Should the sign of denial be attached to the copula?

The copula expresses the relation between the subject and the predicate term. In this context, two questions can be raised relating the notion of copula, viz. (i) what would be the form of copula? (ii) Should the sign of denial be attached to the copula?

Of course, the copula of a proposition, being different from the subject as well as the predicate, is expressed by the verb of the sentence. Thus, the verb takes the burden of expressing the notion of copula. But in general, it cannot be said that the copula is just the verb of the sentence. Because, there are sentences where the same word acts both as a verb as well as the predicate. For example, consider the proposition ‘Ram eats’. Here ‘Ram’ is the subject but the predicate of this sentence has merged with the copula in such a way that we cannot identify the copula of the proposition.

Thus, we have to be clear about the form of the verb expressing the copula. On the other hand, if we allow the merger of the copula with the predicate, i.e. if we say the word ‘eats’ in the proposition “Ram eats” is both the predicate and also the copulas then we are actually assigning a function to the copula for which it is not capable of.

The verbs such as -Ugh’, ‘walk’, ‘eat’, ‘drink’, ‘run’ etc describe some activity of the subject and thereby convey me information about the subject. For this reason such verbs satisfy the definition of predicate (predicate gives the information about the subject) but they cannot act as a copula. Because the only function of the copula is to express the relation between subject and predicate, it should not convey any information regarding the subject. So, the idea of merging the copula with the predicate is inconsistent with the role of copula in a proposition.

Thus, it is necessary to separate the copula from the predicate and at the same time, the copula should be capable of expressing the relation between subject and predicate in a proposition. To achieve this purpose, the verb ‘to be’ alone is capable.

Therefore, the copula of a proposition must be expressed by the verb ‘to be’. Further, there can be questions with respect to the tense of the copula. What would be the tense of the copula? Regarding this, it may be said that the copula must be always in present tense because of the following reason. As we know, the copula unites (or expresses the relation between) subject and predicate.

The copula, being the particle to express a relation between subject and predicate term in a proposition, must be in the present tense. Otherwise, it is impossible to assert the existence of a relation between subject and predicate. Because, for any subject term ‘S’ and any predicate term ‘P’, if S was P (i.e. assuming the copula in past tense), one has to presuppose that ‘S’ and ‘P’ were related in past but at present the relation between them may be absent. Hence, the copula cannot be in past tense.

By use of an analogous reasoning, it can also be shown that copula cannot be in future tense. So, the copula must be in present tense, otherwise lie assertion or denial of a relation would be impossible. Thus, the copula of a proposition admits the present tense of the verb ‘to be’.

As to the second question (should the sign of denial be attach to the copula?) our answer would be “yes”. The sign of negation will be a part of the copula. The reasons for this are as follows. Given any proposition, either the predicate is affirmed of the subject (as in case of “Ram is honest”) or it is denied of the subject (as in case of “Ram is not honest”).

The former yields an affirmative proposition, whereas the latter yields a negative proposition. In case of a negative proposition our problem is to decide whether we should attach the sign of negation to the copula or to the predicate. For example, how are we to form the negation of the proposition ‘Ram is honest’? Should we say “Ram is not honest” or “Ram is not-honest”? If we say the particle ‘not’ should be attached to the predicate and not to the copula then we are presupposing that copula must always be in affirmative. This means there can’t be any negative relation possible between the subject and predicate.

In other words, there cannot be any negative proposition to be found in our language. This implies that all propositions are affirmative. This is clearly false. Hence, be attaching the sign of negation to the copula, we are accepting the existence of negative relation.

Further, copula only being a particle for expressing the relation between subject and predicate term of a proposition, should express both affirmative and negative relation. For this, the sign of negation should be attached to the copula. Moreover, if we allow that the sign of negation to be attached to the predicate and not to the copula then we are really allowing the predicate to express the negative relation for which predicates are unfit.

From these considerations we follow the convention that the copula will admit only present tense of the verb ‘to be’ and the sign of negation will be attached to the copula and not to the predicate. Hence, the form of the copula would be either ‘am’ or ‘am not’, ‘is’ or ‘is not’, or ‘are’ or ‘are not’ and nothing else.