Isn't there an ambiguity here, insofar "dynamic" can be understood both as: - the opposite of 'static' - the opposite of 'stative' For ex, here's what I found in my Dictionnaire de Linguistique Larousse: "statique: On donne le nom de 'statique' au terme accompli dans l'opposition aspectuelle définie par le couple 'e^tre' (accompli: statique) et 'devenir' (non-accompli: dynamique)" So AFAIU, the difference between "to be" and "to become" is qualified here as an aspectual opposition, "static # dynamic". The entry "statif" (stative) mentions that this term applies to verbs or adjectives referring to a duration, a permanent state. "'Grand' (tall) is a stative adjective, 'ivre' (drunk) is non-stative." AFAIK too, there are many different definitions for what is exactly aspect, and linguists may disagree with each other about that. --- Ray Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Friday, November 12, 2004, at 11:36 , Andrew > Patterson wrote: > > > Sounds like I've got to use my words more > carefully. There seems to be > > some > > confusion over what I meant by "not in the > conventional sense." > > I understood it to mean "not in the conventional > [linguistic] sense". I > would have thought that was clear enough from the > context. > ============================================================= > > On Friday, November 12, 2004, at 09:09 , Mark J. > Reed wrote: > > > 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. > > But "stative" and "dynamic" are simply _not_ aspects > in the conventional > *linguistic* sense. > > >> I am not a professionaly trained linguist, > > Nor am I. > > >> 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. > > Yep - and in fact under _aspect_ in the "A > Dictionary of Linguistics and > Phonetics" , David Crystal does not give either > 'stative' or 'dynamic' as > examples of 'aspect'. His definition is a little > verbose but conforms as > far as I can see with the conventional linguistic > use of the term. > > It would seem from reading the relevant entries in > Crystal's Dictionary > that he is saying that verbs can be categorized by > _syntactically_ > criteria as either dynamic or stative, and that this > categorization > determines (among other things) the aspects in which > we may expect a verb > to occur; for example a stative verb will not occur > with 'progressive' > aspect. > > >> 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. > > Eh? I do so quite frequently. If you look back in > the archives (or even > fairly recent mails) you will find I often quote > from Trask and/or Crystal. > I have certainly read other conlangers quoting > from Trask. > > > 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. > > This is very true. That is why I do often quote my > sources. > > > 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). > > Yes - it did. I have checked Trask also. He slightly > inconsistently refers > to "dynamic" as a 'superordinate aspectual label' > and to "stative" as a > 'superordinate aspectual category' :) > > But it is quite clear from his entries that such > superordinate aspectual > labels/categories are not the same as aspects > themselves. > > > 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 > > Yep. > > > 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. :) > > Indeed - I am indebted to some members (current & > not-current) on this > list for putting me right on several occasions over > the past few years. > > Ray > =============================================== > http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown > [log in to unmask] > =============================================== > Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic > twilight, > which is not so much a twilight of the gods > as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ] > ===== Philippe Caquant Ceterum censeo *vi* esse oblitterandum (Me).