Talk:Copula (linguistics)

Languages

Mentioning so many different languages is nice (see also here), but do we really want the article to be a list of copular constructions in as many languages as we can gather? Just a question. I think it is very important to give a comprehensive overview; at the same time I think that the article should be an article instead of a list.

Incidentally, I would like to add something about Iraqw language, an African language in which 'copula-like verbs' play an important role. Where should I add it? — mark ✎ 09:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is indeed a good article. The list of languages is not just a list, since each item contains at the very least a small explanation. The general stuff is located at the beginning, so the reader can leave it at that or proceed to the list for examples. Linguistics in abstracto is too dense and difficult, IMO. (OTOH the list is quite complete by now -- there's no need to add to it further.)

Why don't you create an article for Iraqw? Then you can link to it from the Copula article. In fact, a good idea would be to link from "Copula" to the section of each language article where copulas are 1) an interesting topic, and 2) well explained. The links should be in a special subsection ("Copulas in other languages"?) or in the See Also. -- Pablo D. Flores 14:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I think it is a good idea to add links to relevant sections in other languages' articles. I'm thinking of writing an article on Iraqw language indeed. — mark ✎ 16:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recent edit

I've restored much of the article to Steverapaport's version since some of the recent changes made by User:A. Shetsen did not seem to be improvements but rather introduced inaccuracies (see diff). For example, I think it is not correct to say that, in Russian and Hungarian, 'nouns do not have a copula between them', since the examples aren't noun+copula+noun constructions but rather pronoun+(implied copula)+noun. The statement in Steverapaport's version seemed to be far more accurate. I also didn't understand the change from Indo-European languages to the (nonexistent) Indoeuropean languages so that's another thing I changed back. — mark ✎ 22:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Mark. I have again added some perspective on the rather English-centric assumption that the copula is intimately and inextricably connected with the Existential.

Was it User:A. Shetsen who took out my perspective on Italian and Swedish other types of to be? Y'know, I don't really mind when people who don't know any other languages write this way out of sheer ignorance. That's what the Countering Systemic Bias project is for. But it gets under my skin when I take the trouble to correct the bias and someone deletes it without a word.

Steverapaport 23:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what happened or who deleted your additions in the spirit of CSB. I just didn't want to simply revert Shetsen's version to your (seemingly more complete and accurate) version since I like to assume good faith, which is why I might have missed some unjustified deletions. — mark ✎ 23:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to blather on further, but I checked and not only did Shetsen delete two different informative bits I'd added, without discussion, he marked his edit as minor and didn't mention what he'd done. I'm gonna hope this was a gigantic screw-up on his part and not simply an enormous discourtesy. You would never do that deliberately, right Mr. Shetsen?

Japanese

The section on Japanese had some mistakes and inacurate information, so I added a lot and trimmed a little. This explanation may not be the one you get in textbooks, but it's the one that professional linguists adhere to.

Talking about professional linguists, the article could use some references — care to add some for Japanese? Otherwise, your additions look great. I think the distinction between predication and conjunction/modification is useful. One thing that doesn't seem particularly clear to me is the following:

The difference between da and desu is simple: desu is more formal and polite than da. Thus, a Japanese sentence which ends with a stative verb may not take da, while the same sentence with desu is merely more polite than the version without.

I don't see why the 'non-formality' or 'non-politeness' of da would render Kono biiru wa umai da unacceptable (or the other way round). — mark ✎ 01:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything, because I'm not an expert linguist, and I probably would've messed something up. But I'm pretty sure that desu shouldn't be considered a copula like da. I was taught that with i-adjectives, it is grammatically incorrect to use the copula, but it is alright to use desu. You couldn't say "Ureshii da," but you could say "ureshii desu." You can also say "Ureshii desu ka?" but you can't say "Ureshii da ka?" Desu is just added to make a sentence sound polite.--Kinoko 18:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)