Re: Different types of roots; temporary/permanent stative verbs?

Hi, Eric

> Also, I was wondering how different natlangs handle the distinction in
> stative verbs or adjectives between conditions that are permanent and those
> that are temporary? I know of <ser> and <estar> in Spanish, but what other
> ways of dealing with them are there? (Conlang examples would be welcome
> too.)
>
I've always liked this separation - in my view, English uses "to be"
for too many different jobs!

> I'm also wondering about different ways of actually *defining* the
> difference -- how fleeting does something have to be to be "temporary," and
> how long-lived to be "permanent"? Of course, there can be some flexibility
> and irregularity -- in Spanish you say <estar muerto> as if the dead are
> only temporarily dead :)
>
In Gevey I (currently) have a number of verbs which do the work of
assigning attributes to objects. Examples:

   tuusrhe e zhi-sale, the dog is black (has black fur)
   tuusrhe seke zhi-sale, the dog is black (covered in soot, perhaps)
   tuusrhe beke zhi-sale, the dog remains black

where

*e* (to be) assigns an essential, unchanging attribute to an object,

*seke* (to be, become) assigns a developed attribute to the object,
and

*beke* (to be, remain) assigns a temporary attribute to the object

I like the system, but I think it can be improved.

> --
> Eric Christopherson / *Aiworegs Ghristobhorosyo
>
Rik

--
http://homepages.enterprise.net/rikroots/gevey/index.html
The Gevey Language Resource.