Children happen to be saying things. What if a kid said,
I’m hating you!
Do you say,
Oh no, you are not hating me. You hate me. To hate is a stative verb Here, you can have a list of stative verbs; you’re going to need it for school, anyway…
I have come across a few languages in my life, and English grammars and grammarians remain the scholarly entities most determinate, in recognizing stative verbs. Whatever order the ■→British Council would enumerate on such special words to memorize, the people in the pictures do not look as into rehearsing rote.
It feels quite strange, to be told to parrot words from a list, especially for thought and emotion. It feels a kind of lie, and good liars do not publicize their lying rules.
In case, it would mean looking for rules any time and anywhere, beginning early in life to last a lifespan, with escapades to libraries in moments prosaic as well as unexpected, to bookmark dialectal variety and possibly to include Sartre, whenever — and sometimes even before — we get to think about thinking, or (which would be still more complex) before we get to think about thinking about feeling.
Of course, we could try to make out own systems. This would mean memorizing when always to say we are feeling or thinking, rather than say we feel or think: the verbs remain the same, so the matter would have to be given up to the situation.
The verb to feel makes an interesting example. We might say, “I feel fresh”, to speak about our senses. We could say, “I feel love”, to speak about our emotions. Possibly in another context, we also could say, “I feel this is crude”, to say what we think.
It is only in the last sense we would remain — but only statistically, still — with the verb to feel in the Simple, for lively talking about a moment in time, in which context we would be feeling fresh and/or feeling love.
Let us compare American English at work for the verb to love.
This is a dream come true. And I’m loving every minute of it.
(NBC Today Sun)
I’ve been loving it. But I want to keep doing different things.
■→Corpus of Contemporary American English, COCA.
Either the above is ungrammatical, or “stative” verbs are just a theory. The COCA record has the verb to love for a regular verb, where the speaker decides in what form to use it. Let us think about love.
Some people might say true love is to be boundless, everlasting, or eternal. Romeo and Juliet most often would serve an example for such a “forever love”, but themselves, the two did not have much joy from that affection. Romeo and Juliet actually met a few times and died.
Today, you hardly could get anyone to agree such love would have been a good living experience. Romeo and Juliet is a famous drama by Shakespeare. Part the role drama altogether has had in human civilization is for the spectators to go out of the theater and be happy they do not live like in a play.
People who say that true love is omnipotent or indestructible, clearly are about some vandalism. Life is not omnipotent or indestructible.
All the above are ■→quantity ideas for love. To be boundless, everlasting, or eternal, an idea needs to be so wide, broad, or deep that there is no measurement for it. We invoke dimensions and measurement to say there is no measure. To be omnipotent, an idea needs to be so big that none is bigger. To be indestructible, an idea needs to be indivisible, as impossible to be put or split into pieces. Quantity is the governing concept.
A ■→quality idea for love would focus on this being the kind of feeling or not. Only if it is the kind of feeling, there having been a sustained reservation since Antiquity that for people and animate life altogether it takes mutual affection to qualify, can we have a feeling for love.
Quality ideas do not mean we have to go out of scope. The world is an extent. People are not indistinct in body and mind. Quality to be the governing concept — what is the kind of feeling to one person may not be the kind to another — we can have the verb to love for a regular verb and use it with our individual cognitive variables, because in reality, life and language naturally look as the record in COCA.
What follows, we cannot have the Simple and Progressive merely for options, and operate on memorized rules for types of verbs.
I’m loving you,
is not the same as saying
I don’t love you.
I’m hating you,
does not mean the same as
I hate you.
Feel welcome to the Grammar Weblog:
■→Time in the mind and heart.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
The world may never have seen her original handwriting, if her skill was taken for supernatural. Feel welcome to Poems by Emily Dickinson prepared for print by Teresa Pelka: thematic stanzas, notes on the Greek and Latin inspiration, the correlative with Webster 1828, and the Aristotelian motif, Things perpetual — these are not in time, but in eternity.