![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I don't understand. Why is, is this usage disputed, disputed, is this usage disputed, disputed? Rintrah 05:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a little bit sad that we have to say "disputed" instead of incorrect, just to avoid triggering sermons on the evils of prescriptivism. -- Reuben 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if there's grammatical term for this:
Does anyone know about this? Is it disputed grammar? I would assume that it is because some sources call it correct and others list it as a correct and quite distinct verb tense. Help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Ufwuct
23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
"be being", especially when written "BE + being" represents: any one of the forms of the verb BE (i.e. am, are, is, was, were, (have) been followed by the word being. An example of this is: That child is being very difficult. The grammatical term for the form in this example would be the Present Progressive (or Present Continuous) Tense (or Aspect or Form) of the verb BE.
In over 45 years of being consciously aware of English forms, I have never encountered "do doing" But then I've never been to Boston-- gramorak ( talk) 16:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Is something like this a double copula?
--Falconus p t c 15:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is it a double copula rather than simply a double “is”, when “is” (and various forms thereof) seems to be the only copula for which this happens? If this is the case, I propose the article be moved to double is. If not, the article should include examples of other double copulas. — Frungi 23:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of this in my life. Is this actually a dispute? Does anybody actually think this is legitimate or have anybody ever actually used this ever? I don't see any way any person in their right mind could speak or type like that, except if he stutters (which isn't grammatically in "dispute"). Wharrel ( talk) 07:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
What? Who does this? Why does this even warrant an article. Who would ever stand up to defend this as legitimately correct? -Ben- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.221.128 ( talk) 03:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I first became aware of it 15 years or so ago, and have noticed it more frequently since. I agree that I cannot defend it, but the point is is that if the phenomenom exists (as some of us agree it does) then it's legitimate for an article on grammar to discuss it. I suspect that most of us would agree that the italicised words in my previous sentence are not 'correct' English - though when enough people use an 'incorrect' structure in speech and writing, it eventually becomes accepted as 'correct'. Had I rephrased the offending sentence as: What my point is is that if... the it's technically correct.-- gramorak ( talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It is a real phenomenon whether you want to admit it or not. You're right, no one "in their right mind" does it, but that doesn't mean no one does it. 128.211.198.168 ( talk) 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's just one of many papers about the double-copula as legitimate English: http://www.casasanto.com/Site/laura/documents/doubleis.pdf
Saying it's ungrammatical is like saying "I'm going to laugh at you" is ungrammatical because I'm not actually going anywhere.
I don't care enough to edit the article, so you're safe there. I agree it's hard to convincingly work a double copula into written English. But if that's what the problem is, is there a reason not to agree that it's ok in casual conversation? I think that's all we disagree about, is whether spoken English has looser expectations than written English.
206.124.141.187 ( talk) 04:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this from the article:
I can't imagine any analogous Spanish construction. Translating "The problem is, is that..." literally into Spanish would result in "El problema es, es que...", which is no more grammatical in Spanish than it is English. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 04:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the double copula merely nonstandard usage, or is it an error? I can’t see anyone grammatically defending something like, “What I’m saying is is you’re wrong.” — Frungi ( talk) 05:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If you have a hacked-up program, *all it is* is bugs, surrounded by, you know, something that does something.
--
Peter Weinberger
To me, this one is notable in that it sounds perfectly natural (at least in *spoken* English) to me, as someone who finds double copulae obtuse. I wonder, then, if it is, in fact, actually a double copula.
Stuart Morrow ( talk) 14:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Double copula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I don't understand. Why is, is this usage disputed, disputed, is this usage disputed, disputed? Rintrah 05:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a little bit sad that we have to say "disputed" instead of incorrect, just to avoid triggering sermons on the evils of prescriptivism. -- Reuben 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if there's grammatical term for this:
Does anyone know about this? Is it disputed grammar? I would assume that it is because some sources call it correct and others list it as a correct and quite distinct verb tense. Help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Ufwuct
23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
"be being", especially when written "BE + being" represents: any one of the forms of the verb BE (i.e. am, are, is, was, were, (have) been followed by the word being. An example of this is: That child is being very difficult. The grammatical term for the form in this example would be the Present Progressive (or Present Continuous) Tense (or Aspect or Form) of the verb BE.
In over 45 years of being consciously aware of English forms, I have never encountered "do doing" But then I've never been to Boston-- gramorak ( talk) 16:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Is something like this a double copula?
--Falconus p t c 15:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is it a double copula rather than simply a double “is”, when “is” (and various forms thereof) seems to be the only copula for which this happens? If this is the case, I propose the article be moved to double is. If not, the article should include examples of other double copulas. — Frungi 23:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of this in my life. Is this actually a dispute? Does anybody actually think this is legitimate or have anybody ever actually used this ever? I don't see any way any person in their right mind could speak or type like that, except if he stutters (which isn't grammatically in "dispute"). Wharrel ( talk) 07:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
What? Who does this? Why does this even warrant an article. Who would ever stand up to defend this as legitimately correct? -Ben- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.221.128 ( talk) 03:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I first became aware of it 15 years or so ago, and have noticed it more frequently since. I agree that I cannot defend it, but the point is is that if the phenomenom exists (as some of us agree it does) then it's legitimate for an article on grammar to discuss it. I suspect that most of us would agree that the italicised words in my previous sentence are not 'correct' English - though when enough people use an 'incorrect' structure in speech and writing, it eventually becomes accepted as 'correct'. Had I rephrased the offending sentence as: What my point is is that if... the it's technically correct.-- gramorak ( talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It is a real phenomenon whether you want to admit it or not. You're right, no one "in their right mind" does it, but that doesn't mean no one does it. 128.211.198.168 ( talk) 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's just one of many papers about the double-copula as legitimate English: http://www.casasanto.com/Site/laura/documents/doubleis.pdf
Saying it's ungrammatical is like saying "I'm going to laugh at you" is ungrammatical because I'm not actually going anywhere.
I don't care enough to edit the article, so you're safe there. I agree it's hard to convincingly work a double copula into written English. But if that's what the problem is, is there a reason not to agree that it's ok in casual conversation? I think that's all we disagree about, is whether spoken English has looser expectations than written English.
206.124.141.187 ( talk) 04:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this from the article:
I can't imagine any analogous Spanish construction. Translating "The problem is, is that..." literally into Spanish would result in "El problema es, es que...", which is no more grammatical in Spanish than it is English. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 04:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the double copula merely nonstandard usage, or is it an error? I can’t see anyone grammatically defending something like, “What I’m saying is is you’re wrong.” — Frungi ( talk) 05:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If you have a hacked-up program, *all it is* is bugs, surrounded by, you know, something that does something.
--
Peter Weinberger
To me, this one is notable in that it sounds perfectly natural (at least in *spoken* English) to me, as someone who finds double copulae obtuse. I wonder, then, if it is, in fact, actually a double copula.
Stuart Morrow ( talk) 14:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Double copula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)