Print

Print


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).