Copular verbs do not invoke this association. Indulgence in "isness" has a tendency to bring with it the consequence of a rigid and dogmatic representation of 'reality'. A tendency? Indulgence? And is it always 'rigid'? The fact that there are still people out there pushing (I almost said 'indulging') this e-prime bollocks is amazing. Doesn't matter that almost all the linguistics readers, writers, thinkers, and scholars have looked at it, and said bollocks. Doesn't matter that that it flies in the face of - well, almost all other philosophical, psychological, linguistics and deconstructionist analyses. It's as if the people who still want to push e-prime (for very dubious reasons, it seems to me) have never heard of Wittgenstein, never heard of Derrida, never heard of the social construction of language. And yet they still think there is something ground-breaking and useful in it! And they don't seem to have read the most recent Chomsky either. One of the things he says is that (I paraphrase) there may just be simple understandings - like when I say "I painted the house brown", you know I mean the outside. It may just be a given. Consider what one of these e-prime promoters would do to a grand little classic: Da Spring is sprung, Da grass is riz. I wonder where da boidies is? Da boidies is upon the wing - ain't that absoid? I thought da wings was on the boid? Now, e-prime pesterers, a small test: 1. When I say "the spring is sprung", do I mean it's permanent? Do I mean something has happened? Do I mean it's over? 2. "The grass is riz". Does that mean "is arisen"? "has arisen"? Is still in the state of having arisen? Indeed, is still rising? Is not the effing stuff still not growing, even before our very eyes? You and I must know that - and yet the word IS doesn't stop our knowing, does it? 3. "I wonder where da boidies is?" Well, if they ain't here, where IS they? Isness can be as temporary or as permanent AS THE CONTEXT MAKES CLEAR. You don't need to be pruning language - you need lessons as to what IS usually going on, and "in which context?". 4. "Da boidies is upon the wing" - What? No metaphors either? God, you e-primers are a dull, joyless bunch. 5. "Dats absoid". And yes, yes! Is it always absoid? In other words, is there no IS, nor even in your 'meta-language'? (You do beleive in a meta language, don't you?) 6. "Da wing is on da boid." Yes, and here, e-lie, whoever you are, can't give your own name - yes, IS is a copular verb. It is THE copluar verb. In this case, a copular verb with a complement of location. And the wings IS 'permanently' on the bird - until it dies, and decays, and falls apart, of course. Or else, like a stuffed, cooked chicken, we tear the wing off of it. Turkeys.