!أهلاً Howdy! ¡Bienvenidos!
This is my experimental microblog.
I hope to jot down linguistic tidbits and snippets with some degree of regularity.
Hazte un click al tema si te interesaría - !هيا بنا
tl;dr(too long, didn't read):
When we us the verb "to be" in English between two parts and connect them with a kind of equivalency, we can describe it as copula. "The sky is blue", "Marvin and Jessianne are my coworkers" - but many languages do not do this.
As in Arabic: هو صديقي ("HU-wa saw-DHEE-khee"), literally "He friend-my" (functionally, "He is my friend").
There are two base pieces "He" and "friend", only. Friend is modified to show relation, there is no verb at all.
This can be described as zero copula. The copula function is still there, but it is implicit.
We reduce or zero the copula sometimes in English - but largely we rely on a clear copula, with one primary option: "to be".
Most languages that use a zero copula in present tense use some kind of overt copula for past, future, or potential situations.
As in Russian: Он врач (OHn vrATCH), litrally "He doctor", but Он был врачом (OHn bILL vrATCH-om) "He was doctor-a"
When people are used to zero copula, it can be suprisingly tricky when learning English. They recognize the difference and they are not that surprised when hearing or reading examples with a clear copula in the present tense. When they start speaking or writing they remember it, but they will often drop it again a bit later.
It is a good idea to practice this concept and to draw attention to the contrast between zero copula situations and the standard clear copula in English. I use the term "clear" because it is both obvious, and because it is a sort of "see-through" verb with no specific action. In that regard all copula are similar. The important thing to remember is that in English we really must (almost) always have a verb of some kind. If we do not have a specific action or time, then we use the present tense verb "to be": is, am, or are.
ts;tmm (too short, tell me more):
I am Ezekial. You are most welcome in my microlinguistics blog.
When we use the verb "to-be" (is, am, are) like this, we are actuating a copula function, an equivalency between the two parts of the statement. This is just a matter of course for very familiar speakers of English and other closely related languages.
But a lot of other languages do not use a be-verb, or any verb, in that same situation.
Even in English - we sometimes do not use it, where otherwise we could.
In a contraction like "That's the question" the be-verb is reduced (contracted). She is tall >> She's tall.
My friend who is tall and who is at the same university is a basketball player. >> My tall friend from university likes basketball.
It can become quite cumbersome to organize things around always using a copula, and other methods do not require one at all.
Overall, we do rely on copula - is, am, are - a lot in English. Most other languages use some kind of be-verb, but compared to English it's not the same. Speakers from a non-English origin may not be familiar with using it in the present tense, in particular.
That is because in many language groups the copula "dissapears", where we are used to having it in English.
Slavic languages, like Russian: Это здание высокое (E-to iz-DA-ni-ye vis-O-ko-ye) , literally "This building tall".
There is no copula, and in fact - no verb at all!
Semitic languages, like Arabic (remember, Arabic reads right-to-left): النهر واسع
(an-NAH-ru WA-see-ay-u), literally "The river wide".
Of course, more or less the same meaning is achieved, even without "is".
The present existence of the building is assumed and understood by everyone, as is the link between building and tall or between river and wide.
We can describe this as "zero copula" - the copula function still happens, but it moved into a sort of invisible "zero-slot".
Really, you could put any word from each of those three categories together and some kind of copula would occur.
Short that tree. Line long this. Small the cat. Without any other context, virtually everyone who can parse those words to be from those categories will understand an implicit copula idea -- even if they do not understand the meaning of a single word.
Thas battoob blubbly. Those words look like words from similar categories and are in an English style order.
I reckon many English-users will parse a copula of some kind in there, especially if I throw a hand gesture in.
Now, most of the time a language that employs zero copula will still use a be-verb when the situation gains more layers.
In particular if we start to consider the past, or the future, or potentiality.
This makes sense. The farther we get from evaluating "this thing here right now that is how I think it is", the less we reflexively and reciprocally assume a straightforward copula.
Slavic languages, like Ukrainian:
Ці гарні (TS-ii HAR-nhi), literally "These nice", but "Ці будуть гарні" (TS-ii bu-DOO-ti HAR-nhi) "These will be nice".
In Arabic, we also use an explicit be-verb-type-thing when we move away from an immediate frame of reference.
اليوم جميل (al-YAWm ja-MEEL) "The-day beautiful" >> سيكون اليوم جميلاً (say-a-KOON al-YAWm ja-MEEL-a/n*), literally "will/would-be/have the-day beautiful-one". Although this is an explicit be-verb that performs a copula function, I would hesitate to call it a clear copula (the to-be verb situation in Arabic is pretty complex compared to English - "Kaana and her Sisters").
*"nuunation" / tanween in Arabic is some interesting grammar with a lot of different interactions.
Even in English TAM forms (TENSE, ASPECT, MOOD) of to-be do not feel as see-through as is, am, or are.
The movie is good > The movie was good > The movie will be good > The movie had been good > The movie might be good > The movie will maybe have been good. The equivalency of the noun and the adjective gets less and less direct with more layers to pass through in between.
In past-simple, if we omit the be-verb in English the copula starts to get pretty shaky.
"What was the name of that place that sold the spiral-zuchini snacks?" "Hmmm, the door small..."
Probably there's is a good whiff of describing the door of the place, but there's also a decent whiff of the name having something to do with a small door. It is no longer clear, and we like clear.
"What was the name of that place?" "Hmmm, the door was small..."
Now we have a clear copula, and thereby a clear relation across those two words, and thereby a very clear clause with a very clear response to the question.
In language families where zero copula is common, some languages do use a present copula more like English.
Amharic is a Semitic language like Arabic, but "እሷ አስቂኝ ነች" (es-WA eh-see-KEEN-ye nich" "she funny is".
As in most Semitic languages, the be-verb is "conjugated" for feminine - but it's almost like an inflected nominal.
Polish is a Slavic language, but from the northern group: "Samochód jest nowy" (sa-MO-xuhd yest NO-vy) "(the)* Car is new",
*as in many Slavic languages, Polish does not use articles like we know them in English. Instead, definiteness (and many other things) are inflected onto other words - in my own limited learning of Russian, the suffix-complexes loomed high, and steeply.
But I digress, copula is pretty dang interesting. In English we make a clear copula with a linking verb, primarily "to-be" (but also quite a few other ones). Other languages inflect nouns for this or use nominal particles. And, as we've just considered, some languages have no main/default copula piece/slot, and all kinds of neat things ensue from that.
Cheers,
-=EZ