4

On Russian Language and Usage SE someone asked if speaking Russian is enough for travelling to Georgia, and I answered

I do not speak Georgian, so I used only Russian in Georgia, and I was fine. So will you.

Does this sound OK? "So will you be" sounds even more awkward.

I can't quite understand what the main problem is: the elision of the main verb in future when it was last used in the past, or the fact that it's to be, or the fact that the verb is to be fine and eliding both be and fine makes it awkward.

So, my questions are: Is the example sentence grammatical? Is it idiomatic? If not, what makes it wrong/awkward?

2
  • 1
    To suit my "ear", I'd say "I was fine and you'll be too". That is also weird but idiomatic (in AmEng). Commented Oct 14, 2013 at 22:32
  • 1
    "So will you." would normally be read as "You too will use only Russian" not "You too will be fine". The reader can work out what you meant, but why cause confusion unnecessarily? Commented Oct 14, 2013 at 22:39

1 Answer 1

5

In your example, the word ‘so’ is, despite having been moved to the head of the clause, the subject predicate in the clause. It stands in for ‘fine’—in a way, the sentence is really, “fine will you [be]” (thus speaketh Yoda).

The underlying issue here is that there is a difference between how you can elide the copula (the verb ‘to be’) and all other verbs when you have two clauses where the verb from the first is repeated in the second.

When you elide the verb, what you actually do is replace it with either a dummy verb (‘to do’ in English), a modal verb, or an auxiliary verb. The main verb is removed, and only the dummy/modal/auxiliary is retained. (The version with a dummy verb is not possible with the copula, modal verbs, and auxiliary verbs themselves, they have to be repeated.)

With active verbs, even if the constructions in the first and second clauses are different (and use different forms of the main verb), you can still elide the main verb from the second clause and have only the dummy, modal, or auxiliary verb left in its place, carrying all information about what from the main verb would be in if it were present. So you can say both, “I kicked the ball, and so did he” (replacing with dummy verb), “I have kicked the ball, and so has he” (auxiliary only), “I can kick the ball, and so can he” (modal only), but you can also mix between these three types: “I kicked the ball, and so can you” (‘kicked’ is simple past tense, but if unelided, the second clause would have ‘can kick’ with the main verb in the infinitive—but you can still elide it).

This latter bit is not possible with the copula verb ‘to be’: you have to have parallel forms in the elided and non-elided parts. If you have a past tense ‘was’ in the first clause, for example, you cannot in the second clause have a future tense ‘will be’ and then still elide the main verb, leaving only ‘will’ behind. Only if the main verb (‘to be’) is in the same form in both clauses can it be elided: “I have been a student for five years, and so have you” (have been + have been); “I could be strict with him sometimes, and now so must you” (could be + must be—different modals, but both modals that take an infinitive of the verb); but not “I have been strict with him, *and now so must you” (have been + must be—mismatch, does not work).

Therefore, in your example, since you have a past tense copula in the first clause, but a future tense copula in the second clause, you have to retain the entire copula in there:

I was fine. So will you be.

8
  • 1
    In partial response to your comment on my answer: Despite writing and speaking English for over 60 years - much of it for legal purposes - and understanding the basics of grammar, etc., I do not understand your answer at all. It is far too technical. You lost me at "despite being fronted" - I don't even understand that! And I suspect that a person asking this type of question may well also not understand it.
    – TrevorD
    Commented Oct 14, 2013 at 22:57
  • Some parts of it were also plain wrong (and/or irrelevant). I've rewritten quite a bit of it now, and I think it reads easier as well to non-linguists (please let me know if this is not the case). Commented Oct 14, 2013 at 22:58
  • Gettin' there, but 1) It's not just parallel wills that license BE elision: "I have been sick, and so has he", "I may be wrong, and so may you". 2) Your repeated allusion to BE as "the copula" suggests that it is the only copula (which many would dispute) and that it receives this special treatment because it is a copula (for which I would like to see some argument). Commented Oct 15, 2013 at 0:12
  • @StoneyB, 1) What I meant was that you need parallel _constructions_—but I see how the phrasing is a bit awkward. I’ll edit that. 2) The copula ‘to be’ is really different from other linking verbs and non-modal, non-dummy, non-auxiliary verbs here. “I felt sad at the end of the movie, and so will you” works fine (even though ‘felt’ here is a linking verb), but “I was sad at the end, and so will you” does not. It only works with parallel constructions with ‘to be’. Commented Oct 15, 2013 at 0:27
  • I agree; but I suspect BE is different not because it's a copula (become doesn't behave this way) but because its auxiliary function 'infects' the copular use, just as it does in questions and negations--note that HAVE, too, acts (or used to act) like an auxiliary in questions and negations. On the other hand, the auxiliary function of BE derives from its copular function . . . Commented Oct 15, 2013 at 0:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .