> > 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.
>
> I think the verb "to be" is irregular in a lot of languages, mainly because it relates to the somewhat philosophical concept of existence. I know four languages, and it's irregular in all of them. In one (Portuguese), there are two forms (ser, estar) depending on whether the "being" is transient or inherent/permanent. In another (Hebrew), there is no present tense at all except in the imperative. The phrase "I am smart" would translate to the words "I" and "smart", with nothing in between.

It is very close to being regular in Finnish. In fact to be regular it would only need standard instead of contracted spellings of some person forms.

Finnish: minä olen, sinä olet, hän on, me olemme, te olette, he ovat
English: I am, you are, he/she is, we are, you (plural) are, they are
To be regular, the Finnish line would have to read:
Finnish: minä olen, sinä olet, hän olee, me olemme, te olette, he olevat
Also the infinitive "olla" would have to be changed, most likely to "olea" or "oleta".