result of the verb ('walked around naked' v. 'hammered the metal flat'). Again, the adjectives probably don't intrinsically fall into two classes (cf. 'stripped her naked', 'drank the beer flat').

But there is a division of verbs into two kinds - there's the small class we have a special name for (copular or whatever), and there's all the ordinary verbs.

Copular verbs are those that require the adjective as a complement. Sentences are ungrammatical without it (at least in the intended meaning). This class includes verbs of being, seeming, and becoming:

It is wet.
It seems/looks/feels wet.
It became/got wet. (and some idioms, such as) She fell ill. She grew tired.

The verbs that allow adjuncts - 'strip', 'hammer', 'drink' and so on - are an open class. I don't know if almost all verbs allow this, or if there are restrictions, but they can't be easily and narrowly categorized the way copular verbs can.


----------



## JungKim

entangledbank said:


> ...Copular verbs are those that require the adjective as a complement. Sentences are ungrammatical without it (at least in the intended meaning). This class includes verbs of being, seeming, and becoming:
> 
> It is wet.
> It seems/looks/feels wet.
> It became/got wet. (and some idioms, such as) She fell ill. She grew tired.
> 
> The verbs that allow adjuncts - 'strip', 'hammer', 'drink' and so on - are an open class. I don't know if almost all verbs allow this, or if there are restrictions, but they can't be easily and narrowly categorized the way copular verbs can.



A couple questions:

(1) "fall" is not marked as "linking verb" or copula in all the dictionaries that I looked up in, including this: http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/fall

However, "grow" is marked as linking verb in the same dictionary:
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/grow

So, it seems that the boundary of copulas is hazy at best. No?

(2) Even though you can't come up with any rule about all the remaining verbs, you have no problem using them grammatically, copularly or not. Isn't that because you don't have to know any rules but the basic meaning of the verbs and context?


----------



## entangledbank

(1) No, my characterization was inaccurate: I listed 'grew tired' as an idiom; in fact 'grow' is fairly widely used to mean "become", so it should have said 'became/got/grew' (as it originally did)  - but with an adjective other than 'wet', which is why I changed it. But 'fall' is restricted to one or a few idioms. I don't have any lists of these things - I am just thinking of them on the spot, so am liable to miss things.

So (2) the point is, I suppose, that a closed class can be listed and marked as such in dictionaries, and it's one that we learn and generalize as a class. That is, the 'rule' includes a knowledge of class membership.


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> I found a list of copulas, but some of them are not marked as such in dictionaries that I use.
> For example, 'sit', 'come', 'fall', etc.
> The list is here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_English_copulae
> 
> So what do I do now?


When _come_ or _fall_ means something like "become", it is a copula. Perhaps _sat_ can be a copula in some context, but I do not see it as a copula in "The car sat idle all winter", since we can omit _idle_, and "all winter" is adverbial.


----------



## MikeLynn

I've read a nice explanation for copular verbs: if they can be replaced by *be* and the meaning is basically the same, they are copulas and it _seems_ to be true because it usually works. For example _feel, smell, taste, sound_, _look_, as well as for _become, get, grow, go, turn_ used for something that changes, where *be* would describe only the result of the process, not the process itself. Of course, it depends on the particular meaning of the verb when it is about senses—_It *smells* really good_=it "_is_" really good while in _Why are you *smelling* that meat? _it describes the action. This might be a bit off, but it did help me a llittle to understand the difference. M&L


----------



## wandle

It still seems to me that the traditional analysis which says that the verb is intransitive and the adjective is predicative is much simpler and saves the learner from (a) trying to classify various verbs as copulas and (b) wondering what use he is then supposed to make of this classification (as in post 29).

The WordRef dictionary (Concise OED) gives the following:

*copula* _noun __
Logic & Grammar _ *a connecting word, in particular a form of the verb be connecting a subject and complement.*

This is the traditional grammatical definition. 
The only verb to qualify as copula is the verb 'to be', and then only when it is connnecting subject and complement.

This definition dispenses with any need to classify other verbs as copula or not.
The present thread goes to show that listing other verbs under this heading causes puzzlement to the learner and does not offer any real benefit in learning the language.

When in May 1887 Colonel "Buffalo Bill" Cody brought his Wild West show to London, Queen Victoria went to Earls Court to see it. The story goes that after the show, Chief Sitting Bull was brought before her, still wearing the headdress, loin cloth and moccasins of the redskin brave. 
'Are you not cold?' the Queen, in her elaborate garments, reportedly enquired.
'Ma'am', he is said to have replied, 'You face cold?'
'No.'
'Me all face'.

