Re: Non-static verbs?

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, H. S. Teoh wrote:

> I'm just wondering if this occurs in any natlangs or any other conlangs:
>
> In my conlang, verbs are *never* used to describe state but specifically
> only for describing changes in state.
>
> For example, the sentence "I have a car" in the language will be
> translated to a noun-phrase -- there is no equivalent of the verb to-have
> because possession is regarded as static. Instead, the sentence will be
> translated to the equivalent of "There is a car in my possession", and the
> verb to-be is dropped because the language is zero-copula. The sentence "I
Korean does something like this.  "I have a car" is roughly:

Na nun cha isseo ("eo" transliterates the schwa sound, don't ask me why,
I just know it's standard in all the books, street signs and subway stops
I've seen)

Na = I
nun = particle? marking topic or subject, I'm not sure which (my formal
grammar is very weak, but it's probably equivalent to either Japanese ga
or wa)

cha = car (also means tea, leading to some bad puns)

isseo = from isda (?  pronounced idda, not sure how mutations are
transliterated offhand though) is something like "there exists"

So the sentence might translate as "As for me, there is/exists a car,"
meaning "I have a car."

'Course, in Korean you leave out the subject all the time in
conversation, so

Cha isda

could mean "I have a car, you have a car, s/he has a car, they have a
car, there is a car, a car exists...."

(OC Korean doesn't normally distinguish between plural/singular, and
doesn't have a "real" 3rd person pronoun--my dad mixes up "she" and "he"
sometimes in English, because there just isn't a distinction--but uses
demonstratives this, that and the-other-thing.  Which explains why when I
tried in the past to think of Korean for she, he or s/he, I always came
up blank.)

<wry g>

Hope that helps.

YHL