> > 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.
>
> ^v^:)^v^
> F"I smart"B

The most common or basic verbs tend to be irregular in a lot of languages, I've found. Be, have, go, do, give... frequently irregular. There's probably a really good reason for this, but I'm stumped as to what it might be. It is both nice and not-nice for the learner of the language, though... not-nice because you really have to learn the irregulars to be able to converse, and nice because they're used often enough to stick in the memory once learned.

Lire"I know about five languages a little bit"lyn