Re: Dynamic vs. Stative Verbs

#1, or whatever your name is, I hope you read the rest of my suggestions. Of
course such a language does not have to be perfect. Perfect languages are dull.
I wrote:

>>
But the problem of course, along with the verbs, is that there is seldom a binary
relationship, as you can see with the first example given. However, it would be
interesting to have a *root word* that represents the stative concept from
which dynamic concepts are *derived,* and maybe *a grammar that would indicate
a passive or agentive difference between these categories.* Or an ergative
absolutive difference. Or a range of cases. And perhaps stative/dynamic verbs
that go along with these to describe being vs. motion and direction, movement
into or out of, up or down; nascent vs. matured or achieved, etc.
<<

By which I meant that subtleties in meaning could be conveyed through these
means, such that it would be easy to tell the difference between rain, river,
and flood. :)

I think the idea has promise.  Go for it.

Sally

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: # 1 
  To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU 
  Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:44 PM
  Subject: Re: Dynamic vs. Stative Verbs


  A distinction of the Dinamic/Static verbs extented to the nouns does not has to be perfect.

  If we have:

  Static         Dinamic

  water        Rain/river/flood

 It would be conceivable that the language could have the same word for river,
rain and flood that should be impossible to translate into one of the three but
only in "moving or falling water"