If we put Sitting Bull's words into standard English, we have: 'Is your face cold?' and 'I am all face'.
He had made himself fully understood without the verb 'to be'. (Some languages do not have it at all.)

That is the true test, in my opinion, of a copula: namely, whether you can omit it with no loss of meaning.
By this test, none of the other verbs put forward in this thread or on the linked list can qualify as copulas.


----------



## JungKim

wandle said:


> ...
> That is the true test, in my opinion, of a copula: namely, whether you can omit it with no loss of meaning.
> By this test, none of the other verbs put forward in this thread or on the linked list can qualify as copulas.



If you can omit it without changing any meaning, all you have proved is that the omitted thing was not in fact functioning as claimed, i.e. as a copula. No?


----------



## wandle

'Copula' means 'link'. Its function is to connect A to B: for example, 'Life is real, life is earnest' (in Sitting Bull language: 'Life real, life earnest'). 
It does not contribute any distinct meaning as a verb.

When there is a verb with a distinct meaning of its own ('He reached the station exhausted') then it is a genuine verb, not a copula (mere link).


----------



## SevenDays

My two cents, which might (or might not) be of help.

_He reached the station *exhausted*_
I separate _syntax_ (structure) from _semantics_ (meaning). In terms of syntax, this "exhausted" is part of the predicate (it belongs in the verb phrase), and I analyze it as such. Here, "exhausted" is a participle (adjective) in *form* but it *functions *like an adverb because it modifies the verb (as an adjunct). As an adverb, we can shift "exhausted" to the front of the sentence: _Exhausted, he reached the station_. To give it a fancy name, I'd call "exhausted" an *absolute participle*: a participle that has no syntactic/grammatical subject of its own and which functions like an adverb. Of course, "exhausted" has a relationship with "he," but that is a _semantic _analysis based on the _meaning _of the sentence. By the way, I don't see "reached" as a linking verb. It has two syntactic features lacking in a linking verb: a complement ("the station") and an adjunct ("exhausted").

_He died *young*
_I confess that here my mind works as it does in Spanish: the only truly "linking" verb is "to be," which is largely devoid of meaning (though it does convey "existence") and whose main function is to join two structures (_subject _and _complement_), in the process indicating features such as grammatical time (_is_, _was) _or mood (_might be_). All  the other verbs that are said to be "linking" have inherent meaning and are _intransitive_. What the linking verb "to be" has in common with the intransitive verb "die" is that they both belong in the predicate and _predicate_ something of the subject, here in the form of the adjective "young:" _he was young_; _he died young_. But all this may be too fine a distinction. According to traditional grammar, "died" is a linking verb, and "young" a subject complement.
Cheers


----------



## JungKim

wandle said:


> ...
> The only verb to qualify as copula is the verb 'to be', and then only when it is connnecting subject and complement.


If I had to pick a verb to be the one and only copula, it would have to be "seem" not "be". Like all the other verbs that can link the subject and its complement, "be" has a non-copular meaning, i.e., "exist". "Seem", however, is only used as a linking verb and has no other meaning.
You can say, "I think, therefore I am." But you can never say, *"I think, therefore I seem".


----------



## wandle

It is not a question of 'picking a verb'.


wandle said:


> The only verb to qualify as copula is the verb 'to be', and then only when it is connnecting subject and complement.


This statement reflects the definition given by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, as quoted already:


wandle said:


> The WordRef dictionary (Concise OED) gives the following:
> *copula* _noun __
> Logic & Grammar _ *a connecting word, in particular a form of the verb be connecting a subject and complement.*


This definition means that the the verb 'to be' sometimes functions as a copula, and sometimes does not.
That is because it also has the function of asserting existence, as in _'I think, therefore I am'_.

Whenever it functions as a copula, it can be omitted in imagination without loss of meaning, as in the Sitting Bull story.
Whenever it asserts existence, it can be replaced by the verb 'to exist', but it cannnot be omitted, even in imagination, without loss of meaning.

The verb 'to seem', on the other hand, does not pass the Sitting Bull test, because it always carries a distinct meaning of its own, namely 'appear'. Therefore it can never be omitted without altering the meaning.

The verb 'to seem' can be used on its own without a complement perfectly well.

Network World
_Everything's a scam ... or so it seems. _

TLC
_Happiness U-Shaped? So it Seems._

CT Post
_This garden installation in front of Paris City Hall is not what it seems._

The Last Arena
_This photo is not what it seems._

As for _'I think, therefore I seem'_, that is grammatically a correct sentence.
The only problem with it is its semantic meaning. Many people would say that it is not a true statement.
That does not alter the fact that is a valid sentence, grammatically speaking.


