Fwd: Have and BE verbs

Mon Feb 4 13:05:47 UTC 2002

I'm surprised to learn that ASL HAVE is not used to mean 'be
present' - can any ASL linguists confirm this?

BSL and Auslan both use HAVE in the same way as LSQ. To my knowledge,
there are two variants of the BSL sign TO-EXIST (one with a 5
handshape and one with an A handshape), but Chris is right to suggest
that they are not used as a copula.

Adam

----------------------
Adam Schembri
Centre for Deaf Studies
University of Bristol
8 Woodland Rd
Bristol BS8 1TN
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)117 954 6909
Textphone: +44 (0)117 954 6920
Fax: +44 (0)117 954 6921
Email: Adam.Schembri at bristol.ac.uk
Website: www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/DeafStudies

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:44:25 +0100 Onno Crasborn
<o.crasborn at LET.KUN.NL> wrote:

> >This question came up on the LINGUIST list:
> >===================================================================
> >Date:  Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:07:01 +0100
> >From:  "Pavol Stekauer" <stekpal at saris.unipo.sk>
> >Subject:  request
> >
> >Dear colleagues:
> >
> >Do you know any language without the existential verbs TO BE and/or
> TO HAVE?
> >
> >Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation
> >
> >Yours sincerely
> >
> >Professor Pavol Stekauer
> >Department of British and American Studies
> >Presov University
> >Slovakia
> >===================================================================
> >
> >I sent the answer below to Prof. Stekauer, marshalling what little I
> >know about a few sign languages (Western European ones, at that).
> >I'm forwarding it to SLLING-L as well in the hope that others may be
> >able to provide him with relevant information on their own sign
> >languages (or even spoken Ls as the case may be -- why not?). As
> >well, please scrutinise what I have to say on languages other than
> >LSQ and point out where I may be misrepresenting the facts.
> >
> >=== Please send your replies directly to Pavol Stekpauer at:
> >=== stekpal at saris.unipo.sk, (with cc to SLLING-L)
> >=== but don't reply directly to me!
> >
> >Chris Miller
> >
> >=================================================================
> >(My answer follows:)
> >
> >Numerous (natural*) sign languages lack a BE verb as such, while
> >still possessing a HAVE-type verb. Before I proceed, though, I
> >should temper this statement with two provisos. Firstly, there are
> >slight differences between languages in the meaning and usage of BE-
> >and HAVE-type verbs (naturally enough, given their status as
> >different languages.) Secondly, from the descriptions I have seen in
> >the literature available to me, what I have to say here should not
> >be taken to necessarily reflect the general case among sign
> >languages, but only those I mention here.
> >
> >American Sign Language (ASL) and Quebec Sign Language (LSQ) both
> >have no BE verb as such: one occasionally sees claims in popular
> >texts that the ASL sign TRUE is a copula verb in ASL, equivalent to
> >the English "be". This is incorrect: TRUE is not used as a copula in
> >normal ASL usage and is rather an element of one or another of the
> >Signed English codes that have been put together from time to time
> >in the second half of the 20th century. ASL and LSQ have no copula
> >as such, whether in present or non-present tense contexts; the
> >closest thing to a structural element with a copula-type function is
> >a particular type of rapid head nodding co-occurring with a
> >predicate, however this head nodding does not occur only with
> >stative or adjectival predicates, but also with verbal predicates. A
> >useful reference to this type of head nodding (and comparison with
> >other types) is Scott Liddell's 1980 book, American Sign Language
> >Syntax (Academic Press).
> >
> >As far as I know and I may well be mistaken, no other sign language
> >I have seen descriptions of appears to have a BE verb as such.
> >*However*, British Sign Language (BSL) and (at least the
> >Northern/Groningen dialect of) the Sign Language of the Netherlands
> >(SLN), possibly via borrowing from BSL, have a verb that can be
> >glossed as BE-PRESENT with the meaning "be in a particular place" or
> >"be here/there": the verb, an extended forearm with flat hand moving
> >downward from the wrist, is accompanied by a mouthed "shhh"
> >nonmanual behaviour in both languages, from performances I have seen
> >from users of both BSL and SLN. However, this verb does not appear
> >to function simply as a copula.
> >
> >Quebec Sign Language, which is closely related to American Sign
> >Language, both having descended from the early ASL that came into
> >being in the first decades of the 1800s, appears to differ from ASL
> >in that the LSQ verb HAVE has an extra meaning unlike the ASL verb.
> >Some background is in order here: although much of the divergence
> >between ASL and LSQ is due to independent divergence during the
> >course of each language's evolution, LSQ has also undergone some
> >further divergence from ASL due to a period of influence on LSQ from
> >French Sign Language (LSF) in the last half of the 1800s. The LSQ
> >sign HAVE is in fact a direct borrowing from LSF and has a form
> >rather distinct from the ASL sign. (LSF, like the other languages I
> >have mentioned, has no copula verb as such.)
> >
> >Besides the difference in meaning, however, the LSQ sign has, as
> >well as its central meaning of "possess", the additional meaning of
> >"be present". (No idea whether this is the case for the LSF verb
> >HAVE.) Thus in LSQ, unlike (to my knowledge) ASL, the following
> >sentences are possible as means of expressing the meanings given in
> >the English translations:
> >
> >MARIE HAVE TODAY?  "Is Marie here today?"
> >YES, TODAY HAVE  "Yes, she's here today."
> >NO, TODAY HAVE-neg  "No, she's not here today."
> >(HAVE-neg is a suppletive negative counterpart of HAVE, unrelated in
> >form the the affirmative verb form.)
> >
> >I find it interesting that (1) in (some) sign languages, although
> >there is (apparently) no BE (copula) type verb, HAVE seems to be
> >relatively well attested and (2) there is some verb form that has a
> >meaning "be present".
> >
> >I am going to post your question together with this reply to
> >SLLING-L, the sign language linguistics list, in hopes that
> >researchers working on other sign languages may be able to
> >contribute information on their own languages and also correct me
> >where I am mistaken in my understanding of the facts. (The only
> >language I feel entirely confident about describing to you is LSQ,
> >on which I have worked for over a decade.)
> >
> >Best regards and good luck with your search for info,
> >
> >Chris Miller
> >
> >(*I use the term "natural" advisedly to distinguish signed languages
> >from sign codes, which combine and even invent signs so as to
> >faithfully reflect the structure of a spoken language as a means to
> >teach that language.)
> >
> ==================================================
> Christopher Miller
> Department of Linguistics
> University of Manitoba
> Winnipeg MB
> R3T 2N2
> Canada
>
> +1 204 474-8343 (office)
> +1 204 951-5002 (mobile phone)
>
> millerc at ms.umanitoba.ca
> ==================================================
>