Re: Dynamic vs. Stative Verbs

Hey, here's a thought for a conlang in respect to static and dynamic.
Seems to me that the static vs dynamic relationship simply rests on
the very linguistic edge of calculus.  Like, what we're calling
statics here is a description of state; dynamicism is the first
derivitve of some given state with respect to time.  A clever conlang
might extend the concept to deeper or even arbitrary derivatives.
This might lead to some interesting inflection in conjunction with
numeric affixes as were suggested on another thread.  Consider some
inflection schemes; stuff in parentheses represents a root or affix
with the given semantic.  Stuff in square brackets could be
superfluous:

Generally:
state, zeroth derivative, (root)-(static) or (root)-[dynamic]-[0]
change in state, first derivative, (root)-(dynamic)-[1]
change in change in state, second derivative, (root)-(dynamic)-[2]

be at: (be at)-(static), or (be at)-[dynamic]-[0]
move: (be at)-(dynamic)-[1]
accelerate: (be at)-(dynamic)-(2)

have money.
spend.
increase spending.

So, for some concrete examples, consider Andrew's (remind me if
someone earlier attested these) chemistry suffixes:

> 1 -al         4 -ite      7 -ian      T -den
> 2 -ic         5 -ive      8 -ant      E -ile
> 3 -ous        6 -ilar     9 -ine      0 -ium
Suppose that 'phu' were a root word meaning 'to stand still'.  Also
suppose that the affix 'd' implies dynamicism.

to stand still:  phu, phudium
to move: phud, or phudal
to accelerate: phudic

'phudous' might refer to the phenomenon that occurs when a rocket's
acceleration increases as it loses mass to fuel consumption.  Using an
antonym affix could add another 'dimension' to the language as well.

Kris.
--
(watch the reply to)

Reply