On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 08:48:26PM -0000, caeruleancentaur wrote:
> >"Stative" and "dynamic" are aspects of verbs.
> >>Not in the conventional sense of the word their [sic] not.
> I was not speaking in the conventional sense, whatever that may
> mean.  I was speaking in the linguistic sense.  I am not a
> professionaly trained linguist, but do have substantial background in
> the field.  I rely on the professionals to help me with definitions.
> David Crystal in "A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics" (p. 326)
> writes this about stative: "A term used in grammatical classification
> referring to one of two main aspectual categories of verb use, the
> other being dynamic."

I think the objection was to your use of the term "aspect", which has a
very specific meaning with regard to verbs.  I admit that I don't know what
your dictionary means by an "aspectual category", but "stative" and "dynamic"
are certainly not "aspects".  Aspect refers to the (in)completeness of
an action.

> Perhaps, in the future, I should quote my sources so as to have some
> credibility when I try to answer a question in the group.  No one
> else seems to have to do that, though.

And of course you don't have to do that, either.  But you do have to be
careful with the terminology you cite - there are lots of subtle
differences.  See the recent thread in which I discovered for the first
time that there is a difference between "rhoticization" and
"rhotacization", for instance.  So it's wisest not to do things like
shorten "aspectual category" to "aspect", since that may change the
meaning of the term (as it did in this case).

Above all, though, when corrected, you should not be offended or
insulted or feel the need to get defensive.  On this list, the criticism
is not meant to accomplish anything but teaching. So, speaking as
someone who's been on the reciving end of a lot of that teaching,
it's best to take it in stride.  :)