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> It is not a question of 'picking a verb'.
> 
> This statement reflects the definition given by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, as quoted already:
> 
> This definition means that the the verb 'to be' sometimes functions as a copula, and sometimes does not.
> That is because it also has the function of asserting existence, as in _'I think, therefore I am'_.
> 
> Whenever it functions as a copula, it can be omitted in imagination without loss of meaning, as in the Sitting Bull story.
> Whenever it asserts existence, it can be replaced by the verb 'to exist', but it cannnot be omitted, even in imagination, without loss of meaning.
> 
> The verb 'to seem', on the other hand, does not pass the Sitting Bull test, because it always carries a distinct meaning of its own, namely 'appear'. Therefore it can never be omitted without altering the meaning.
> 
> The verb 'to seem' can be used on its own without a complement perfectly well.
> 
> Network World
> _Everything's a scam ... or so it seems. _
> 
> TLC
> _Happiness U-Shaped? So it Seems._
> 
> CT Post
> _This garden installation in front of Paris City Hall is not what it seems._
> 
> The Last Arena
> _This photo is not what it seems._
> 
> As for _'I think, therefore I seem'_, that is grammatically a correct sentence.
> The only problem with it is its semantic meaning. Many people would say that it is not a true statement.
> That does not alter the fact that is a valid sentence, grammatically speaking.


I believe "I think, therefore I seem" is not grammatical. _Seem_ requires a complement such as _so_ in your first two examples and _what_ in your other two.

SevenDays has mentioned looking at the original two sentences from a Spanish language perspective, a perspective from which it is clear that neither sentence uses a linking verb. In fact Spanish has over a dozen ways to say "is". For example, Spanish uses one verb to say "Ice is cold" and a different verb to say "He is dead." The reason is that cold is an essence, or characteristic, of ice, but in "He is dead", dead is his state, or condition, not his essence. So one of the Spanish verbs links the subject to an essence and the other links the subject to a state. The difference then is semantic, and both verbs are linking verbs. They both even pass the "Sitting Bull test", in spite of the difference in meaning. (Aren't we confusing "Sitting Bull" with Tonto, ke-mo sah-bee?)

And in different contexts, these verbs can be translated back into different English verbs. For example, the Spanish verb used to say "He is dead" is a cognate of "stand", which we use in the same sense in "I stand corrected", and I daresay this "stand" is also a linking verb, and it too passes the "Sitting Bull test". In the same way, depending on what interpretation we give it, "stand" can also be a linking verb in "An ancient castle stands on the hill." In one interpretation, "stands" here represents a sort of personification of the castle, in another, "stands" means something like "extends upward", but "stands" can also be interpreted with no more meaning than "is" or at most "is located", and with this latter meaning, Spanish offers more than one verb, but one choice is the same "is" as in "He is dead", and they all pass the "Sitting Bull test".

Since several Spanish verbs and English "stands" play the same role grammatically, I think a term for their function is _à propos_ in the present discussion, even if you define _copula_ as restricted to one verb (per language). _Seem_ is a verb that always plays this role, whereas _be_ serves different purposes in different sentences, so I agree with JungKim that _seem_ is a prime example of a verb that plays this grammatical role. _Seem_ links (or connects) its subject with its obligatory complement, which is not a direct object but acts as a description (whether applicable to what the subject names or not), and can be either adjectival or nominal.


----------



## wandle

Should we really look at Spanish usage and then say 'There must exist a corresponding usage in English'?
It is an interesting question in comparative linguistics to ask whether a given usage exists in both languages. In some cases, the answer will be Yes, in some cases No; but it seems unwarranted to argue that usage must be the same in both.


> even if you define copula as restricted to one verb (per language)


 Why would you define copula like that?
As far as I know, no one has done so. It seems quite arbitrary.

As for 'seem', we have two questions: (1) whether it can function grammatically without a complement and (2) whether it is capable of acting purely as copula: that is, having no additional semantic meaning proper to itself.

Question (1) depends on what we call a complement. For present purposes (that is, defining a verb as a copula or not) I would agree that 'what' in the latter two examples given is a complement, but not 'so' in the former two, since it is an adverb there, not a noun or adjective equivalent. In these examples, 'so' simply means 'in that way'. It is thus internal to the sense of the verb. It does not represent some third element being equated to the subject.

