Print

Print


H. S. Teoh wrote:

>On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 08:22:57PM -0500, DOUGLAS KOLLER wrote:
> > From: "H. S. Teoh"
>[snip]
> > > But why can't "le" be a particle that can be used with more than one
> class
> > > of words?
> >
> > Because it's a verbal particle.
>
>What makes it a verbal particle? Because it's used with verbs? But then
>it's also used with adjectives. So in itself, it seems to be insufficient
>basis for saying that adjectives are stative verbs. (Of course, neither is
>it against the stative verbs theory, so it doesn't really say much.)

You are absolutely correct. However, this does show that "adjectives"
pattern with verbs rather than with nouns. This doesn't necessarily mean
that adjectives are verbs, but they are closer to verbs than they are to
nouns. By calling them stative verbs, we are not necessarily placing them
in the same category as active verbs, but we are indicating
terminologically that they will behave like a verb in many (most?)
respects. They should be able to be modified by tense/aspect markers and be
the main predicate of a sentence. I don't know what else they do in
Chinese. Calling them a stative verb does not mean they will be identical
in behavior to active verbs -- in fact, if they were identical, we would
have to distinguish between stative and active.




===============================
Marcus Smith
AIM:  Anaakoot
"When you lose a language, it's like
dropping a bomb on a museum."
   -- Kenneth Hale
===============================