Two forms of 'to be' - predicative vs. existential?

[Jonlang]

I came up with an idea, which is undoubtedly not my idea at all, for making the verb to be a little less boring for one of my conlangs. Basically, I was thinking of using two different types of to be which I have dubbed predicative and existential. The former is used only for applying attributes (whether real, or not) to the subject (e.g. John is old, Mary is young, the dog is brown, the ball is round, etc.) but the latter is used when talking about existence (e.g. 'I am at home', 'she is away with friends', 'the dog is lonely', 'I think, therefore I am', etc).

So I really want to know:

1. Does this seem naturalistic? (Personally, I don't see why not.) If so, should I tweak it to make it more naturalistic?
2. Whether my descriptors predicative and existential are most suitable, or whether one or both should be labelled 'copula'.

[Travis B.]

I came up with an idea, which is undoubtedly not my idea at all, for making the verb to be a little less boring for one of my conlangs. Basically, I was thinking of using two different types of to be which I have dubbed predicative and existential. The former is used only for applying attributes (whether real, or not) to the subject (e.g. John is old, Mary is young, the dog is brown, the ball is round, etc.) but the latter is used when talking about existence (e.g. 'I am at home', 'she is away with friends', 'the dog is lonely', 'I think, therefore I am', etc).

So I really want to know:

1. Does this seem naturalistic? (Personally, I don't see why not.) If so, should I tweak it to make it more naturalistic?
2. Whether my descriptors predicative and existential are most suitable, or whether one or both should be labelled 'copula'.

This is perfectly natural. I tend to take a different route, and because in many of my languages adjectives are just stative verbs, the attributive case is simply using said stative verbs with NP's directly, leaving the existential case and the equality case (for expressing equality between two different NP's, as in "the dog is a golden retriever"), for which I normally have separate verbs.

[Vardelm]

This is basically Spanish ser vs estar, no?

[Jonlang]

This is basically Spanish ser vs estar, no?

No idea, I've never had the slightest bit of interest in Spanish.

[linguistcat]

This is basically Spanish ser vs estar, no?

No idea, I've never had the slightest bit of interest in Spanish.

Also like Japanese da (formal: desu) vs aru (formal: arimasu) or iru (formal: imasu). Da and desu are used with adjectives or equating nouns (I am a teacher. = Watashi wa sensei desu.). Whereas aru and arimasu, and iru and imasu, are used for something - or someone - existing in a place, though these can also extend to having something (I have money (Lit: For me, money exists) = Watashi wa okane ga arimasu.)

The split between aru and iru is based on animacy, which you wouldn't need to include in your conlang.

[alice]

This is basically Spanish ser vs estar, no?

Or for that matter Irish is vs tá. A lot of my conlangs have this.

[Creyeditor]

Papua Indonesian is similar in that it has existential copula ada but no real predicative copula. The existential copula is usually not used for locations though.

Ada orang di depan pintu.
EXIST person at front door.
There is someone at the door.

Sa di rumah.
1SG at home
I am at home.

Anjing sendiri.
dog lonely
The dog is lonely.

Bola bulat.
ball round
The ball is round.

[quinterbeck]

Except for 'I think, therefore I am', in which the 'am' does signify existence, your examples for the 'existential to be' are all best described as states IMO. You could distinguish more finely - 'at home' and 'away' are states of location, while 'lonely' is a state of emotion.

I attempted to do this for Leima - a lot of the main verbs take certain functions of the copula:
equality - em
attributes - ad
lasting states - wain
transitory states - non
location - rug (also houh, orya, yoer)

[Vardelm]

This is basically Spanish ser vs estar, no?

Also like Japanese da (formal: desu) vs aru (formal: arimasu) or iru (formal: imasu).

Or for that matter Irish is vs tá. A lot of my conlangs have this.

Well, since that was correct (and I wasn't too sure!), then yeah, as Travis B. said, it's very natural. I just decided to do this in Yokai during the past week while figuring out how I wanted to handle copular, adjectival, and existential sentences sentences in all 4 of my conlangs.

[fusijui]

Just off the top of my head, Tibetan has this, modern Chinese as well. Nothing exceptional, ISTM. Though maybe I'm misunderstanding the distinction between the two you're actually making, and interpolating my own ideas. Anyway, go for it!

[Edit: maybe 'equative' (equatative?) or something along those lines would be less ambiguous/misleading than 'predicative'?]

[vegfarandi]

I suggest this recent paper, Nonverbal Clause Constructions by Martin Haspelmath, which goes into all the permutations of clauses often constructed with copula verbs. What you're proposing is fairly common and covered in the paper a long with a whole host of other constructions.

[Vardelm]

I suggest this recent paper, Nonverbal Clause Constructions by Martin Haspelmath, which goes into all the permutations of clauses often constructed with copula verbs. What you're proposing is fairly common and covered in the paper a long with a whole host of other constructions.

This paper looks excellent! I have referred to other sources, but this looks better. Thanks for sharing.

[Raphael]

I'm not sure I understand the difference between "is" in "the dog is brown" and "is" in "the dog is lonely". How is the latter more about existence than the former?

[Vardelm]

I'm not sure I understand the difference between "is" in "the dog is brown" and "is" in "the dog is lonely". How is the latter more about existence than the former?

Said dog is permanently brown (via fur color) but temporarily lonely. If you used a stative (non-existential) copula with "brown", then you might have a blond dog that wallowed in mud or something.


EDIT:

I got that wrong in terms of permanence. Essential copulas are permanent, describing the "essence" of something, while existential are temporary states.

Type	Usage	Spanish	Tibetan
essential	permanent	ser	red, red-bzhag, yin
existential	temporary	estar	yod-red, dug, yod

[Raphael]

Ah, thank you.

[quinterbeck]

I got that wrong in terms of permanence. Essential copulas are permanent, describing the "essence" of something, while existential are temporary states.

Is that an established use of the term existential? It seems quite odd to me, as the typical definition of the word is relating to existence or being alive. The main kind of linguistic thing I am used to seeing described as existential is the assertion of something's existence, e.g. "There is a horse in the field."

[Travis B.]

I got that wrong in terms of permanence. Essential copulas are permanent, describing the "essence" of something, while existential are temporary states.

Is that an established use of the term existential? It seems quite odd to me, as the typical definition of the word is relating to existence or being alive. The main kind of linguistic thing I am used to seeing described as existential is the assertion of something's existence, e.g. "There is a horse in the field."

I had the same exact thought here.

[alice]

For what it's worth, ser and estar derive from the latin for "sit" and "stand" respectively.

[Vardelm]

Is that an established use of the term existential? It seems quite odd to me, as the typical definition of the word is relating to existence or being alive. The main kind of linguistic thing I am used to seeing described as existential is the assertion of something's existence, e.g. "There is a horse in the field."

I ... think so? I've seen them used in a few places for different languages, especially Tibetan. However, I haven't done any sort of organized search for multiple academic references.

[zompist]

My Googling wasn't entirely satisfactory, but I've looked at a bunch of pages on Spanish, and though some describe ser as essential, none describe estar as existential-- but a page on Tibetan does use those terms. A couple of the pages on Spanish are Aristotelian and say "accidental"!

I've seen "existential" used mostly for expressions like "There are two problems".