Talk:seem

I've just made some changes to lijken en uitzien, could someone look at my English translations? I don't know if there's any difference between "it seems like" and "seems as if" User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 09:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They look okay to me. The main difference between "it seems like" and "it seems as if" is that the former can take a verbal clause or a noun, while the latter requires a verbal clause: "it seems like he wants to visit", "it seems like gold"; but, "it seems as if he wants to visit". —Stephen 20:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand now, thank you :) User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 15:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing basic sense?

Using the "existential there", one can say e.g. "there seems no need to tell him". This doesn't quite seem to be covered by sense 1, which is more about one thing resembling another (along the lines of "the house seems large"). Equinox ◑ 00:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

OMG; for the first time in our short but bittersweet acquaintance Equinox and I seem to agree? But, I'll go a step further concerning sense 1 …

First, I'm confounded by the "copulative" POS. Does "copulative" have any more salience than copular verb or linking verb - neither of which I'm advocating but both of which tend to be more prevalent?

Second (along the lines of my dissatisfaction with the entire gist of what a copulative verb/copular verb/ linking verb thing is supposed to represent), substituting intransitive as a taxon for sense 1 exposes an anomalous application to an example such as "It seems like it is going to rain later." Consider the structure in, "It seems that it is going to rain later." I bet no one can point to a source that identifies "seem" as a transitive verb, but how else to deem it? Another example: In "You seem to be a nice bloke," we can't rightfully say that "seem" is copular. If so, look at what happens to the intended meaning when you substitute a different so-called copulative verb for "seem" in such an example.

I'm ready to field the linguistic onslaught against the idea that "seem" has a transitive (albeit ergative) aspect in a sentence such as "It seems that you're right" or "There seems to be no need to tell him" for which "It is that you're right" or "There is to be no need to tell him would not be fair cognates.

Yet, rest assured that I'm set to edit this article accordingly. It's not a matter of my not wanting to overturn the apple carts that feed staunch grammar traditionalists who, by-and-large, are content to accept the anomalies spawned by exceptions to long-standing meanings associated with certain taxons. Instead, this post is food for thought from someone who never outgrew his disruptive tendencies to question the legitimacy of taxons that populate the naive set of English language grammars. The full explanation is presented in my own axiomatic set of linguistic taxons.

--Kent Dominic (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

entailment: to seem to be dying

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, page 122, reads

He was dying is an implicature because of the possibility of cancellation, as in When I last saw him he was dying, but now you would hardly know he had been ill; other speakers might insist on he seemed to be dying or the like, and for them subsequent reaching of the terminal point has the strength of an entailment

Why does the verb seem changes the implicature of die into an entailment? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You can't "be dying" unless you actually do die. If it turns out that you live, then you were never dying, since death did not in fact occur. Seem gets around this because then you're only saying "it looks like he was dying". Equinox ◑ 14:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Old French influence?

I don't doubt that the verb as such is Germanic, but the original sense must have been "to be fitting" (as in beseem). For the sense "to appear" a semantic influence by the unrelated Old French sambler (Latin simulare) would suggest itself. Just an idea. 92.218.236.143 00:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternate non-standard simple past?

I am not sure if it is worthy of note, but I am from North Derbyshire, and I and a lot of people use the simple past 'semt' instead of seemed. I don't know if it is more widespread in England than this - I have heard a few others from up north and in Derbyshire also use this. Might anyone have any insight? — This unsigned comment was added by 199.255.141.10 (talk) at 09:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

to give the impression of existing; appear to be

There seems no need for all this nonsense --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

used to diminish the force of a following infinitive to be polite, more noncommittal, etc:

Used to call attention to one's impression or understanding about something, especially in weakening the force of a following infinitive: I can't seem to get the story straight. --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Usage note

If the adjective is non-gradable such as alone/alive, usually seem to be: ‘He seemed *(to be) alone’. If the noun phrase contains a determiner but not an adjective, you must use it, ‘He seemed to be the owner of the car’.

In conversation and in less formal writing, people often say ‘She seemed like/*as a nice person’. It seemed as though he needed help. --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)