“Be” as an action rather than a state

I’ve heard, on rare occasion, a subtle differentiation between be as a state (to passively embody) and be as an action (to actively embody). The latter form often occurs in parallel with do to add emphasis to the active nature of the verb.

• What do you do with all your money?

  • Be rich.

  • I be rich.

  • *I am rich.

• What does the Pope do?

  • Be Catholic.

  • He bes Catholic.

  • *He is Catholic.

• Does he always be idiotic like that?

  • Yes, he always does (be).

  • No, he doesn’t always (be).

  • *No, he isn’t always (idiotic like that).

Rhetorical questions demonstrate a similar, possibly related device:

• Why don’t you be sure first?

  • If I take the time to be sure, I’ll be too late.

It is not at all related to African-American Vernacular English and its use of be as a tense marker. It’s also not necessarily indicative of a habitual action (e.g., (will) be).

Is this standard? Moreover, is it predictable? Could it be a vestige of a distinction that used to be marked in English but has since been largely lost, or is it a wholly new development?

If you look at most of your examples you will find that they describe multiple instances of a state of affairs. This is signalled by adverbials like sometimes, often, etc., which suggests that this use of be is to indicate a habitual meaning of some kind.

However, regarding this example:

• He bes rich.

This sounds different; rather than indicating a habitual meaning, it seems to indicate an activity of living rich(ly), something like that. The presence of the inflection -s perhaps indicates this "activity-like state" meaning. By the way, the fact that the inflected form is regular (i.e., bes instead of is) suggests that the form is an innovation, since the general trend is for irregular forms to disappear over time, not appear. Also, my guess would be that Why don't you be sure? might be (very) loosely related.

I find this example quite interesting:

• Sometimes, he does be idiotic like that.

I would be willing to bet that whoever it was that said the example about would also say / find acceptable the one below, in which the negation clitic / suffic -n't appears on the dummy do verb:

• Sometimes, he don't be idiotic like that.

That person would probably find the question forms below quite natural, too:

• Do he sometimes be idiotic like that?

• What do he sometimes be like?

If indeed the dummy do is required, it would suggest that be plus adjective in these examples is being used as a single unit, a kind of adjectival-verb.

In any case, more examples would certainly help unravel the mystery.

I'm fairly sure it's not a vestige of any past distinction, and it's certainly not standard in Britain. I'm not convinced personally that your distinction actually exists, but as with any such usage, if enough people believe in it (and talk about it), it will become a new part of the language.