Re: Dynamic vs. Stative
- From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:26:52 GMT
Joachim Pense wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Dylan Sung wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44045BE7.1F0C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim wrote:
No doubt the majority of English verbs are dynamic (not stative) since
life is transitory and subject to change. But since everything is
becoming fast and short either in length or duration the number of
stative verbs is becoming even smaller. There are of course verbs
which have two different meanings and accordingly can be stative or
dynamic as with the two most central verbs "be" and "have". For
instance "have" with its stative meaning "possess" and its
dynamic sense "eat". But even some former pure stative verbs like
"hope" have acquired a dynamic sense and consequently can be used
in the continuous tense as well. Does this mean no exclusively
stative verbs can survive?
What are some "stative" (please learn to use linguistic terminology
correctly) verbs that have been lost from English?
Perhaps he means static as opposed to his dynamic, whatever that means...
Whatever he should have called it, I'm pretty sure it's an empty set.
But doesn't he explicitly claim that "hope" is an example? Or am I missing
something?
His claim was that the (whatever-they-ares) disappear from the language
-- don't "survive." He hasn't come up with an example of one that
didn't.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.
- References:
- Re: Dynamic vs. Stative
- From: Dylan Sung
- Re: Dynamic vs. Stative
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Dynamic vs. Stative
- From: Joachim Pense
- Re: Dynamic vs. Stative
- Prev by Date: calquing and concatenation Re: Concentration camp
- Next by Date: Re: Conjunctive Inversion
- Previous by thread: Re: Dynamic vs. Stative
- Next by thread: Re: Dynamic vs. Stative
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|