Re: Non-static verbs?

* H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...> [000816 21:37]:
> 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.
Heh, târuven is just about the opposite, unmarked verbs are in the
continous aspect, giving the feel that a sentence is a snapshot of a
situation. Changes of state are marked explicitly if it isn't one of
the few non-continous verbs.

> 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.
târuven has got this, sorta. No verb for have, a possessive/locative
construction is used instead.

sâes brenru "I.location car.at" or "The car is with me"

But since first person singular agentive is the default all over the
place, the proper way of saying it would be a standalone 'brenru'.

"Check" for zero-copula. Adjectives are really stative verbs, and one
might say that nouns are stative verbs too... they can all be marked for
time :) They all have the existence-bit of the copula built-in, but
not the comparison/identity/grouping-bits.

I haven't played much with Sil verbs, thus nothing fancy to report yet.


t.