Poprawność zdania

Witam,

Nie rozumiem dlaczego to zdanie jest poprawne:

You are at a flower show.

a nie to

You are being at a flower show. - Present continous jak dla mnie ?

You are at a flower show. jest jak najbardziej poprawne

Tyle to ja wiem ale dlaczego zdanie You are being jest niepoprawne przecież to jest Present Continous.

Ja bym powiedział że (You) are being ... używamy w zdaniach z przymiotnikami, np
You are being stupid / polite / ridiculous etc.

tak własnie, w znaczeniu 'teraz zachowujesz się...'
w innych sytuacjach samo am/is/are

Ok dzięki

You are being stupid.
You are being fooled.
You are being in cahoots with fools.
You are being an ass.
The earth is being shaded by the clouds from the radiation coming from the sun.

So much for your adjective-only theory. You are an ass

No, you are. Guess why.

@Janski So much for your adjective-only theory. You are an ass
I've never said adjective-ONLY. Put your glasses on.

That's the inference that conversational implicature naturally coerces, especially as an answer to the question "why."

Asses abound around here, but I am not one of them. You have joined the club though.

You can say either, but each means different things. The explanation of the difference is quite complex.
The verb "be" is a stative verb. The present continuous verb form, a stativizer when deployed with a dynamic verb, cancels its stativizer's properties when coupled with a stative verb. As a matter of fact, it does the opposite to stative verbs.

"I am in love" means I am in a stable state of being in love. It is a known, well-established fact of life that people happen to be in love: it is part of our fundamental knowledge of the world. It is normal.

"I am being in love" means something else. It is perhaps unexpected, perhaps changeable, suddenly or unexpectedly felt by our senses, perceptual, phenomenal, or CONTINGENT. It contrasts well with "I am in love," which is STRUCTURAL (or normal, or fundamental to our understanding of the world structure around us).
That's the difference that the switch from the stative "I am..." to "I am being...." brings about.

You might say, for example, "All of a sudden, look! I am being in a flower shop! How come? Just a second ago, it was a shoe store!"

Have you ever considered that it may be you who is an ass and not the people who abound around here? Are you capable of self-reflection, not to say self-criticism? I doubt it as almost every of your posts here is an eruption of arrogance, belittling, vicious criticism and narcissistic manifestation of your linguistic knowledge posted with the purpose of presenting yourself as, or rather proving to yourself to be intellectually superior. You don’t come here to help anyone. Read this again:

Can you really not see how odious you are here?

But there is a hope for you. Well done here:

If you are going to reply, can you get to the point I made or you are going to play the language game as always?

"All of a sudden, look! I am being in a flower shop! How come? Just a second ago, it was a shoe store!"
I'd still use "I am in a flower shop" in this example.

If you are going to reply, can you get to the point I made or you are going to play the language game as always?

The language game is the only game played on this forum.

The more are read you, the more my take of the epistemic status of your mental powers slides down the cline from phenomenal and therefore contingent to structural. Regard this as an explanation of the difference between "you are being an ass" and "you are an ass."

slides down the cline good one ;-))

You could, if you took a breath to realize that the surroundings are epistemologically more structural than phenomenal. Stative verbs are naturally prone to chose the simple present over the present continuous.

Cline is a handy word. Look it up.

Cytat: Aaric
"All of a sudden, look! I am being in a flower shop! How come? Just a second ago, it was a shoe store!"
I'd still use "I am in a flower shop" in this example.

You could, if you took a breath to realize that the surroundings are epistemologically more structural than phenomenal. Stative verbs are naturally prone to chose the simple present over the present continuous.
I've simply stated my opinion. Have never implied you're wrong.
Resorting to name-calling and insults in order to make your case is a sign of despair. Seek help.

Cline is a handy word. Look it up. don't need to. Know it ;-))

It is only for you because this is the only game you can play. And you are trying to win gold in insults.

It is probably not narcissism after all but sadism that motivates you.

Dawno temu, jeden znany professor powiedzial nam 'never argue with a fool'. Lepiej jemu odpuscic zeby on pomyslal jaki to on jest 'bardzo madry' a ty bedziesz wiedzial swoje. To jest maxim ktory stosuje w zyciu.
Ktos kto atakuje Ciebie personally, juz dawno temu przegral ten argument.

Perhaps this means something else ,but I wonder if anyone would have said like that ..Let's just say : I'm in love, I was in love , I've been in love ( before ) ...the simplier something is ,the easier to comprehend and make out .

Mind that love itself is just a simple thing , and for goodness sake all attempts to make it more sophisticated and complex than it really is ?

>>>Mind that love itself is just a simple thing ...
Nie jest. Jak Wilde powiedzial... Everyone kills the thing he loves.

Famous Freddy sang once upon a time : 'Love Kills" I guess there must be something in it yet remaining actual today. I'd render that this way : it would have been the simpliest thing across the world had only girls not struggled to make it as complex as possible .

Either way ...if you trust in love too deep, mind that you will be found very soon on the way straight out to disaster with no views of turning back - someone has told me the line and I think that he was right . I've already worked it out of at least several times in total . Hence I stand a firm chance I would not be letting being fooled so easily. Terri

No, not the only one. Would you like to try falconry? analytical mechanics? I can do non-Newtonian, too. Logic? Hockey? Golf?

I am trying to show you the trivial and basic misconceptions that a learner of a foreign language like you may struggle with, you moron, free of charge to you, but at the expense of time and patience on my side.

The fools that abound on this forum are not those who ask questions, but those who pretend to know something and mislead and misinform. Do you need a list of those characters?

You are one of the characters.

Try to learn something on decency, ethics, and sociopathy.


Yes. Not only a list but your eloquent comments, too.

what you mean by that? Apart from anything else I don't think you would be able to cope with Quantum Mechanics' issues . I'd risk that You would not have unravelled eigenfunctions that belong to a quantum state under the particular boundary conditions given in advance. Mind that I have had to tackle with that sort of thing at times . It is not only a pure mathematics in itself ..it seems a struggle how to use of mathematics as far as I Am concerned :)