Allegations of Demolition (4)
January 3rd, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Allegations of Demolition -(2)- :: Allegations of Demolition -(3)- :: Allegations of Demolition (2) :: Allegations of Demolition
Axiom 0: Allegations of Demolition
4: Are you Denying that the Complement may be Implicit?
Michael Eldred wrote:
>Joseph Polanik schrieb
>>Michael Eldred wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik schrieb
>>>ME: The OED calls “intransitive useage” (sic) of the verb ‘to be’ its
>>>”absolute signification”.
>>are you still having a problem understanding how easy it is to convert
>>from one form to the other?
>ME: “Intransitive use” of the verb ‘to be’ is what the OED calls its
>”absolute signification” (signification Roman I) which, in turn, the
>OED distinguishes from its usage as copula (signification III in my
>edition). The “Intransitive use” of the verb ‘to be’ therefore has no
>complement, either explicit or implied.
perhaps we should revisit the question of whether the ‘intransitive’
usage of ‘to be’ is the same as the ‘absolute’ usage.
I’m using ‘intransitive’ to refer to sentences that are written (or
spoken) with a definite subject but without an explicit complement; for
example, ‘I am’.
what do you mean by the ‘absolute’ signification?
the last quoted paragraph (together with the one of todays posts in
which you say that ‘I am’ has “no implicit complement for the absolute
signification of the verb ‘to be’”) suggests that you believe that the
’significations’ listed in the OED represent some immutable
classification system; and, therefore, that a sentence written without
an explicit complement can never have an implicit complement.
I (and others) have given many examples of situations where the implicit
complement is ‘recovered’ from the context; so, I’m wondering how this
could still be a point of contention.
leave aside, for the moment, any attempt to classify the sentence as
copular, intransitive, absolute or whatever.
are you claiming that a sentence written without an explicit complement
can never have an implicit complement?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
