4 ms·

Also interesting is that this distinction occurs in some dialects of English as well. In AAVE, this is the distinction between "Elmo is eating cookies." and "C

• zazen 10y ago
  The distinction between current and habitual actions also exists in standard English, of course: "Cookie monster eats cookies" vs "Elmo is eating cookies". I'm not sure whether this is quite the same as the distinction the comments you are replying to are talking about. They're talking about a less absolute way of using "is" to ascribe attributes, rather than actions. More like the distinction between "John is an angry man" and "John is angry right now".
  • jameshart 10y ago
    The thing is that 'to be' is a special verb in English, so the distinction between "John is being angry" and "John is angry" isn't there, and "John is angry" could mean either current or habitual anger. You can't argue that because a distinction exists for 'to eat' it also exists or is understood the same for 'to be'. English admits the sentence "Big bird does eat cookies" but not "John does be angry".
    • philipov 10y ago
      In the first case, I read both as temporary states, and the only way to express it as a habitual state would be to make a more complex construction such as 'John is an angry person.' As for the second case, I think the usual way to achieve that effect in English is to use a frequency qualifier, such as in "John is sometimes angry," to modify the transitory state into a habitual one.