Maarten wrote:
>In elementary school, Dutch children learn the nine copula verbs of the
>dutch language.Some of them are archaic, but they all express some form of
>equality between the two subjects. In Dutch, they are:
>
>-zijn (to be)
>-worden (to become, i.e. to be in the future)
>-blijven (to remain, i.e. to be now and in the future)
>-blijken (turn out to be, i.e. two things were alreayd the same, but it
only
>shows now)
>-lijken (seem to be, the facts seem to indicate that two things are equal)
>-schijnen (seem to be, the rest of the world seems to think the things are
>equal)
>
>More archaic forms:
>
>-heten (are said to be, the rest of the world says the two things are
equal)
>-dunken (are thought to be, the speaker has concluded the two things are
>equal, usually also with a direct object)
>-voorkomen (seem to be, the appearance suggests that the two things are
>equal)
A very useful list, and kudos to the Dutch language for making all these
useful distinctions. In my reading (19th and early 20th C Indonesianists) I
think I've encountered all but heten and dunken. Perhaps that's why Kash
has many of the same as distinct lexical items-- though all the "seem" words
are conflated into one form. (so far).
Thinking about Span. ser/estar-- I suspect it's impossible to use estar with
a noun complement. Any counterexamples? (And I've always wondered why
Span. has no simple way to say 'become'.....)