Dear Bill,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".
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.
...
"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". ...
...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.
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."
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.