“Be” as an action rather than a state?

Question

I’ve heard, on rare occasion, a subtle differentiation between *be* as a state (to passively embody) and *be* as an action (to actively embody). The latter form often occurs in parallel with *do* to add emphasis to the active nature of the verb. * What do you **do** with all your money? * **Be** rich. * I **be** rich. * \\*I **am** rich. * What does the Pope **do**? * **Be** Catholic. * He **bes** Catholic. * \\*He **is** Catholic. * **Does** he always **be** idiotic like that? * Yes, he always **does** (**be**). * No, he **doesn’t** always (**be**). * \\*No, he **isn’t** always (idiotic like that).Rhetorical questions demonstrate a similar, possibly related device: * Why **don’t** you **be** sure first? * If I take the time to **be** sure, I’ll be too late.It is not at all related to African-American Vernacular English and its use of *be* as a tense marker. It’s also not necessarily indicative of a habitual action (e.g., *(will) be*).Is this standard? Moreover, is it predictable? Could it be a vestige of a distinction that used to be marked in English but has since been largely lost, or is it a wholly new development?

Answer 1

”Be” is not quite like any other verb in English. It acts as both an auxiliary verb and a main verb, and as a main verb it can be stative, or, as you say, occasionally active in meaning. Your question seems to be more a semantic problem of the main verb “be” rather than a grammatical problem: It is about the stative meaning of “be” (“existing, appearing, seeming”), versus an active (“doing, behaving”) meaning of “be”. Santa at the mall might ask a child, “Have you been being good?” This is the active meaning of be. Santa could have asked the mother, “Is he a good boy?” This would be the stative meaning.