The Copula is Actually a Predicate.
December 15th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Allegations of Demolition :: Are you Denying that the Copula can have an Implicit Complement? :: Allegations of Demolition (2) :: Allegations of Demolition
Michael Eldred wrote:
>Joseph Polanik schrieb
>>>>JP: we both accept the statement ‘I am’ as true; and; we both ask
>>>>’what’ about something; but, notice how the road forks at this
>>>>point. you proceed from this point by asking, “what does ‘am’
>>>>mean?”. I proceed from this point by asking, “what is the referent
>>>>of ‘I’?”.
>>>ME: You can’t dissect ‘I’ from ‘am’ in this way because ‘I’ already
>>>belongs to “all that is”
>>JP: the referent of ‘I’ is included in ‘all that is’.
>>>ME: so asking the question concerning ‘I’ simultaneously implies a
>>>clarification of ‘I am’. Similarly, asking the question concerning
>>>’am’ only makes sense as a clarification of ‘I am’.
>>JP: so far, this would not be objectionable.
>>>ME: My observation was that in referring to “all that is”, one can
>>>already say that it is. ‘Is’ is already the predicate predicated for
>>>”all that is”.
>>JP: here you are simply making up a rule of grammar to suit yourself.
>>’is’ by itself is not a predicate; but, its implicit complement would
>>be a predicate.
>ME: I don’t have to make up a rule of grammar, but merely point out
>that the simplest sentence consists of a subject and something said
>about that subject, i.e. a predicate. … Of “all that is” one can
>simply say, “It is”. Thus “is” is already invoked as predicate before
>you get a chance to choose your so-called “root predicate”.
>Your escape from this dilemma has been to declare “is” to be not a
>predicate, but a “copula” which necessarily must not say (predicate)
>anything at all in order to avoid being a predicate. Unfortunately,
>”is” does say something, and is a perfectly acceptable predicate for
>the simplest of all sentences.
the term ‘copula’ has been in use since the 12th century when Abelard
coined it; but, the concept is much older.
“Verbs in and by themselves are substantival and have significance, for
he who uses such expressions arrests the hearer’s mind, and fixes his
attention; but they do not, as they stand, express any judgement, either
positive or negative. For neither are ‘to be’ and ‘not to be’ the
participle ‘being’ significant of any fact, unless something is added;
for they do not themselves indicate anything, but imply a copulation, of
which we cannot form a conception apart from the things coupled.”
[Aristotle, De Interpretationis. (translated by E. M. Edghill). http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/interp…]
some translators use ’synthesis’ to translate the greek word Edghill
translates as ‘copulation’; but, the meaning is clear: the word that
performs the copular or synthetic function links subject and predicate.
if you have suddenly decided that ‘is/am’ is not a copular verb (as has
been thought for centuries); then, you have created a new rule of
grammar.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
