On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:26:47 +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Well, I always suspected that linguists who use "stative verbs" do it
because they are reluctant to give words that are adjectives in their native
languages full verb-hood. Or that they are motivated by some theoretical
project or other to have semantically motivated morpho-syntactic categories.
But it would be interesting to hear of examples where the category of
"stative verbs" is really grammatically relevant.

AIUI it's entirely commonplace for the subclasses of stative and active
verbs to have different behaviour with respect to TAM, aspect especially, in
any given language.  A few examples from DNS Bhat's _The prominence of
tense, aspect, and mode_:
* in many langs, stative verbs when used in the perfective have change of
state readings;
* in some tense-prominent languages, unmarked event verbs are past and
unmarked stative verbs are present;
* in the langs that have it, progressive = dynamic imperfective is generally
incompatible with stative verbs.  This one we can see in English: things
like *"I'm knowing what you mean", *"you're having ten fingers" aren't
felicitous (and things like "he's being stupid" mean more like 'he's
_acting_ stupid').

Wikipedia mentions a few more distributional properties of English statives: