12 ms·
Interesting, but I'm not convinced the examples support the argument. English uses 'is' to refer to a permanent characteristic or a temporary state, depending o
by sharpn 16y ago
Interesting, but I'm not convinced the examples support the argument. English uses 'is' to refer to a permanent characteristic or a temporary state, depending on context. Other languages have two separate words (e.g. Spanish with 'estar' & 'es'). If the context is unclear, or you want to introduce clarity, say 'John is being grumpy' - rather than 'John is grumpy' - if you want to convey that John's surly mood is temporary or uncharacteristic. Avoiding the word 'is' often just makes communication needlessly long-winded.
Wave theory vs Particle theory is another matter - both are models that have acknowledged drawbacks, neither 'is'.
I do agree with the meta-point that trained clarity of expression can induce clarity of thought & is therefore worthwhile.
- dalke 16y agoEven better, in reconstructed Proto-Indo-European there are several different verbs which merged to become the conjugations of "to be" in English. That's why the forms are so irregular. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula
- zackattack 16y agoExcellent point, I have updated the blog post to quote you. (If you are uncomfortable with that, I'll remove it immediately.) I interpret the waves vs. particles like you say: they're just models, neither is. Was that not clear in the post? What did you perceive, instead?
- AndrewDucker 16y agoIt's more than that though - it's about changing statements about an object into statements about your interaction with it. "John seems grumpy to me" makes it clear that you are aware that your perceptions might be wrong, for instance.