Can verb 'to be" be a transitive verb

Question

Can the verb 'to be' be a transitive verb, everything I read says no.

But how does it work in the examples below:

"The dog is a poodle."------verb 'is' takes poodle like a transitive verb to explain what the dog is being right?

Or what about

"Let x be y." ------verb 'be' is just like equals, and equals is a transitive verb.

Please explain, maybe 'to be' is a special case that does connect subjects to objects, but becuase it is so common and used in many different ways, it is not considered a transitive verb?

Thanks for the help

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

Can the verb 'to be' be a transitive verb, everything I read says no.-- That is right: No.

"The dog is a poodle."--verb 'is' takes poodle like a transitive verb to explain what the dog is being right?-- No. 'Being' (existence) is not transitive. Transitive means that the verb works on the object: 'He shot the dog' means that the dog received the shooting, and a passive form can be composed: 'The dog was shot'. The passive voice cannot be composed using 'be'.

"Let x be y." ------verb 'be' is just like equals, and equals is a transitive verb.-- No,'just like' does not mean that they have the same grammatical form.

Please explain, maybe 'to be' is a special case that does connect subjects to objects, but becuase it is so common and used in many different ways, it is not considered a transitive verb?-- Your reasoning is wrong, but your conclusion is right: 'be' is intransitive.

Anonymous · Answer

Okay, so please let me know if this is right.

From what I understand, despite the verb 'to be' meaning being, existence, etc and being used in such examples like "the dog is a poodle" or "X is Y", it is a action verb that does not directly act upon the object like "he shot the dog" but more so it links and explains.

And even though it is used to mean similarily to 'equal' in "X is Y", it yes means the same as "x equals Y", but it is a different verb in general. Doesn't mean the same form

So overall, the verb 'to be' is intransitive, it does not work an object, but it is a linking verb and such to help explain......IS that why it is a special verb case called a COPULA?

Thanks again!

Mister Micawber · Answer

...despite the verb 'to be' meaning being, existence, etc and being used in such examples like "the dog is a poodle" or "X is Y", it is a action verb-- No, it is not an action verb.

And even though it is used to mean similarily to 'equal' in "X is Y", it yes means the same as "x equals Y", but it is a different verb in general. Doesn't mean the same form-- That's right.

So overall, the verb 'to be' is intransitive, it does not work an object, but it is a linking verb-- Yes.

IS that why it is a special verb case called a COPULA?-- Some grammars call 'be' the copular and other linking verbs quasi-copulas, but often it does not refer only to 'be'. It is another word for 'linking verb':

a verb, such as be, seem, or taste, that is used merely to identify or link the subject with the complement of a sentence. Copulas may serve to link nouns (or pronouns), as in he became king, nouns (or pronouns) and adjectival complements, as in sugar tastes sweet, or nouns (or pronouns) and adverbial complements, as in John is in jail.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousCan the verb 'to be' be a transitive verb

No. The verb be doesn't act on anything. There is no object.

To say that a dog is a poodle is not at all like saying that someone kicked the poodle, petted the poodle, or fed the poodle, all of which are 'acts' on the poodle. All you're saying is that the dog is in a certain category called the poodle category. Nothing happens to any real poodle if you just categorize a dog under the term poodle.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

Anonymous"Let x be y." ------verb 'be' is just like equals, and equals is a transitive verb.

I'd say that equal is transitive in a different usage -- not in this usage.

Here you can passivize:

No one equals him in chess.
He is not equaled (by anyone) in chess.

But in this usage you cannot passivize:

X equals Y.
?Y is equaled by X.

So it looks intransitive to me in this usage. You'd never have "Let y be equaled by x".

But I could be wrong.

CJ

Canadian45 · Answer

What about 'He will (be)(play) Romeo in the production.'?

CalifJim · Answer

canadian45What about 'He will (be)(play) Romeo in the production.'?

I don't know. What do you think?

I know you can have Romeo will be played by him but not Romeo will be been by him!

CJ

Canadian45 · Answer

CalifJim
canadian45What about 'He will (be)(play) Romeo in the production.'?
I don't know. What do you think?I know you can have Romeo will be played by him but not Romeo will be been by him! CJ

I take it that this is some sort of test for transitive verbs, seeing if the sentence can be recast in the passive voice. It's something that I don't remember coming across before, and I don't have any particular comment about that. But just considering the active voice, "be" seems to be transitive.

CalifJim · Answer

canadian45I take it that this is some sort of test for transitive verbs

I don't know if that is true in general, though it easily could be. In any case, it seems to be at least the ad hoc test we're using in this thread!

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Okay, that makes sense.

But what I meant about 'to be' being an action verb is I meant, that despite it links and is used to identify, it still has some action like any verb, or it would not be verb.

It is a verb with little action, more of a linking role, but still helps to clarify what one is being or how they are. Is that not correct?

Can verb 'to be" be a transitive verb

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions