Jemoh66 wrote:There's several things at play here. (My thoughts only)
1. Stative verbs can be grouped into two groups depending on whether they are referring to an actual state viz. "to BE heavy..." or to the process that leads to a state viz. "to BECOME great" or just say "she grew in stature".
I think the first category is a true stative and is associated with the a-e pattern. Of course this could be manipulated by the writer/speaker through context or usage over time. Soi one might find it is being used as a second category (become).
I would venture to say that the a-a pattern tends toward category 2
2. A-O patterns are probably adjectival. The adjective is then verbalized. Katon little --> katon be/become little
So if I understand you correctly, first you say there are two groups, then you think there are three groups of statives, but you initially wrote as if there are two, and the latter of them you thought wasn't truly stative, which contradicts the idea you stated about there being two or any groups of statives but taking 3 groups, since at one point you said there were 3, you seem to say A)that is truly stative / a-e / "to be", and B)not truly stative / a-o / "to become" / adjective. and C) in between A-O, somehow in between A and B, and probably an adjective...
Most of that you wrote is really convoluted and contradictory and doesn't sound right and doesn't make any sense to me.
I'm aware there are (according to BBH and perhaps others classify them as such too), patach statives, cholam statives, and tsere statives, that is in books and is what you are calling a-a, a-o, a-e.
Perhaps there is a slightly different nature between them, that is written about in some books, without the contradictions that are in your description.
But the distinction between patach statives, cholam statives and tsere statives doesn't seem relevant here.. For example,
chacham, patach stative
kavaid, tsere stative
zakain, tsere stative
katon , cholam stative
malai tsere stative
^^^ All those are in there, appearing as adjectives.
In fact, if I look in groves wheeler, (in bibleworks by typing DOT to enable me to then type the hebrew letters that form it e.g. chet chaf mem for the case of chacham, then @ then the popup helps to see the codes, then n *, for nouns, then trying instead @a* and seeing whether or not any are listed, to determine whether they appear as nouns or adjectives)
I see
chacham, patach stative appears as noun
kavaid, tsere stative appears as adjective
zakain, tsere stative appears as noun or adjective
katon , cholam stative appears as noun or adjective
yachol, cholam stative appears as neither
katal patach stative appears as noun
malai tsere stative appears as noun or adjective
raiev tsere stative appears as noun or adjective
tamai tsere stative appears as adjective
also one not mentioned by BBH but mentioned on hebrew4christians site, is
kadash patach stative appears as noun or adjective
So we see that it's possible for patach statives or tsere statives or cholam statives, to be adjectives..
And the three that don't appear as adjectives,
gadal, katal, yachol,
gadal and katal are patach statives, and yachol is cholam statives.
So I don't see what those categories of stative verb have to do with answering my question?
Ralph Zak