tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 31 02:35:40 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Stative verbs (was something else)
- From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
- Subject: Stative verbs (was something else)
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:22:38 -0800
- Organization: Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science
David Trimboli wrote:
> jatlh 'Iwvan:
> > David Trimboli wrote:
> > > As I have pointed out, {wew} means "glow," not "be glowing,"
> >
> > What is the difference?
>
> One is in TKD. The other is not.
I meant the semantic difference. By saying that something means
`glow' but not `be glowing' you imply that `glow' and `be glowing'
mean different things. But I fail to see any difference between
__Stars glow in the sky_ and _Stars are glowing in the sky_, or
_Her eyes glow with indignation_ and _Her eyes are glowing with
indignation_. So I wondered whether you did (I presume you are
a native English speaker; I am not). Now I am pretty sure that
you don't either, or else you would have pointed it out instead
of making that gratuitous remark about _tKD_.
> > Is there any reason to think that {wew} `glow' doesn't express a state?
>
> Yes. Because it expresses an action. Something glows when it emits
> photons which reach the eye.
The entry for _glow_ in New Webster's also contains such stative-looking
definitions as `be lustrously red or brilliant' and `be excessively hot',
but I take it that those are secondary meanings. But what about {boch}?
Does it not also denote emitting or reflecting light?
> Also, I cannot think of any verbs in Klingon which could work
> adjectivally, unless their TKD entry is preceded by "be."
How about the ones which indicate a physical position ({ba'}, {Qam},
{Qot}, {tor})? Their English glosses in _tKD_ don't contain _be_.
And then there's {wuQ}. And {taH}. I'm not going to claim that
they can be used adjectivally, but they are all pedigree stative
verbs. The rest follows from _tKD_ 4.4.
I'll grant the fact that the vast majority of stative verbs whose
glosses don't contain _be_ are transitive ({muS}, {par}, {rur}, {Sov},
{wuv} etc.), and although we're not told that transitive stative verbs
can't work adjectivally, that may cause syntactic complexities.
> Elsewhere, someone suggests {Qong} is also a state. I say there is
> a great deal of difference between "sleep" and "be asleep," and the
> difference is shown exactly here.
Where is it shown? _The New English-Russian Dictionary_ sitting on a
shelf just next to me glosses _sleep_ and _be asleep_ in the same way
(_spat'_). Whatever the difference is, it can hardly be that great.
`I saw you take his kiss! -- 'Tis true.
-- O modesty! -- 'Twas strictly kept:
He thought me asleep: at least, I knew
He thought I thought he thought I slept.'
This is Coventry KD Patmore (1823-1896), who obviously did not find
_slept_ considerably different in meaning from _was asleep_ or _was
sleeping_.
> Do you think {Qong} is stative?
Yes. As stative as {rop}, which also denotes a physiological condition,
and can also be translated with or without _be_, as in `ail' or `be ill'.
> How about {pum} "fall"?
No. _The tree fell at 3am_ and _The tree was falling at 3am_
mean different things. If a tree is falling, it hasn't fallen yet.
There are many other criteria which distinguish events from states.
> Can it mean "be falling"?
No. `The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action
is not completed and is not continuous' (_tKD:40).
> How about {Hegh}? {HoH}? {jach}?
Not those either.
> Why would Okrand forget just this one?
What did he forget? You seem to be assuming that he was consciously
adhering to a policy of using _be_ in the English glosses for all
stative verbs, but not for any others (and he was perhaps ambivalent
about those for which both _be_-glosses and _be_-less ones are given,
as {boch}, {SaH}, {'oy'} or {'uH}). I see that as a consequence
of the fact that in contemporary English intransitive states are
very frequently expressed by adjectives, not as evidence of any
design on MO's part.
--'Iwvan
--
"reH Sov yInej 'ej Dap yImuS, <dOstI bA mardom-e dAnA nEkO-st,
jagh val qaq law' jup QIp qaq puS" do^sman-e dAnA beh az nAdAn dOst>
(Sheikh Muslihuddin Abu Muhammad Abdullah Saadi Shirazi)
Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria <http://www.math.acad.bg/~iad/>
W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences