Talk:Be (verb)
The title "Be (verb)" is incredibly unwieldy and would never be naturally linked to. Any objection to renaming it to "To be"? --Brion 05:52 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)
Egad! Great minds think alike & all that jazz! I was coming to this talk page to suggest the exact same thing! -- Tarquin 12:38 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
Merge
[edit]Look at Be (verb) and Copula. They both have the same content:
- That the main copula in English is "to be"
- That it has non-copular uses such as
- Existence
- Auxiliary verb
- Other verbs used as copulas
- Copula verbs in other languages and how they differ from English
This is appropriate content for both articles. Therefore, there is no reason for both articles to exist, lest they be eternal duplicates of each other. One can redirect to the other, and the content amalgamated.
Also, you shouldn't just remove {{merge}}, but change it to {{MergeDisputed}}. Chameleon 20:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I look at the two articles and see that they are not quite the same. There are non-copular uses of Be which are not directly relevant to copula. I'd rather have the copula article focused on that aspect and Be present a wider range. I suppose they could concievably be combined, but I see the distinction as worth preserving. Of course, there is room for improvement in both articles and some cleanup to eliminate unncessary redundancy. older≠wiser 21:01, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- I fear that a huge amount of redundancy will always be inevitable if both are kept. Chameleon 23:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)