Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 29/03/2007 14:26, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> Dear Bill,
>
> An important problem with much of this thread and the corresponding threads 
> is that
> some list-members without a linguistic background are not able to see the
> real issues; they bring "counter-examples" that miss the mark, since thay
> are not trained in ascertaining which parts of the clauses convey which
> meaning.
>
>   
I'm glad, Rolf, that your derogatory asides are now not being directed 
at me, because you obviously can't intend to include me among 
"list-members without a linguistic background".

> ...
>
> "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.
> It may be the case that "having dinner" involves a number of different
> courses, of changes of plates, etc., but this does not alter the fact that
> an analysis of "have dinner" should in fact yield the answer that here we
> have a stative verb, "have," in a state situation, "have dinner". ...

As Stoney has pointed out, this analysis only makes sense as special 
pleading in favour of a prejudged understanding of "have" as static. 
Presumably you would claim that "stand" is also a static verb, in fact 
probably your prototypical example of one, but you have already stated 
that "run" is not. So how would you interpret the fact that "stand for 
election" and "run for election" are almost synonymous (with the former 
more British, the latter more American)? In this situation how can you 
claim that "stand" retains its static character and "run" its dynamic one?

> ...
> By this is not to say that, in the framework of the present study, Krio verb
> R)N, which translates as "run" in English and "springa" in Swedish, would
> necessarily cover exactly the same semantic ground as its closest English
> and Swedish equivalents. The only claim it makes is that the basic,
> underlying CONCEPT "run", in whatever lexicalized guise it appears, will
> carry the same dynamicity value, cross-linguistically."
>
>   
This quote is much closer to the mark in identifying that static and 
dynamic are properties of underlying concepts, and not of the words used 
to express them. There is no reason why the same lexical word, such as 
"have", "stand" or "run", cannot be used to express both static and 
dynamic concepts, and indeed it is clear that this does happen, at least 
in English and very probably in other languages.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/