# Smoke - Stative verb?



## nickless

Hola.

Tengo un ejercicio sobre el uso de "uset to" y "would" para hábitos en el pasado y me he encontrado con una frase según la cual "smoke" sería un stative verb. He estado buscando listas de stative verbs y no encuentro ninguna en la que aparezca ni como stative verb ni como verbo que pueda ser ambos, stative y action verb. ¿Podría alguien ayudarme a resolver esta duda? A mi no me parece que sea un stative verb...


----------



## Sherlockat

Please, read this interesting discussion about I used to smoke..


----------



## donbill

nickless said:


> Hola.
> 
> Tengo un ejercicio sobre el uso de "uset to" y "would" para hábitos en el pasado y me he encontrado con una frase según la cual "smoke" sería un stative verb. He estado buscando listas de stative verbs y no encuentro ninguna en la que aparezca ni como stative verb ni como verbo que pueda ser ambos, stative y action verb. ¿Podría alguien ayudarme a resolver esta duda? A mi no me parece que sea un stative verb...



_Smoke_ puede ser transitivo o intransitivo:

_He smokes two packs of cigarettes a day.
He *used to smoke* only one pack a day.
The boys *would smoke* two or three cigarettes every time their mother left the house to run errands.
__
The cigarette that she left behind *was smoking* in the ashtray.
When we went camping *we would always build* a big campfire. The logs *would smoke* for hours after the flames died.

_No puedo ayudarte a resolver tu duda, pero espero que los ejemplos te hayan ayudado un poco.

Saludos


----------



## nickless

Sherlockat said:


> Please, read this interesting discussion about I used to smoke..


 
Gracias, pero este hilo ya lo había leído y no me saca de dudas. hugowolf plantea una cuestión relacionada con mi pregunta y mykwyner le responde con un montón de frases con "would" que no estoy muy segura de que sean gramaticalmente correctas.



donbill said:


> _Smoke_ puede ser transitivo o intransitivo:
> 
> _He smokes two packs of cigarettes a day._
> _He *used to smoke* only one pack a day._
> _The boys *would smoke* two or three cigarettes every time their mother left the house to run errands._
> 
> _The cigarette that she left behind *was smoking* in the ashtray._
> _When we went camping *we would always build* a big campfire. The logs *would smoke* for hours after the flames died._
> 
> No puedo ayudarte a resolver tu duda, pero espero que los ejemplos te hayan ayudado un poco.
> 
> Saludos


 
Gracias por los ejemplos. En ellos tú los usas como un "action verb" ya que los usas con "would". Así que supongo que eso resuelve mi duda.


----------



## donbill

nickless said:


> Gracias, pero este hilo ya lo había leído y no me saca de dudas. hugowolf plantea una cuestión relacionada con mi pregunta y mykwyner le responde con un montón de frases con "would" que no estoy muy segura de que sean gramaticalmente correctas.
> 
> 
> 
> Gracias por los ejemplos. En ellos tú los usas como un "action verb" ya que los usas con "would". Así que supongo que eso resuelve mi duda.



Con la ayuda del diccionario, he encontrado _smoke_ en un contexto que encaja (tal vez) con tu post original.

_To be smoking / smoke_ puede significar_ estar enojado_. Es un uso muy coloquial.

_Smoking, the teacher shouted at his students.
_
"_How did you feel after learning that your friend has lost your computer?"
"I was smoking!"
_


----------



## nickless

Vay, donbill, no conocía esa expresión, gracias. Aunque no, en la frase que me aparece en el ejercicio "smoke" significa fumar. La frase (de las respuestas) empezaba con "I used to smoke a lot" o algo así. Y puesto que no venía la alternativa "I would smoke a lot" dan a entender que "smoke" es un stative verb, ya que el ejercicio pedía que se usasen las dos formas en caso de ser posible. Pero claro, puede ser un error del libro, que al fin y al cabo, nadie es perfecto.


