0
JungKim Posted 11 years ago
Grammar

I just love watching him (be).

In a movie called "What happens in Vegas", there's this line of a female character:

"Yeah. I mean, I just love watching him be. I love everything about him."

Where the female character is trying to convince the listener that she has no problem with being with her husband and so on.

Now, in the first sentence, does she really need "be" at the end? Because I thought it would have been the same thing if she had said instead "Yeah. I mean, I just love watching him. I love everything about him."

If the "be" is needed there, what's the difference in meaning between the two versions?

Any comment would be appreciated.
  

Top answer

JungKim Now, in the first sentence, does she really need "be" at the end Yes. 'Be' there means 'exist unimpeded with his natural personality'.

— Mister Micawber

  • JungKim Now, in the first sentence, does she really need "be" at the end Yes.
  • 'Be' there means 'exist unimpeded with his natural personality'.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

18 Answers
0
JungKimNow, in the first sentence, does she really need "be" at the end
Yes. 'Be' there means 'exist unimpeded with his natural personality'.
0
0
Remember that we can classify verbs as copulative (those that link the subject to a complement) and non-copulative verbs (those that carry action). The verb of existence, "to be," is copulative. In the sentence "I just love watching him be," the speaker is emphasizing that the object of her affection has no need to take any action, or indeed to do anything at all to retain that affection. All h
0
0
deadratRemember that we can classify verbs as copulative (those that link the subject to a complement) and non-copulative verbs (those that carry action). The verb of existence, "to be," is copulative. In the sentence "I just love watching him be," the speaker is emphasizing that the object of her affection has no need to take any action, or indeed to do anything at all t
0
0
JungKimIf she said "I just love watching him" without "be" at the end, wouldn't that imply as well that all he has to do is exist?
No, not at all—it means she likes this activity.
JungKim mean, if he doesn't exist, how can she do the action of "watching him" in the first place?
This is an idiom; it is not subject to logic.
0
0
I don't know about this being an idiom.
But even though it is, I'd like to "understand" it before I feel comfortable calling it an idiom.
And a little logic is all I have to do the understanding part.

To further my understanding of the subject matter, let me rephrase the question as follows.

Let's say, the female character actually used the version without "be" in the mo
0
0
JungKimWould that have been sound in any way unnatural, awkward to those who went to see this movie?
No.
JungKimOR would that have meant something entirely different to them?
Yes.
0
0
The emphasis makes the contrast not between watching him exist or watching him not exist. (What would the latter even mean? Watching his corpse?) The contrast is between watching him doing nothing (i.e., just existing) and watching him engaging in some activity.
0
0
deadratThe contrast is between watching him doing nothing (i.e., just existing) and watching him engaging in some activity.
Do you mean that the former is "watching him be." and that the latter "watching him."?
0
0
JungKimDo you mean that the former is "watching him be." and that the latter "watching him."?
That's what he means.
0
0
When you say 'I just love watching him', how does that mean 'I just love watching him engaging in some activity'??

I don't know but when "I" say "I just love watching him", all I mean is that I just love watching him and not that I just love watching him doing any activity and such.

What am I missing here??
0

Related Questions