double post
Yes, in none of your cases can “is” be the “is” of existence. I agree. And also, in the sentence, “The apple is no longer in existence”. (No longer exists).
Though I should have added that i disagree with the positivists. I just think replacing their always with your always is not the solution. I think is varies.
An apple is needed a needed apple is
well, maybe not. Some people starve.
a report is forthcoming a forthcoming report is
A case could be made that adjectives that indicate negation, possiblity, the past, the future
are exceptions to your rule.
I will see if I can find others.
Wo-wo-wo there…no…they are not.
You cannot attempt to apply Latin grammar on English.
English is not NEARLY as articulate in grammatical structure as Latin nor does it use possessives the same way as Latin.
In English, what I wrote above stands as what is understood out of those sentences.
But the Logical Positivists never said what he claims they said. They recognized that there were two other senses of “is” other than the “is” of predication.
All participles are adjectives (though not all adjectives are participles).
I do not deny that nuances in meaning can be expressed by changing the word order. But this has only to do with emphasis. The statement “the Romans have the burned city” says everything: whether what strikes the listener is that the Romans have it, or that they have it, or that it’s burned, or that they have the city does not change the statement as a whole (e.g., even if it’s only the fact of the burned city that concerns the listener, it’s still possessed by the Romans, not abandoned by the Romans or possessed by the Franks).
Exactly: and as I said, it’s due to the fact that you’re not used to the use of “to be” in that sense.
Yes. Three times three is equal to nine, but not identical to it (the former is nine in three parts; the latter, nine whole).
I’m saying those three senses are at bottom one and the same.
The gone apple exists.
The imaginary apple exists.
The destroyed apple exists.
Sounds mad, eh? How about this:
The apple is non-existent.
The non-existent apple exists.
Yes, the non-existent apple exists. Here the contradiction is wholly explicit. And contradiction is illogical (it breaks the law of non-contradiction). But this is not an argument against my thesis, but against grammar…
How can you say the apple is destroyed? Destroyed apples don’t exist. That is to say, when it is destroyed, it is no longer an apple. But our grammar preserves the “soul” of the apple (the apple-in-itself, without any of the properties that constitute an apple).
The molten ice…
No; see my previous post (counting back from this one). “The forthcoming report exists” is again a case of soul-atomism: the report-in-itself already exists when the full report (possessing all the properties that constitute it) is yet forthcoming. Or, put differently, the Idea of the report always exists, both before the report is made and after it has been destroyed…
“The old lady assaulted the pervert.”
This is a homonymous sentence. In Modern English, the word order suggests that the pervert is the object, but the content suggests the converse.
However, the above could really be one of two (if not more) different sentences. In one, “the old lady” is the subject and “the pervert” the object; in another, vice versa. In Latin, they would look different due to different cases. Even though English has dropped its cases, the grammar is the same: what is the object in Latin is also the object in English. It’s basically the same grammar.
You mean, “what Wikipedia claims some of them said”?
You can try as hard as you want man…English simply does not work under the rules that you are trying to think in.
Common sentence structures in English work according to adopted inferred possessives and subjects.
That’s kind of why we have pronouns everywhere in common sentences.
English is a lazy, lazy language.
If you want a more literal language, use German.
I do use German; but this is an English-language forum.
The examples I’ve used do not feature pronouns (except “to” in “equal to”, but that’s not relevant to the example).
Being too lazy to comply with rules does not mean they don’t apply.
Well, the difference between an adjective and a participle is still functional to the meaning, whatever the broader philosophical point you’re trying to make; the difference between them is down to the structure of the sentence. And as I said, the sentence “the Romans have burned the city” does not imply the Romans to be in possession of said city, as you seem to be suggesting. You can make a case that the meanings we make are derived from a more basic grammatical structure, and I’d be with you there, but I don’t see why every sentence needs to be revised in this way.
Est-ce qu’il ya quelqu’un qui veut parler français avec moi maintenant?
Vous voulez parler le français pourquoi? Vous parlez l’anglais comme-même… Et c’est bien off-topic ici 
. A moins que c’est pour montrer quelque chose avec le verbe être .
炸薯條是好用番茄醬和漢堡
i have no idea what this means. anyone?
Umm…no.
English applies to it’s LAZY rules.
You just don’t like English’s lazy rules.
Let me try again…
I understand where you are coming from, but you are mistaken in what you are attempting to use as a base for examining your issue.
Every sentence that you have proposed is informal English and not formal English.
In formal English, you would not write, “The apple is red.”
Instead, you would write, “The color of the apple is red.”
This means the ownership of “red” is “color” and the owner of the “color” is the “apple”.
Red is not Apple.
Apple is not Red.
That is a false statement in English because stating that means that Red is always Apple and Apple is always Red.
Which isn’t true.
I don’t buy an Apple Car; I buy a Red Car.
You are looking at only the informal.
This would be like examining the properties of ownership from the urban slang syntax, “The apple be red.”
This isn’t formal English…this is what has occurred out of constant use and adaptation; it, however, is not what is taught as the formal method of writing as it is completely unclear as to the what is what in the sentence structure according to the semantics of grammar.
So too is the sentence, “The apple is red.”
The apple is red?
No it isn’t…red is red, and apples are apples.
The apple has a coloring of red.
The coloring of the apple is red.
The pigmentation of the apple, under standard flat Earth lighting, is within the scientific measurements of the radiant energy wavelengths around the ranges of six hundred thirty to seven hundred fifty nanometers.
Would it be easier if I wrote that again without using the word, “is”?
The pigmentation of the apple, under standard flat Earth lighting, can be classified as observable within the scientific measurements of the radiant energy wavelengths around the ranges of six hundred thirty to seven hundred fifty nanometers.
Or…the apple is red.