Question (2), in my view, is settled by the observation that 'seem' always carries the sense of 'appear' or 'look'. 
To say that A seems B is not the same as saying that A is B, and never can be the same.
<< Distracting example removed by moderator. >>

Similarly, with 'stand', 'lie', 'become' etc, there is surely a distinct semantic meaning which is present in each one, but not in the neutral copula 'to be'.


----------



## Forero

My main point is that _copula_, when it means "linking verb", traditionally refers to any verb with certain grammatical properties, and meaninglessness is not one of the properties traditionally used to define it.

Secondarily, I believe that no verb is devoid of meaning.

Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists several linking verbs, including _seem_, and it also lists six different meanings of _be_ as a linking verb.

Using the traditional meaning I am familiar with, the term "linking verb" does not apply to _reached_ in "He reached the station exhausted" (linking verbs are intransitive) or to _died_ in "His son died young" (_young_ is an adjunct here, not a complement).


----------



## wandle

Forero said:


> My main point is that _copula_, when it means "linking verb", traditionally refers to any verb with certain grammatical properties, and meaninglessness is not one of the properties traditionally used to define it.
> Secondarily, I believe that no verb is devoid of meaning.


Your main points? There has been no suggestion that any verb discussed here is meaningless. The question has been raised whether a verb has a distinct semantic meaning besides that of a copula. The verb 'to seem' certainly does. 

Think of the experiment with three bowls of water: one very hot, one lukewarm and one very cold. First, you place your left hand in the hot water and right hand in the cold. You wait till each hand has become adjusted to the temperature in the respective bowl. Then you place both hands at the same time in the lukewarm water.

Now you find that your left hand registers the tepid water as cold and your right hand registers it as hot.
We can describe this situation in correct English by saying that the tepid water _*seems*_ hot and cold at the same time. However, we cannot correctly say that the tepid water _*is*_ hot and cold at the same time.

This shows (a) that the verb 'to seem' has a semantic meaning, namely 'to appear', distinct from any copulative function and (b) that the verb 'to be' does not have that additional meaning.

I believe a similar analysis will apply to the other words which have been put forward as copulas, including all those on the list linked by *JungKim*. I expect it would apply also to those on Merriam Webster's list (though I have not seen it).


Forero said:


> Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists several linking verbs, including _seem_, and it also lists six different meanings of _be_ as a linking verb.


What are the six meanings of  'be'? It seems to me that 'to be', as the copula, asserts a relation between A and B either of identity, equivalence or inclusion. I suppose that if B is either a noun or adjective equivalent, that gives in principle at least six possibilities.


Forero said:


> Using the traditional meaning I am familiar with, the term "linking verb" does not apply to _reached_ in "He reached the station exhausted" (linking verbs are intransitive) or to _died_ in "His son died young" (_young_ is an adjunct here, not a complement).


My main points are (1) that the verbs 'reached' and 'died' are not copulas, (2) that the linked list of verbs considered to be copulas in transformational grammar can be analysed as intransitive verbs followed by predicative adjectives, (3) that only the verb 'to be' acts a pure copula and (4) that this analysis is easier for learners of English than the theory of transformational grammar.


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> Your main points? There has been no suggestion that any verb discussed here is meaningless. The question has been raised whether a verb has a distinct semantic meaning besides that of a copula. The verb 'to seem' certainly does.
> 
> ...
> 
> What are the six meanings of  'be'? It seems to me that 'to be', as the copula, asserts a relation between A and B either of identity, equivalence or inclusion. I suppose that if B is either a noun or adjective equivalent, that gives in principle at least six possibilities.


Aren't identity, equivalence, and inclusion distinct semantic meanings?

And equivalence is a broad category. In "God is love" (an example of _be_ as a copula from MW), _is_ is a copula in the traditional grammatical sense even though I don't think it quite passes the "Sitting Bull test".

In the tradition I am familiar with from school and dictionaries, a copula is a copula by virtue of its grammatical function irrespective of the semantic difference between, for example, equivalence and appearance.


----------



## MikeLynn

I've been reading the previous posts and all the information given is really interesting. But, how about _have_ that, at least I think so, hasn't been mentioned yet? _Have_ as in _I have/am having dinner_ is, according to some grammar books copulative, while _have_ as in _I have a car _is notional, and there are some limitations: the copulative _have_ can be "never" used in the _have got _form and cannot be used in progressive/continuous while the notional one gladly accepts the _have got_ form, but excludes the progressive. Thank you for any input  M&L
as a notional verb is usually means to posses, own or "posses" used for diseases, family members etc.
while as a copulative/copular/linking/link verb or a copula it derives the meaning from the word that follows-eat (dinner), drink (a cup of coffee), organize (a party), experience (I'm having a time of my life) and more


----------



## Loob

Hi M&L

I don't think I've seen _have_ described as a copular verb, and it wouldn't fit my understanding of "copula(r)": "copula(r)", to me, indicates a verb which requires a complement that refers back to the subject. (Others may see things differently.)