----------



## wordnut

Hola Nickless,

Definitivamente smoke no es un stative verb. Creo que la confusión viene del uso de "used to" y "would". Used to se puede usar sin ninguna restricción tanto para action/dynamic verbs como para stative verbs. Would sólo se usa con action/dynamic verbs.

Por ejemplo podemos decir:
I used to smoke when I was younger, I would even smoke in class.

Smoke se puede usar con ambas construcciones.

Por el contrario, podemos decir: "I used to be a smoker." Mientras NO podemos decir "I would be a smoker" se uno quiere decir que antes fumaba.

Espero que esto aclare sus dudas.


----------



## albertovidal

"Smoke" is not a stative verb.
You can say "I would smoke a lot if it wouldn't hurt me"


----------



## donbill

nickless said:


> Vay, donbill, no conocía esa expresión, gracias. Aunque no, en la frase que me aparece en el ejercicio "smoke" significa fumar. La frase (de las respuestas) empezaba con "I used to smoke a lot" o algo así. Y puesto que no venía la alternativa "I would smoke a lot" dan a entender que "smoke" es un stative verb, ya que el ejercicio pedía que se usasen las dos formas en caso de ser posible. Pero claro, puede ser un error del libro, que al fin y al cabo, nadie es perfecto.



Si el libro incluye _smoke_ entre los "state verbs," es un error.


----------



## blasita

> y me he encontrado con una frase según la cual "smoke" sería un stative verb.



Estoy muy interesada en conocer _exactamente_ la oración en cuestión. ¿Podrías, por favor, Nickless, poner la oración que aparece en el libro?

Muchas gracias.  Saludos.


----------



## albertovidal

Creo que esto puede ayudar mucho
http://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/support-files/stative-verbs-list.pdf
Saludos


----------



## blasita

> Creo que esto puede ayudar mucho
> Saludos



Gracias por el enlace, Alberto. 

Es que yo sé que ´smoke´ no es un ´stative verb´, y por eso he pedido la oración, porque si es cierto que es un error, sería bastante grave (y sería cuestión de saberlo para no comprar el libro). Y si es que, por otra parte, hay alguna situación en que lo es, me gustaría saberlo.

Un saludo cordial.


----------



## albertovidal

blasita said:


> Gracias por el enlace, Alberto.
> 
> Es que yo sé que ´smoke´ no es un ´stative verb´, y por eso he pedido la oración, porque si es cierto que es un error, sería bastante grave (y sería cuestión de saberlo para no comprar el libro). Y si es que, por otra parte, hay alguna situación en que lo es, me gustaría saberlo.
> 
> Un saludo cordial.



Tu inquietud me parece loable y entendible.
En un idioma que no es el nuestro, podemos encontrarnos, todos los días, con sorpresas impensadas.
Esperemos que el forero nos brinde la frase completa.

Buen fin de semana y un cálido saludo


----------



## nickless

Gracias a todos por vuestras respuestas, me ha quedado claro que tal y como yo pensaba, "smoke" no es un stative verb. La frase en cuestión no venía en un libro sino en un CD-rom con los exámenes de los diferentes temas del libro. En el ejercicio pedían que se reescribiesen las frases usando "used to" o "would", y recordaba que en algunos casos ambos eran posibles. En las soluciones venía la respuesta con "used to" si era un stative verb y con "used to" y con "would" si ambas estructuras eran correctas. Mi confusión ha empezado precisamente al ver que la solución de la frase sólo contenía la estructura con "used to" (indicando supuestamente que el verbo era un state verb). Os pongo la frase del ejercicio y la de la respuesta:

Frase: Robert didn't smoke before but now smokes like a chimney.

Solución/Respuesta: Robert didn't use to smoke before but now smokes like a chimney.

Por cierto, Alberto, no es que le de importancia pero... soy forera 

Una vez más, gracias por la ayuda.


