Nominals (nouns and pronouns), adjectives, prepositions, subordinators (subordinate conjunctions), and some adverbs can be predicative expressions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicative_expression. The notion that a predicative expression must be an adjective or noun is too narrow. While it is true that adjectives and nominals are widely acknowledged as ...
The difference you've identified is between predicational and specificational copular clauses (terms coined by Higgins, 1979, i think). In a predicational copular sentence, the subject denotes an individual and the complement (which may be either a Noun Phrase, or an Adjectival Phrase) denotes a property. The subject is predicated of the complement. Your ...
It has been noted by Nancy Levin in her 1980 paper ‘Main Verb Ellipsis in Spoken English’ that copula be cannot be elided under pseudogapping ((2); an example of pseudogapping is given in (1)).
(1) She will enjoy your book more than she will enjoy mine
(2) *She had been happy more often than she had been miserable
We can check now whether be of the ...
You can find the terms copula and copular defined in most linguistics dictionaries, and they are widely used in modern syntax textbooks (e.g. Radford 2004, Carnie 2013), so the brief answer to your question is yes, the term copula is still quite current.
Where I think confusion arises about copulae in English concerns "be" in particular. Like other copulae ...
In this sentence, "get," just like "be" in other passive sentences, is the passivizer. That is, the active form of "I have never seen a fish get cooked like that" is (just like the active form of "I have never seen a fish be cooked like that")
I have never seen someone cook a fish like that.
Modern English has acquired a static/dynamic distinction, but ...
This may not be a satisfying answer (is this becoming a trend with my answers?), but here's the best advice I can give:
A word is a copula if and only if calling it a copula makes your theory more complete, accurate, or elegant.
As you noted in the comments, there's no universal definition of "copula". But even if there were, definitions like this ...
Thai is somewhat similar to what jick described for Korean in that its adjectives are stative verbs but cannot be used as imperatives, so the phrase "be happy" would be achieved by one of any number of circumlocutions.
To me, the most interesting one is that even though Thai has no imperative suffix or particle, it does have an auxiliary adverb อย่า (yàa) ...
Leaving the broader question about copulas to one side here. Po and Rimmington’s ‘Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar’ (Routledge) has a good explanation for why ‘我好’ is not a well-formed answer to ‘你好嗎?’ (which I’m guessing is the context.) Having the predicative adjective unmarked implies a contrast, ‘I’m good (but not him!)’. A degree adverb like 很 is ...
[Edit: Some people consider only be/être a copula; verbs like seem/sembler, become/devenir, etc. they consider lexical verbs. I believe their reason is that they consider only be devoid of any non-grammatical function, whereas seem also means "affect the perception of others", and become "change".
I have only ever encountered this narrow ...
In English the distinction is hardly relevant, since it doesn’t have cases except for the pronouns, but with regard to languages that do have cases it’s more relevant.
Actually, in my opinion there’s hardly any difference: the difference in languages that do have cases (Latin, Greek, Russian) is the case the verb requires with it.
Let me give examples ...
Korean is unusual in that its "adjectives" (or "stative verbs") behave like full-fledged verbs. (Imagine, instead of "He is happy" or "a happy person", you say "He happies" and "a happying person".)
Standard Korean used to disallow imperatives for adjectives, so, for example, instead of saying &...
In this case the outermost f-structure is the IP whose functional head is the predicative phrase. Copulae are (in LFG parlance) coheads, i.e., they have no PRED though they extend the predicator of the content word they fuse with. In this respect they're somewhat similar to complex predicates such as causatives which extend the predicator (by adding the ...
That is very language-specific and works well for English, but not for many other languages. E.g. Russian can have an adverbial phrase following a copula, and many languages (like German) don't distinguish between adjectives and adverbs, moreover, many languages (like most of the Altaic languages) have neither adjectives nor adverbs.
This is indeed an object with a copula but not a direct object (leidend voorwerp). If it were a direct object you should be able to turn it passive, which is not possible. This type of object is called an oorzakelijke voorwerp in Dutch (causal object), even though in many/most cases there is not causal relation.
Note that it doesn't have to be "het"...
The most sensical cross-linguistic definition of "copula" is an element that is required for non-verbal predication. The elements in your examples could all qualify as copulas depending on what verbal predication looked like in those languages. That the copula has multiple functions (focus marker, pronominal, etc.) shouldn't affect its categorization.
This construction is reminiscent of a Dutch "verb of innocence", such as Ik ben het vergeten (lit. I1 am2 it3 forgotten4, "I forgot (it)." ), where the grammatical subject is specifically marked as not being the actor.
Beu isn't a past participle, of course, but the construction with an adjective seems quite similar.
It's easy enough to go from the sluiced construction to the one word question. Instead of
John and someone were dancing; guess who.
John and someone were dancing. Who?
Shall we say then that "Who?" is a reduced form of a full form sentence with all its parts?
*Who is it that John and were dancing?
But how can it be? If it were, the "...
Italian: (Che) cosa mangi?
Gloss: (what) thing you-eat
The in-situ wh-phrase is not used ('Mangi cosa?' seems akward).
The register is either informal (che ommitted) or formal.
More often found in progressive form:
Cosa stai mangiando?
Sorry but the mandarin part is a bitmap because of this. Please feel free to comment and I will amend/...
I don't know enough linguistics to answer your second question, but the pseudocleft question formation reminds me of the way formal questions are formed in French.
French: Tu manges une crêpe.
Gloss: you eat a crepe
Informal interrogative (wh-in-situ):
French: Tu manges quoi?
Gloss: you eat what?
Formal interrogative (preposed):