we bees be doing it again

[Guy Modica]

Astounding that no one in this thread has mentioned that the copula is a
somewhat privileged verb in much of its syntactic behavior. "Do" is a
proform for most verbs.

You type, don't you.
You shovel, do you
You prevaracated, didn't you
He typed, and when he did . . .
They shoveled, and when they did . . .
I prevaracated, and when I did  . . .

However, the proform of the copula is "be."

She is a graduate, isn't she
They were stoned, weren't they
She will be a graduate, and when she is  . . .
They are stoned, and when they are . . .

Ellen Prince (implicitly) pointed this out when replying to Philip Bralic's
cursory "ordinary verb" comment. "Be" is not just another "main verb." (Not
one of Bralic's "analogous" examples was stative, another feature of the
copula.)

I'll like to hear of some ideolects that have:

She is a graduate, don't she
They were stoned, didn't they
She will be a graduate, and when she does  . . .
They are stoned, and when they do . . .

Notice the contrast with a resultative verb like become:

She becomes a graduate (next week), doesn't she
They became stoned, didn't they
She will become a graduate, and when she does  . . .
They become stoned, and when they do . . .

So I agree with J. Clancy Clements and others that "are" is the choice for
we. (Hi Clancy, I haven't seen you since the wonderful seminar on argument
structure a few years back, when we ate Thai in Indiana!) Perhaps those who
approve "do" for the Granny sentence see "to be good" as having some kind
of resultative reading - a state of "goodness" is achieved, and when it do
. . .

Well, you get my point. :-)

Guy Modica
gmodica at fh.seikei.ac.jp

"Verbing weirds language."
        - Calvin (& Hobbes)