----------



## blasita

> Gracias a todos por vuestras respuestas, me ha quedado claro que tal y como yo pensaba, "smoke" no es un stative verb. La frase en cuestión no venía en un libro sino en un CD-rom con los exámenes de los diferentes temas del libro. En el ejercicio pedían que se reescribiesen las frases usando "used to" o "would", y recordaba que en algunos casos ambos eran posibles. En las soluciones venía la respuesta con "used to" si era un stative verb y con "used to" y con "would" si ambas estructuras eran correctas. Mi confusión ha empezado precisamente al ver que la solución de la frase sólo contenía la estructura con "used to" (indicando supuestamente que el verbo era un state verb). Os pongo la frase del ejercicio y la de la respuesta:
> 
> Frase: *Robert didn't smoke before but now smokes like a chimney.*
> 
> Solución/Respuesta: *Robert didn't use to smoke before but now smokes like a chimney.*
> 
> Por cierto, Alberto, no es que le de importancia pero... soy forera.



Look, Nickless, I don´t think this is a question of stative/dynamic verbs.

*My try (correct me if I´m wrong, please):* ´Used to´ is used here to refer to something that happened back in the past and there´s an idea that circumstances have changed.  ´Would´ is not especially used this way.

And we use ´used to´, not ´would´ to talk about regular and important habitual behaviour (e.g. _I used to smoke   I would smoke  ; He used to play a lot of basketball   He would play a lot of basketball _).

Ah!  Te aseguro que no es culpa de Alberto; es uno de los foreros más respetuosos y majos que puedas encontrar.

Saludos a todos.


----------



## albertovidal

*blasita*: how would you say (of course, in English) "Fumaría si pudiera"?
I don't understand your correction inthe phrase _ I would smoke 
_Please let me know 'cause something's wrong in my anaysis._
_Saludos


----------



## blasita

> blasita: how would you say (of course, in English) "Fumaría si pudiera"?
> I don't understand your correction inthe phrase I would smoke
> Please let me know 'cause something's wrong in my analysis



You mean: _I´d smoke if I could_ (?)  But I think this is different; a second conditional (not past meaning though past tense).  Well, I might be wrong; I´m no expert.

Un saludo.


----------



## nickless

*Blasita*, sí que es una cuestión de stative/dynamic verbs. "Would" puede ser usado con el mismo significado que "used to", pero sólo con dynamic verbs. Mira, copiado del Premium B2: "_Would_ is also used to talk about past habits and repeated actions but not about states."

Y tranquila por lo de Alberto, no se lo he tomado a mal para nada. Sé que el "nick" de "nickless" hace que la mayoría de la gente piense en un chico


----------



## albertovidal

blasita said:


> You mean: _I´d smoke if I could_ (?)  But I think this is different; a second conditional (not past meaning though past tense).  Well, I might be wrong; I´m no expert.
> 
> Un saludo.



I agree. But when you say "I'd" you're meaning "*I would* and not I had"
Am I right?

Saludos y gracias por tu pronta respuesta.


----------



## blasita

> Blasita, sí que es una cuestión de stative/dynamic verbs. "Would" puede ser usado con el mismo significado que "used to", pero sólo con dynamic verbs. Mira, copiado del Premium B2: "Would is also used to talk about past habits and repeated actions but not about states.



Yes, Nickless, this info is right.  But I meant to talk about the particular case, not in general.

Please wait for other opinions.


----------



## blasita

> I agree. But when you say "I'd" you're meaning "I would and not I had"
> Am I right?
> 
> Saludos y gracias por tu pronta respuesta.



Gracias a ti.  Sí, quiero decir ´would´. Pero, insisto, esta es mi opinión como no nativa.  Saludos.


----------



## nickless

blasita said:


> But I meant to talk about the particular case, not in general.


 
Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this.


----------



## blasita

If you want to talk about repeated states or _habits_ in the past, you must use ´used to´, you cannot use ´would´:
I used to live in Moscow.
I used to be a professor.

