Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 30/03/2007 20:41, David Kummerow wrote:
> ...
>
> Suppose an English teacher was up the front of class and she was getting 
> the students to think about the word "have". Supposed she asked "what do 
> you have?" The default construal of this would be that the question is 
> one of possession, either as in a) below as a question of owned 
> possessions or physical attributes as in b):
>
> a) I have a cat (= I own/possess a cat)
>
> b) I have a big nose (= I possess a big nose)
>
> Both are stative situations.
>
> The answer in a) can refer to possessions currently with them at their 
> desk or not (as in a) above where the cat is most likely at home, but 
> could be at school on a show-and-tell day):
>
> c) I have a blue pen
>
> Since our present discussion revolves around eating, here's another 
> possible answer to the question:
>
> d) I have a plate of dinner
>
> This can only be construed that a plate with the student's dinner is on 
> their desk or at least in their immediate vicinity at the moment of 
> speaking. Again, the construal is stative.
>
> However, suppose the teacher were to ask "What do you have at Maxim's?" 
> This could be answered in a few ways, for example:
>
> e) I have a large plate of chips
>
> Notice how the construal by the student is as a question asking about 
> what the student usually orders at Maxim's, ie it is a question as to 
> what they usually eat. ...

Indeed. And if the student said "I go to Maxim's for dinner every day" 
and the teacher's "What do you have?" was said in that context, then "I 
have a large plate of chips" would be a quite normal response, whereas 
any of (a) to (c) would be odd in that context. So it is clear that in 
the context of "I go to Maxim's for dinner every day" the default sense 
of "have", which is stative, has been cancelled, and an alternative 
dynamic sense is understood. So much for the stative property of "have" 
being uncancellable by context.

In passing I note that once again Rolf has withdrawn from the 
discussion. Could it be that he realises that he has misunderstood 
English "have" and the uncancellability of the stative property, but 
doesn't want to be forced to admit an error?

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