How do you be?...possible in English

???   Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:27 pm GMT
I'm a native English speaker, and I have been thinking that occasionally this construction is possible in English.

Of course the verb 'to be' doesn't normally require the auxilliary verb 'do' in questions, or anything else. But still, consider the following:

'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.
d   Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:41 pm GMT
How *CAN* you be cool in such a situation?
@?   Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:59 pm GMT
< To me, the former is the only correct option in this situation >

But how can you "do" being?

Being is being; doing is doing.
Leasnam   Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:17 pm GMT
<<'How DO you be cool in such a situation?' >>

This is correct, but rarely encountered, as "How does one remain cool..." is brooked more often.

"How do you be calm and collected when the flight-captain says the plane is going to crash?" is a similar sentence in which 'remain' or 'stay' is often forechosen instead of 'be'.

"How do you be his friend when he's such an arse all the time?"
This one wontedly works.
Leasnam   Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:20 pm GMT
Again, changing the pronoun:

Person#1: Being a good neighbor is very weighty, even today. You have to be a good neighbor!
Person#2: Are there certain steps I can take? How *do* I *be* a good neighbor?
@Leasnam   Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:21 pm GMT
Interesting. What is your native language, Leas?
@? + Leas   Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:26 pm GMT
When "be" is a linking verb, it does not allow do-insertion, according to Teschner & Evans.

It may occur in children's speech, of course.
Leasnam   Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:49 pm GMT
<<Interesting. What is your native language, Leas? >>

It's English.



<<When "be" is a linking verb, it does not allow do-insertion, according to Teschner & Evans. >>

Well, like I said, it's pretty uncommon, but it *is* possible hinging on the circumstance. At first thought, I would have said it's not possible, but then again, sometimes we don't immediately consider every circumstance (granted, it came as an overtake to me too).



<<according to Teschner & Evans. >>

Awwh! Forget that bumkus. Learn from me and you'll be a'ight ;)
Leasnam   Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:54 pm GMT
<<It may occur in children's speech, of course. >>

No--it's note is not associated with children. The byspels I've given above are normal everyday English. Now, in the fall of the neighbor, the word 'be' is stressed, because we are emphasizing "being a neighbor/to be a neighbor" which can kinda be thought of as a separate verb from normal 'be' ;)
@Leas   Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:13 am GMT
<which can kinda be thought of as a separate verb from normal 'be' >

Only in the sense that a linking verb can be thought of as separate from a linking verb.
Another Guest   Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:01 am GMT
"brooked"? "forechosen"? "wontedly"? "weighty"? "hinging"? "overtake"? "note"? "byspels"? "fall"? "bumkus"?

None of those words (at least, the way you used them) are "normal, everyday English". Whatever your dialect is, it differs quite substantially from standard English. Unless you are deliberately adopting an affected, archaic air. Although that last one could just be a misspelling of "bupkis".
???   Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:57 am GMT
@Another Guest

I believe what Leasnam does on this is forum is use older, more Germanic vocabulary, and not the French vocab which came into English later. I'm pretty sure he doesn't actually speak like this. Maybe he does, but it would still not be his dialect. He is just making a conscious effort to do this, out of an interest in language, no doubt.

@Leasnam

I'm glad you agree that this construction is possible, in certain, emphatic circumstances. I remember saying it, and then, being the slight grammar freak I am, wondering if it was actually correct.

It amuses me slightly, that people can bury their heads in grammar books all they like, but English will still catch them out sometimes lol.
???   Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:03 am GMT
You also sometimes hear, in BrE at least, things like:

'I really hate it, when I be sick'

This is a different thing, and it is used to mean 'When I throw up' as opposed to 'When I am ill', in which case it would be 'When I am sick'. It does admittedly sound awkward.

Do you ever hear that in the States?
$~$   Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:37 pm GMT
Don't be silly.

do + be ...
@???   Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:28 pm GMT
< You also sometimes hear, in BrE at least, things like:
'I really hate it, when I be sick' >

You sometimes hear "I really hate it when..." (standard BrE).

You might very occasionally hear "When I be sick..." (rural BrE, now very rare).

But I doubt very much whether you would ever hear the combination as presented in ???'s comment.

In fact, he's probably just having a laugh.