Mail failure (fwd)

[Enrique Figueroa E.]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:26:00 -0400
From: CAMBRIDGE/EXCHANGE/POSTMASTER <IMCEAMS-CAMBRIDGE_EXCHANGE_POSTMASTER at dataware.com>
To: "Enrique Figueroa E." <efiguero at CAPOMO.USON.MX>
Subject: Mail failure


[005] The mail retry count was exceeded sending to CAMBRIDGE/CAMBRIDGE.
[008] Unable to deliver mail due to mailbag contention.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Microsoft Mail v3.0 (MAPI 1.0 Transport) IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: Enrique Figueroa E.
To:  Multiple recipients of list FUNKNET
Subject:  Re: we bees be doing it again
Date: 1997-04-18 14:45
Priority: 3
Message ID: 4DD278B307B8D011B07E006097329DF4




I'm not a native speaker-hearer of English, so no wonder that to my
"prevaricational idiolect" the Granny's *do* sounds awful... I think,
though, there may be some truth in the observation about *being good*
being
semantically interpreted as a process+result, in the sense of *behave
well* or, even better, *attain the goal of well-behaving*... Max

On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Guy Modica wrote:

> 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)
>