static question

JG> In some contexts, I've seen stative verbs defined, for English at least, as
JG> verbs that don't take progressive, like "know."

JG> In other contexts, I've seen stative verbs defined as verbs that do the work
JG> of predicate adjectives, obviating the copula.   ("It reds." instead of "It
JG> is red.")

JG> Why are both sorts of verbs called "stative"?

JG> Jim G.

to recitate rick morneau:

{ Verbs which describe
  an unchanging or static situation are often called _stative_ verbs (do
  not confuse "stative" verbs with "state" verbs).  Verbs which describe a
  changing or dynamic situation are often called either _process_ or
  _accomplishment_ verbs.  Because linguists do not agree on the precise
  meanings of these terms, I will immediately abandon them and use the
  more generic expressions "static state verbs" and "dynamic state verbs". }

 strictly          there is no clear border between "static verbs" or "dynamic verbs".
                   they are "relativistic static verbs" and "relativistic dynamic verbs".
 simplicistically  there are only 2 static verbs in english : "to be" and "to have",
                   and each other verb thats has a static character is
 a verb with the semantic root of "to have" or "to be" in it: like "to know =
mentally-have information".
 theoretically even these verbs can take a progressive : like "im going to
know", its just unusal.
 practically       the static aspect is applyable to all verbs, but "to be" and "to have"
                   are almost everytime used with this "relativistic static character".

regards,
c.s.