The point of Hegel's critique is that there is more to the word ‘is’ than predication: the copula contains the implication that it identifies subject and predicate, rather than merely asserting that the predicate belongs to the subject.
In such cases they fulfil the basic requirement of Syriac sentence structure (namely, that the predicate must be conjugated for person) twice: once within the copula , and once within the verb of existence.
The copula , is, serves to link the subject and predicate either as a form of classification or identification.
In Hungarian, the zero copula occurs only in the third person, and in AAVE it is not permitted in the first person singular.
For linguists it is now standard to think of indefinite descriptions following the copula as always being predicational, and it is a widespread belief that definite descriptions following the copula are often predicational.
AAVE is like Finnish in that it has a separate copular verb of negation meaning ‘not be’, pronounced ain't, and you need that here.
There are some cases where we can't tell whether there is a triple-re-ordering, fronting with subject-aux inversion, or just a strange copular order.
The verb be is known as a copular verb.
It can't be used on a non-verbal predicate (so in sentences like ‘The man is a teacher’ or ‘The woman is tall’ - there's no copular verb), but that's not a perfect argument.