Neil McLeod wrote:
>> "2. nombeo baid
>>I shall be powerless" would require the copula, not the substantive
>> verb, wouldn't it?
David Stifter wrote:
>Yes, this is the essential difficulty with this line, and it will remain
>with basically all interpretations: VERB OF BEING + PREDICATE will in OIr.
>always require the verb of being to be expressed by the copula. But we
>might try to solve the Gordian knot by cutting it in two with the sword:
>we could simply claim that we have a case of "substantive verb for copula"
>here. GOI 4775-476 discusses a few such cases, but I don't think our
>example fits in any of the categories.
I am trying to understand the reason why the substantive is not appropriate
in this sentence. Is it because the verb is immediately followed by the
predicate (the adjective baid) ? I read Thurneysen's p. 475 but I'm not sure I
get what he means. Thanks, Liz