Why cannot existence--"to be"--alone suffice as a sentence predicate? I find it logical enough.

When it is used it is generally with an implied predicate, e.g.:



Logical it might be but all by itself it seems a little bare and doesn't satisfy the demands of the Ding-an-sich English as opposed to the English imagined by those who would veto the common use if it doesn't match their idealized image of what it should be..

What about something like, "Mankind's purpose is to be (live/exist)"?

Because people nowadays refuse to be succinct like Descartes with his cogito ergo sum - or by the way, Shakespeare's to be or not to be..

Even there, to be is acting as the predicate of the is.

Given the context, this is not a simple "I am." It fits more in the category of my original comment as a statement with an implied predicate. Given Chesterton's wit it can also be seen as a reference to the standard form of the letter sign-off, e.g.,

I remain,
Sincerely yours

Faldage of Fong

Faldage, I disagree.

In the first case, "I am." has the implied predicate "going to park with you."

In the GKC case, "I am" is short for "I exist." Of course he's saying more than that. Seems clear he was commenting on the experiences of alienation, subjugation, and depersonalization induced by the industrial revolution - the same experiences that provoked the dystopic "Metropolis."

"I AM!" or "I EXIST!" or "*I* exist!" "I am a person, dammit, an individual - not an automaton, not a group of holes punched on a Hollerith card, or a cog in the grand machine, but a human being!"

In this case, I see the implied paragraph, but I don't see the implied predicate.

It fits more in the category of my original comment as a statement with an implied predicate. Sorry, but I think you are way out on a limb this time

In response to what's wrong with the world, he declares he exists? That doesn't follow either his sense of humor or logic. I've always read that as a response--What's wrong with the world? I am. Similar to saying "I'm the guy/gal your mother warned you about." That's more in keeping with his wry wit.

I'll buy that.

I'm with Maven on that one.

I agree: I am [what's wrong with the world].

Which is basically what I was saying.

Okay, I got two more.

1. One of the thousands of names with which Kabbalists refer to God is the "I Am", or the Great, "I Am that I Am" (granted, this is a noun phrase, however...)

2. A conceptual artist in the 1970s (whose name eludes me) was known for his producing various sculptures of the three letters I AM. This was what art for him was... a primitive, primordial affirmation of existence.

I'm not saying that there aren't times when the simple <subj> <verb to be> is used. It's just got to be a very special case. The standard way of handling the situation is with a <there> <to be> <noun phrase> construction. E.g., "There was a Charles Darwin."

This thread, doc, is better described as Much Ado About Nothing.

What is a predicate? A "predicate" is a word construction that aids in understanding syntax. Period. End-of-story. Finis.

What? You all think otherwize?

Well, that certainly narrows it down.

How snide. Answer the point!

Do you really think that there is a silly-butt "predicate" that somehow determines how we should speak so as to more accurately transmit information about our doings within our environment?

Well then! I have four acres of mountainside to sell where you can build a nice swanp and then collect lots and lots of wetland money from your yippie-dippie-hippie Government.

Strange days indeed.

Colin Mcahon? Also a painter. A kiwi bloke.

Period. End-of-story. Finis.

Typical of the authoritarian character: he thinks he can put an end to things

There was a point there?