Momentary-Durative

[Rick Mc Callister]

As a non-linguist, I'm gonna have to ask for back-up

but --if I remember correctly--
the present usage of ser and estar goes backs to
about 1400 to 1500
before that --at least in my memory of medieval literature--
the usage of ser and estar seem to be more unstable
or function more like the dichotomy of
essere and stare in Italian
where some of the uses of Spanish estar
are performed by Italian essere

But given that the dichotomies are pretty close
this probably goes back to Common Romance

French does not have this dichotomy
and I don't know what the situation is in Occitan, Sardinian, Rheto-Romance
and Rumanian

[ Moderator's note:
  The following is quoted from Vidhyanath Rao's message of 20 July 1999.
  --rma ]

>Rick Mc Callister <rmccalli at sunmuw1.MUW.Edu> wrote:

>> Spanish distinguishes them [resultative and passive]
>> by resorting to

>> estar --a "momentary" verb--
>> [actually a verb indicating condition] for resultant conditions--

>> and ser--a "durative" verb
>> [actually a verb indicating  characteristics]
>> for passive constructions.

>I don't know much Spanish, but I ought to have remembered this for I have
>been told about this before.

>I find something curious about your glosses. Resultatives, as indicating a
>state of indefinite duration, ought to be duratives, though examples of
>languages which use `go', `come', `finish' to form resultatives are
>mentioned in ``The evolution of grammar''. How old is the use of `estar'?.

Rick Mc Callister
W-1634
Mississippi University for Women
Columbus MS 39701