|
|
How do you be?...possible in English
I'm not having a laugh, it'd be quite a random thing to think up, wouldn't it?
I don't see why, if you admit that some might say 'When I be sick', you doubt that the combination I gave is an absolute impossibilty. I only gave it as an example anyway!
It's a rare usage, but it is out there, as in "It's important that you be on time." I think it's called the subjunctive, and it causes some awkwardness because it's uncommon, and we often use the regular indicative to express the same thoughts. So it can be a little optional.
< I really hate it, when I be sick >
< It's important that you be on time > These are entirely different constructions. The subjunctive after some verbs (+ optional "that"), as in the second sentence, is standard usage. The use of "be" for "am", as in the first, is not (and it is not a subjunctive).
"It's a rare usage, but it is out there, as in "It's important that you be on time." I think it's called the subjunctive, and it causes some awkwardness because it's uncommon, and we often use the regular indicative to express the same thoughts. So it can be a little optional. "
Here, they're referring not merely to "you + be", but more specifically to the "do + (any pronoun, esp you) + be", so this is a little different.
<<The use of "be" for "am", as in the first, is not (and it is not a subjunctive). >>
Use of 'be' with 'I' in Southeast England has been going on since Old English times, when the verb 'to be' could either be rendered as "ic eom" ("I am") or "ic beo" ("I am", "I be", "I will be"). The proximity of SE England to Frisian areas also lends itself to the wider use of 'be-' forms of 'to be' (cf Frisian 'ik bin' "I am", 'we binne' "we are", etc). So there is historical precedence here for the use of 'be' with 'I'. It's not a recent phenomenon, nor the result of grammatical error. It's a dialectal hand-me-down from ancient times, and should be respected as such. Also common in the same area is the use of "I bin" for "I am" up to fairly recent times.
I didn't say 'When I be sick' was the subjunctive. It's not. Maybe you are confusing me with Uriel? Admittedly I have veered slightly off from the original topic, which was looking at 'do...be'.
I'm well aware that the subjunctive is still used in English (especially AmE) in constructions like: 'It's important that you be on time' 'I demanded he tell me the truth' 'I suggested they be quiet' 'If the truth be told' Obviously 'I hate it when I be sick' does not belong to this category. I admit it's rarely heard, and that it also sounds extremely awkward, but I think it sometimes comes up for lack of a better alternative. Think about the following: She is throwing up/she is being sick = same She is ill/she is sick =same When she is ill/when she sick =same Somehow to say 'being sick' implies 'throwing up' while to say 'she is sick' implies 'she is ill'. 'To be sick' can imply either. Therefore, people find themselves a bit stumped when they want to use it to express throwing up, but DON'T feel the progressive form is appropriate, so they start to struggle around with 'be' instead of the usual conjugated form. This is because it seems to express more that it is the actual act of throwing up instead of just the state of being ill. Come to think of it, I have actually also heard 'When she be's sick'
<<I didn't say 'When I be sick' was the subjunctive. It's not.>>
No, I'm in complete agreement with you. Sorry if I sounded like I was gainstanding you,,, I was just posting the "I be" thing as an 'fyi' = extra tidbit of information sort of thing and in support of what you were saying, which was that it was not subjunctive :)
<Think about the following: >
In the forms you mention, the verb is regular: "she is". For a parallel to your suggestion, you would need "she be". But in any case, surely the 1st person form you are looking for is "When I am being sick".
<Use of 'be' with 'I' in Southeast England has been going on since Old English times...So there is historical precedence here for the use of 'be' with 'I'. It's not a recent phenomenon, nor the result of grammatical error. It's a dialectal hand-me-down from ancient times, and should be respected as such.>
Leas, you have got to be joking. No one in south east England uses dialectal forms like "when I be", unless they're auditioning for a bit part in some 3rd rate tv costume drama or working at a linguistics theme park. In the remoter south west you might hear it, from a very few people in rural regions; and maybe in some parts of the north of England. Apart from that, it's just comedy bumpkin-speak.
<...gainstanding...>
What's this weird Babelfish-Chinese-to-OE-converter stuff all about, by the way?
Uriel
<<It's a rare usage, but it is out there, as in "It's important that you be on time." I think it's called the subjunctive, and it causes some awkwardness because it's uncommon, and we often use the regular indicative to express the same thoughts. So it can be a little optional. >> It's not really opitional. "It's important that you are on time" means something completely different from "It's important that you be on time". The latter merely states that you being on time is important; the former, in addition to saying that, also asserts that you are in fact on time. The subjunctive is used to discuss an event without asserting that that event actually has or will happen. @??? <<In the remoter south west you might hear it, from a very few people in rural regions; and maybe in some parts of the north of England. >> I believe hat "more remote" is more idiomatic.
??? : « 'How DO you be cool in such a situation?'
or 'How ARE you cool in such a situation?' To me, the former is the only correct option in this situation. Of course you coud, and maybe should, replace the verb 'to be' with another verb, such as 'stay' or 'remain', but if you don't choose to, then which construction is correct? I think there's a subtle difference here, and I think the 'do...plus...be' construction is possible in these circumstances. » On peut envisager ta question sous l'angle de l'interronégation. Exemple trouvé sur la toile : journaliste → « So, what was the career advice you received at school ? Was it then that you knew you wanted to become an actor ? » Adam Sandler → « I didn’t even know I was going to get into this. I was applying for colleges and I asked my brother what I should major in and he said : “ Why don’t you be an actor ? ” I said : “ OK, I’ll do that… ” And that’s how it happened – it was some pretty good advice. » Quand le frère dit (1)<why don't you be an actor ?> à Sandler, il ne lui dit pas (2)<why aren't you an actor ?>. La première tournure est une suggestion d'un fait futur positif, la seconde une question sur un fait présent négatif. (1) l'auxiliaire <do> porte sur la relation potentielle (you)↔(be an actor) (2) la relation actualisée (you)↔(be an actor) est négativement assertée (1) (you)↔(be an actor) # DO # → # (you)↔(be an actor) # ¶ WHY NEG ¶ → ¶ # DO # → #(you)↔(be an actor)# ¶ suggestion stylistique (interronégation) d'un futur potentialisé par # DO # (2) (you)↔(be an actor) # NEG # → # (you)↔(be an actor) # ¶ WHY ¶ → ¶ # NEG # → #(you)↔(be an actor)# ¶ interrogation positive sur un fait réel négatif À confirmer/démentir/préciser par nos amis anglophones maternels.
< I believe that more "remote" is more idiomatic >
More common, perhaps; more idiomatic, no. "Some say that gleams of a remoter world Visit the soul in sleep." - Shelley.
I very rarely hear Do + Be constructions, on the whole limited to the kind of examples Leasnam gave where it seems the "be+adjective" construction is virtually a quote from advice from someone else (How to I be more alert for midnight burglars when I'm asleep?).
It seems the uncomfortable tension that the combinations evokes is due to the fact that the construction "to be+adjective" is normally used to describe a permanent or at least relatively permanent state, whereas "do" is essentially a more transient action. Normally people rephrase to convey the sense of something like "how to I be cool when she's kicking my shins?" using words like "stay" or "remain" which can convey a more transient meaning than "be". Living here in the West Country, I do also hear what's normally associated with a country/farmer use of "be" as a straight swap for "am/are/is", e.g. "We be going down to the pub, son?". |