Wbfu Xbegorva on 4 Oct 2000 19:14:19 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ: reflexivity of "to be"

Benjamin Bradley sprach:
>I request judgement on the following statements regarding Rule 105/0:
>The english verb "to be" is considered reflexive [ie 'x is y.' implies 'y
>is x.']. 
>{{as a side note, this problem would never happen in spanish, since
>there are two different verbs for "to be", one of which indicates a
>(permanent) characteristic and the other indicates a (temporary) state}}

Yo, get a dictionary.

First of all, "to be" itself can't be reflexive. You mean the specific
form "is".

Second, there are many different uses of "is". If we were to judge your
statement true, we would be forced to hold true that

An apple is a fruit.


A fruit is an apple.

which is parently false, because oranges are fruits which aren't apples.


josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/