B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

ducky wrote:All of these are stative

I don't really see how laughing or shouting is stative. Then again, the category of "stative" was always problematic for me.

"Learning" and "lying down" (even לשכב עם\את "having intercourse with") do not make sense as stative verbs to me.

Because they represent the state of the subject.
the position of the person's state is changed.

("having intercourse with" is a figurative. The state is lying).

*
A lot of the roots that are used commonly as an action, and also understood that way, are actually stative originally.

See for example root אהב=to love - it is not an act - but it is a state.
Also, the rood לבש=to wear is also not an act, but represenst the state of the man.

I guess that later on, happened two things:
1. the stative form (qatel and qatol) were used also as an action form (qatal) - and completely replaced.
2. the usage of the words in the context were used as an action and understood that way.

So a lot of times, it doesn't matter really, because there was a long time of evolution since the very ancient time. but for the talk about it - and especially when the form shows that, it is easy to see it.

I don't see how לשכוח can be any more of a state of mind than לזכור, yet the one is ישכח and the other is יזכור. They both just happen in the mind, like love and hate. I agree that I can see that לגדול can be seen as a state or change of state, but I just don't see how "stative" is very useful as far as terminology is concerned.

I'm not sure what extend ישכח and יכעס (for example) have the patach because of the gutturals or because they are stative verbs. It just seems sensible (in my opinion) to know that there are verbs that have an a-theme vowel and those (the majority) that have an o-theme vowel.

I mean אני אשלח מלאך לפניי is as transitive as אני אזרוק את אבן אל המים. Sending and throwing are neither one stative. They're essentially the same type of activity, although one is more directly physical.

I just have problems with the category of "stative." It might be a personal thing. I also have problems with the idea of cause and effect once you get beyond two direct causes.

Hi Jason,

Sometimes it is confusing.
and I don't say I am not confused by it too.

A lot of the stative meanings are actually action originally.
Also, a lot of the "what in the mind" verbs, also derived by a physical external act, only that when an abstract meaning was needed, the physical act naturally moved to described it.

And some of that abstract meaning turned into stative, as if they were reborn.
But some probably kept their own "action" form - even though they described something in the mind.

As for יזכר - I think (more than think) that it actually represents an action that oned to do the mean (in an abstract way) and with that, it described the abstract meaning of "remember". ( it is not so hard to realize the connection but it doesn't matter right now)

It could be the same way with שכח (I believe so) - and so, it is also not a real stative, and maybe the form of "yiqtal" is indeed only because of the guttural.
But also notice that it has a participle form of "qatel" next to "qotel"

***

I'm coming in late on this discussion, but I thought I'd share a hypothesis I've had for years. I haven't done any systematic research on it. It would be a nice PhD dissertation.

Could the "stative" actually be a marking for "intransitive"? I'm thinking specifically of the thematic root vowel...

Hmm. Intransitivity and stativeness do overlap

Kirk Lowery wrote:I'm coming in late on this discussion, but I thought I'd share a hypothesis I've had for years. I haven't done any systematic research on it. It would be a nice PhD dissertation.

Could the "stative" actually be a marking for "intransitive"? I'm thinking specifically of the thematic root vowel...

I was looking at that in the back of my mind when I was thinking of a-theme verbs, and I think a case can be made for it. It would seem that there are two factors: (1) intransivity [see ילמד and ירכב] and (2) the presence of a guttural even when transitive [e.g., ישלח]. It's definitely something that correlates, even if it isn't a direct factor.