_I used to smoke_.



> And we use ´used to´, not ´would´ to talk about regular and important habitual behaviour (e.g. I used to smoke   I would smoke  ; He used to play a lot of basketball  He would play a lot of basketball ).



'Would' is only good for actions or situations that were repeated many times; 'used to' is good for any action or situation that continued for a period of time in the past, including repeated actions or situations.  

_When he was at school, he used to play basketball every Sunday._ Here, we're talking about 'playing basketball every Sunday'. This is an action that was repeated many times, so we can also say: _When he was at school, he would play basketball every Sunday_. 'Used to' and 'would' are both good here, and the meaning is the same.  

Look, about ´stative/non-stative´: there´s also a problem distinguishing between dynamic and active verbs, and besides,  the same verb can act as stative and dynamic. Sorry, if this is not clear; I´m actually typing as I think, which I don´t usually do but it´s just I want to help.  I´ll try to give it a more careful thought as soon as I can, and explain it again if no other forero have already done it.


----------



## nickless

Yes, I think understand what you mean now, but I have never read about such a difference between "used to" and "would"  I'll try to check it out in other books or something. 

Anyway, the book cannot teach children that the difference is just in the action/state verb and then deal with something different in the exam! That would be unfair...

Thanks for explanation.


----------



## k-in-sc

Maybe this is what the OP was really trying to figure out, when to say "would" and when to say "used to."
"Would" is only for specific situations in the past:
He used to smoke all the time. He would even smoke at the breakfast table.


----------



## inib

¡Guau! ¡Qué lío! Resumiendo, no veo que "to smoke" pueda ser un _stative verb,_ (bueno, en mi caso, lamentablemente sí, pero es un caso aparte), y en los casos que no pega el "would", creo que es por otro motivo.
_I would smoke to my heart's delight on my grandma's verandah, though she never allowed me to light up in her house._
Anything wrong with that?


----------



## k-in-sc

From Wikipedia: 
... An English phrase like "he plays the piano" may be either stative or dynamic, according to context. ...
Same with "he smokes," then.


----------



## blasita

Yes, there are even dynamic/active verbs, and some verbs can be stative/dynamic depending on the context, as I said before.  But I think we all agree ´smoke´ isn´t  itself a stative verb, so if you don´t mind, I think you/we should focus on the particular example:



> Frase: Robert didn't smoke before but now smokes like a chimney.
> Solución/Respuesta: Robert didn't use to smoke before but now smokes like a chimney.



Would you say ´would´ here?  Why/not?


----------



## k-in-sc

I don't see why it can't be a stative verb. If "plays the piano" can be stative, "smokes" can be too.
Why/*why not* say "would" there? Because it's not referring to a specific situation.


----------



## blasita

> Why/why not say "would" there? Because it's not referring to a specific situation.



So then, k-in-sc:  does this make ´smoke´ a stative verb?


----------



## k-in-sc

He smokes: stative.
He is smoking: dynamic.


----------



## donbill

k-in-sc said:


> I don't see why it can't be a stative verb. If "plays the piano" can be stative, "smokes" can be too.
> Why/*why not* say "would" there? Because it's not referring to a specific situation.



I think my definition of a stative verb is different from yours, k.

_He plays the banjo_ is ongoing, but I don't see it as stative. But, again, it's probably just a matter of terminology.


----------



## Forero

_He smokes_: either stative or dynamic.
_He is smoking_: dynamic, or something other than present continuous.


----------



## blasita

> He smokes: either stative or dynamic.
> He is smoking: dynamic, or something other than present continuous.



So, Forero, then in the original sentence it´s stative because (?) it´s a habit/repeated action/change or ??


----------



## k-in-sc

donbill said:


> I think my definition of a stative verb is different from yours, k.
> 
> _He plays the banjo_ is ongoing, but I don't see it as stative. But, again, it's probably just a matter of terminology.