I did learn from a previous thread, though, that verbs like the _have_ in "have dinner" can be called 'delexical': see delexical verbs.


----------



## MikeLynn

Thank you Loob, I'll check out the link and, hopefully, I'll learn something new. M&L


----------



## High on grammar

Marry arrived home safe. (?)
  or
  Marry arrived home safely. (?)

  According to “Better English” by Norman Lewis:

*Safe,* the adjective form, would limit the noun Mary*: safely,* the adverb, would limit the verb* arrived*.
  Does the word in question describe Mary when she got home, or does it explain the manner of the arrival? In a pattern such as this, it is generally considered that the condition of the noun is being described by the word *safe*. That is, Mary was safe when she got home. Similarly we say,” the package arrived damaged”, “He weathered the battle unscarred,” “He came through the fight unscathed,”etc., each adjective describing the condition of the noun or pronoun, rather than the manner of the action of the verb. “Mary arrived home safe” is the preferable form.


----------



## wandle

Forero said:


> Aren't identity, equivalence, and inclusion distinct semantic meanings?


After the correct quotation given in post 47 by use of the WordRef quote function, it is surprising to find that the subsequent question takes my words out of context.
Identity, equivalence, and inclusion are distinct meanings, but they are not 'distinct semantic meanings besides that of a copula'. They are meanings of the copula. 
Whether they should properly be called semantic, or logical, or grammatical, seems to me a debatable question, depending on definitions, but it does not affect the point that they are basic copulative meanings distinct from the additional semantic meaning present in the verb 'to seem' and absent in the verb 'to be'.


> And equivalence is a broad category. In "God is love" (an example of _be_ as a copula from MW), _is_ is a copula in the traditional grammatical sense even though I don't think it quite passes the "Sitting Bull test".


It does pass the Sitting Bull test, because we can imagine this idea being expressed in a language lacking any copula by saying 'God love'.


> In the tradition I am familiar with from school and dictionaries, a copula is a copula by virtue of its grammatical function irrespective of the semantic difference between, for example, equivalence and appearance.


 It would appear from this that we agree that 'to seem' has an additional semantic meaning absent in 'to be'.


----------



## JungKim

wandle said:


> ....
> That is the true test, in my opinion, of a copula: namely, whether you can omit it with no loss of meaning.
> By this test, none of the other verbs put forward in this thread or on the linked list can qualify as copulas.



This so-called Sitting Bull test is not as true a test as you seem to believe it to be.

The verb "be" is a copula regardless of its tense, aspect, etc, etc.
The Sitting Bull test, however, is not applicable to the following variations of the verb "be":
(1) I was all face, but not now.
(2) I have been all face.
(3) If I were all face, I wouldn't be this cold.

Silly as this may sound, these examples cannot maintain their meaning intact when stripped of "was", "have been", and "were", respectively. Regardless of this apparent loss of meaning, however, there is no denying that "was", "have been" and "were" are all copulas.


----------



## wandle

Well, perhaps we should say that the tense and the copula are two elements of the verb.
The copula seems to be a logical relation, not involving tense itself. In other tenses than the present, it is combined with a time element. These can be separated in analysis.

Thus 'I was all face' can be expressed as '(Me all face) formerly true'.

Similarly, 'I seem all face' can be expressed as '(Me all face) apparently true'.


----------



## JungKim

wandle said:


> ...
> The copula seems to be a logical relation, not involving tense itself.
> ...



I couldn't agree with you more. Being a copula is not determined by its meaning or lack thereof, but by the logical relation itself, the relation of linking the subject and the complement of the subject.

So it's not a true test of "copularness" to see if omitting the verb brings about any change in the meaning of the sentence.


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> I couldn't agree with you more. Being a copula is not determined by its meaning or lack thereof, but by the logical relation itself, the relation of linking the subject and the complement of the subject.
> 
> So it's not a true test of "copularness" to see if omitting the verb brings about any change in the meaning of the sentence.


The test of converting an expression from standard English to an imagined language which expresses the copula without use of a verb does bring out the difference between (a) a standard English expression in which the pure copula is all that the verb expresses and (b) a standard English expression in which the verb expresses some other meaning besides the pure copula.


----------

