Let's consider French and German, for starters, these being the closest to english, and most familiar to english speakers. The distinctions between the copulative and "existential" functions are unclear, in all three. The verbs "to be", in english, "etre", in French, and "sein", in German, effectively serve the same copulative function of assigning properties to objects. We also have the "existential" words "exist", in english, "bestehe" in German and "existe" in French.

But when Descartes argues "I think therefore I am" he writes "je pense, donc je suis", using the first person singular of the verb "etre", the copulative verb. In english, this sentence could be translated either as "I think, therefore I am", the most common and literal translation, or "I think, therefore I exist", using the "existential" word. In German, the translation of Descartes is "ich denke, also bin ich" again, using the copulative verb.

Obviously, the copulative and existential functions are closely related, linguistically. Obviously, the copulative function is meaningful and useful, we must be able to assign properties to objects. But, is the existential one?

I would argue that the concept of "existence" is meaningless. It is attempting to turn a grammatical device, the copulative verb, into a real world object. Perhaps, ultimately, it is derived from the Torah, the old Testamest in Hebrew, in which "God" is represented by the first person singular of the verb "to be". Thus, the concept of existence is tied closely to the existence of God. But, I would be inclined to translate the "I am" of Jehovah by "I am the undefinable". Thus, the Torah is deliberately playing a linguistic trick, turning the copulative verb on its head. The intention is not to present "existence" as an actual thing, but to define something that cannot, in fact, be defined.

Jerry Kraus
jkraus_1...@yahoo.com