val wrote:I've only just tuned in to the thread on 'abstract' and 'concrete' rather too late to contribute there. But I thought of the word 'being' is this abstract or concrete
'a human being' is one member of Homo sapiens so that suggests 'being' is concrete.
I think what you've got there is a gerundive - a part of a verb that's being used as a noun - and those tend to be abstract, don't they: spoiled in the telling, she experienced a seeing, they ate it at one sitting
- none of these are things you could scoop up and carry in a bucket. Neither is the existence of a person.
An interesting thing about the verb 'to be' is that it is irregular in English and certainly in Latin and French - is that true of all languages?
One of my language books makes the interesting assertion that in both English and German "most of the verbs in common use are irregular ones." The most irregular change between first/second/third person and plurals (am/are/is, is/are), as well as between present and past forms (is/was, were). Some only change between present and past forms (eat, ate).
Dutch, Portuguese, Italian and Spanish vary too in the formation of the present and the past tenses of "to be". Interesting thought. Why is the verb "to be" but none of the uses of it include "I be, you be, he be" unless you're writing cod-Zummerzet dialect?
When early hominids first became aware of 'self' did 'I am' , 'you are' , 'he is' express the sense of individuality - we are different beings?
Or a different attitude to the existence of the person/object? You would normally describe - say - a tree or a rock - in the third person, probably as a neutral object (in English "a tree" or "a rock" is not gender specific). But if you're directly addressing a person there is an interaction implied. And if you're talking about yourself you are totally involved. Just another thought!