English Language & Usage Asked on July 23, 2021
Context: In technology, there is such a thing as a live video broadcast but I cannot seem to construct a sentence where “live” is the main verb. Consider this example. My colleague is going to be at a live video conference/presentation for work and shared a link for me to watch … as a live stream. So how can I construct this sentence?
So, you will be live? (As in you will be live this afternoon)?
But if we remove the aux-elements will be, is it somehow possible to say:
Will you live this afternoon with your colleague?
Now, “live” is obviously pronounced like in live event rather than the live in “I live with my parent”. But somehow we have no problem with will live being pronounced as that in live event in will be + live, but we do when it is acting as a main verb, our minds automatically pronounces it as the live in “I live here”.
This is possibly why:
Will you live this afternoon with your colleague? (video conference)
is only pseudo-acceptable. It makes your head scratch. It doesn’t seem impossible to be constructed by everyday laymen, but it sounds weird and the second meaning of “live” as in to reside or abode just doesn’t seem to work in this context but our mind automatically seems to think it’s that verb. My reason for it not being appropriate is that the future/request will you live seems to clash with the time reference this afternoon, when meaning to reside or abode, but we have no problem with “Will you live with your colleague” both in the sense of the meaning to abode and in the sense of live broadcasting.
Also, what is strange is I can also replace live with video conference such as in:
Will you video conference with your colleague?
There is also ambiguity with “video conference” is this a verb or a noun?
In the dictionary “video conference” is only a noun which I agree with but you can also add -ing to it and use it as a verb:
I am video conferencing my friend.
In this sense, is it then a verbal noun?
Will you video conference with your colleague?
This is an instance – a modern one – of verbing a noun, denominalization. It's entered the lexicon, whereas "live" as a verb in this sense hasn't. If it were to, it would derive from an adjective part of speech, the state of "being live".
As an alternative, in some contexts people have adopted the phrase "live streaming" or "to livestream". This does carry connotations of performance and broadcasting rather than conversation with the observer, of course. Stream has 13th century roots as a verb meaning "to flow copiously", so it's easily re-appropriated in contemporary communications when flowing ongoing data from one party to another.
In the dictionary “video conference” is only a noun which I agree with but you can also add -ing to it and use it as a verb
In your example, adding "am" + "-ing" is simply altering the declination from 2nd person to 1st person. It doesn't affect the part of speech compared to the first example.
Answered by FluffyFlareon on July 23, 2021
Live /laɪv/ is an adjective, not a verb, regardless of the tense of the sentence where it occurs.
So, you will be live?
This uses the be + adjective construction. You can't omit be any more than you can omit it before any other adjective. For example, we say "The moon is bright tonight", "The moon will be bright tonight", "Will the moon be bright tonight?", and we don't say *"The moon will bright tonight" or *"Will the moon bright tonight"?
"video conference" can be used as a verb. The usage might be recent enough to not be recorded in dictionaries. The compound nominal "video conferencing" might be older than the use of "video conference" as a verb, because nouns and adjectives tend to form compounds of this sort more easily than verbs in English.
Answered by herisson on July 23, 2021
Get help from others!
Recent Answers
Recent Questions
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP