Are you Denying that the Copula can have an Implicit Complement?
November 8th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Are you Denying that the Copula can have an Implicit Complement? :: Are you Denying that the Copula can have an Implicit Complement? :: Has The Implicit Complement Been Found? :: Are you Denying that the Copula can have an Implicit Complement?
Bernx at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/14/2007 4:02:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> michael at sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:
>
> I am.
>
> [because copulation of the copula has nothing much to do with be-ing]
>
> regards
>
> michaelP
>
> *Michael;*
> *Because copulation is copulation its complement is implicit. This has
> less to do with be-ing but be-coming qua dasein. That is the nature of
> heterontology,ie, it takes it and the other to tango although it and it
> or other and other express a form of homontology.*
> *Bernard*
the implicit complement of the copula has as much or as little to do
with being as with existing.
someone who believes that ‘I am’ means the same as ‘I am an existent’ is
probably using ‘exists’ as a root predicate. someone who believes that
‘I am’ means the same as ‘I am a being’ is probably using ‘being’ as a
root predicate.
both would be able to affirm ‘I am’.
consequently, my theory is that the implicit complement of is/am asserts
the root predicate *as a variable*.
[by ‘root predicate’ I mean the predicate that may be attributable to
all that is. http://what-am-i.net/lor_foundation.htm]
Regards,
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
