Biblical Hebrew Forum

["stoneyb" <stoneyb AT touchwood.net>]

>> Norlander *** states that "have"-as an isolated verb nucleus-is
ALWAYS a stative verb". Interestingly, according to the linguist
Norlander, the stative property of "have" is uncancellable, since it
"always" holds. 

Perhaps my linguistic background is inadequate to grasp correctly the
distinction drawn here between "static" and "dynamic" - but I invite Mr.
Norlander to have a drink and reconsider his position.

>> "They overlook the fact that the verbal situation "have dinner" is a
state situation because of the fact that we cannot discern any different
phases in this situation. Either you are in a state of having dinner or
you are not. 

This is simply quibbling. You might just as relevantly argue that
"Either you are in a state of changing or not". "Have dinner" means
"dine", not "be in a state of dining." English maintains a very clear
and unambiguous marker of the static/dynamic distinction: if it's
stative the '[BE} Ving' is supererogatory and prohibited. You may NOT
say "I am having a thousand dollars"; you MAY say "I am having dinner".

The real linguistic question here, of course, is whether these two
"haves" are the "same", or whether either is the "same" as the "have"s
which are used as auxiliaries: in, for instance, the prohibited "I am
having dined today" and the permitted "I am having a thousand dollars
laundered."

Stoney Breyer
Writer/Touchwood, Inc.