> > "Don't be". What a silly way of wishing something not to be. It is a contraction of "do not be", which implies that the opposite is "do be", as if being were something one does.
> > Previously I thought of this as natural English but now it's struck me as odd. Why can't it be "be not" or "ben't" or something?
>
> "Be not sad" is perfectly legitimate English, but it's archaic and sounds lofty and Shakespearean to modern ears. "Take not the low road." "Spurn not the compassion of others." A lot of costume dramas have dialogue written in this manner -- often for the worse, because the composition of the dialogue distracts from the meaning of it, but certainly a lot of classic English literature is packed with these kinds of constructs.
>
> In more modern English, the natural negative imperative of "to be" shifted along with all the other verbs. "Do not be sad," or "Don't be sad." "Do not take the low road." "Don't spurn the compassion of others." There's nothing special about "to be" here.

But the verb "to be" is still special. Otherwise people wouldn't ask "who are you?" but "who do you be?". It's strange how it can be special in one sort of sentence and not special in another.