Re: Non-static verbs?

At 3:34 pm -0400 16/8/00, 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.
AllNoun doesn't use verbs to describe state - but, then, AllNoun doesn't
use verbs, period.   So I guess that doesn't count   :)

>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",
That's not at all uncommon in natlangs.  Russian comes to mind immediately,
e.g.
 u   vas vodka?  = Have you got any vodka?
with you vodka?
----------------------------------------------------------------
At 7:43 pm -0400 16/8/00, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:53:15PM -0700, SMITH,MARCUS ANTHONY wrote:
[....]
>> I'm not sure how this system works for transitive states (like "hate",
>> "love", etc.).  How could you tell the difference between an adjectival
>> noun and a "stative verb" in these contexts?
>
>The short answer is, there is no difference between an adjectival noun and
>a stative verb. Something like "I hate her" would be translated to the
>equivalent of "she be in my hatred".
Reminds me a bit of the Gaelic:
Tha gradh  agam oirre    = I love her
Is  love  at-me on-her

Ray.




=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================