tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 31 08:17:48 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Stative verbs
[What's the difference between "glow" and "be glowing"?]
ja' 'Iwvan:
>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_.
I don't think there's necessarily a difference between the meanings
when presented in English, but I certainly make a distinction when
I'm considering the idea of a "verb expressing a quality or condition"
as TKD puts it. "Glow" is an action, not a quality. We toss the
term "stative" around here a bit loosely; real linguists already use
it for a specific meaning, which isn't quite what TKD is describing.
Perhaps we should start referring to "qualitive" verbs instead?
"Stars glow in the sky" asserts that glowing in the sky is something
stars *do*. "Stars are glowing in the sky" likely means that they
are in the process of performing that action. But if we consider the
"are glowing" to be a stative/qualitive concept, it can mean that the
stars have that quality.
>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_.
Does my distinction between "action" and "quality" make sense?
>...But what about {boch}?
>Does it not also denote emitting or reflecting light?
Personally, I don't think {boch} has anything to do with emitting light.
I prefer to use it to refer to a specular quality: smooth and mirrorlike
reflection.
>> 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.
Thus my suggestion that we either stop labeling Klingon verbs as "stative"
or explicitly recognize that we're not using the accepted linguistic term
quite right. {wuQ} expresses a state, but can do most (if not all) verbs
with an intransitive meaning. However, TKD's description does *not* deal
with states, but with qualities.
>> 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'.
But the Klingon verb {Qong} means "sleep", certainly as much an action
as "walk". Do you think {yIt} is stative? The answer to this question
will help a lot in determining exactly what you mean by "stative".
>> 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.
You're taking a very narrow definition of "fall" here, assuming that
it refers to the event of hitting the ground. Consider instead what
water in a river does as it reaches the edge of a cliff. I'm ready
to argue that "fall" can be as stative as "move", though there's not
a "qualitive" character to that state.
>> 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).
"Be falling" isn't completed. It also doesn't have to imply a
continuing action unless you insist that "fall" is an action.
How do you analyze the phrase "falling tree"? Does not "falling"
refer to a state here? This phrase would be exactly analogous to
using a Klingon stative/qualitive verb in an adjectival sense.
-- ghunchu'wI'