[hsteoh: Re: Non-static verbs?]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:15:06AM +0200, taliesin the storyteller wrote:
> * 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.
Interesting... from the POV of my conlang, that would mean you're using
nouns all the time (which is perfectly valid, in fact). :-)

[snip]
> "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.
[snip]

Interesting concept, that nouns are stative verbs. Tho my conlang takes
somewhat a different view: you have objects, and events, and
interrelationships between them. These correspond with nouns, verbs, and
"relatives", respectively. I don't know a better term for "relatives", so
I'm sticking with it for now. Quite often, noun/verb inflections are
enough, and relatives aren't always needed. Relatives are used mainly for
identifying subclauses and adjoining sentences.


T