I don't have a definition. I'm just going by what I read.


----------



## donbill

k-in-sc said:


> I don't have a definition. I'm just going by what I read.



A dictionary definition of stative is

*adjective (of a verb): expressing a state or condition rather than an activity or event, such as be or know, as opposed to run or grow. Contrasted with dynamic.*

_"What are you doing?"
"I'm smoking a cigarette and playing the banjo._"

Again, if it isn't just a matter of terminology that's getting in our way, I do not see _smoking_ and _playing_ as stative verbs. In my opinion, they are definitely activities, not states. And I emphasize that this is opinion, not a dogmatic declaration. Nevertheless, I haven't seen anything so far that makes me change my opinion. The only way that I can see _smoking_ as a stative verb is in a very colloquial context such as the following.

_He's smoking!_ = _He's angry_!


----------



## donbill

Forero said:


> _He smokes_: either stative or dynamic.
> _He is smoking_: dynamic, or something other than present continuous.



Forero, I respectfully disagree. _He smokes_ depicts an activity. Unless he is burning, being consumed by flames and emitting smoke--and I doubt that this is what you had in mind when you wrote the sentence--he is consciously doing something; he is engaged in an activity, not being or seeming to be something.

It's an interesting discussion! And it started so innocently!

Cheers!


----------



## k-in-sc

He smoked = he was a smoker: stative.


----------



## Forero

blasita said:


> So, Forero, then in the original sentence it´s stative because (?) it´s a habit/repeated action/change or ??


I don't know what the original sentence is, but what I was thinking is that "he smokes" is about a (repeated) action except when it means "he is a smoker", and "he plays the banjo" is about a (repeated) action except when it means "he is a banjo player"/"he can play banjo".

Emitting smoke is also an action, as I see it, while being "smoking" is stative, with various interpretations.

"He used to smoke" might mean "He used to emit smoke", "He used to hold smoldering tobacco in his lips and inhale", or "He used to be a smoker". "Would" might mean "used to", or it might be a conditional, or it might be past tense of "will", with various interpretations.

Todo depende del contexto.


----------



## blasita

First of all, I´d like to apologise; I asked and I´m responsible for this mess.

I completely agree with Donbill that ´smoke´ is not a stative/state verb, and that it may be also a question of terminology/interpretation.



> I don't know what the original sentence is, [...]
> Todo depende del contexto.



The sentence is:



> Frase: Robert didn't smoke before but now smokes like a chimney.
> Solución/Respuesta: Robert didn't use to smoke before but now smokes like a chimney.



My thoughts:

1)There is a change here: he did not smoke but now he does. And to my mind, this sentence is a clear case of ´used to´ (past habit now finished, and an idea that something has changed).

2)I insist, for me´smoke´ is not a state (it can take progressive tenses). Can´t you say e.g. _Robert would smoke like a chimney_?  Yes, because ´would´ is used the same way as ´used to´ but not with states, so it´s not a stative verb itself.

Uf, no comento nada más.  La he montado, pero bien, aunque os puedo asegurar que solamente quería ayudar.  Por favor, si algo de lo que he dicho no es cierto, me lo decís y vuelvo y lo borro para que no confunda a nadie.

Gracias a todos.   Un saludo.


----------



## nickless

Vale, Blasita, creo que ahora entiendo lo que querías decir, pero aún así, un libro no puede enseñar a niños de 12-14 años que si A entonces B, y que si C entonces B o D, y luego en el examen poner algo completamente diferente y más complicado que la explicación que da, no sé si me explico.


----------



## blasita

> Vale, Blasita, creo que ahora entiendo lo que querías decir, pero aún así, un libro no puede enseñar a niños de 12-14 años que si A entonces B, y que si C entonces B o D, y luego en el examen poner algo completamente diferente y más complicado que la explicación que da, no sé si me explico.



Hola Nickless.  Te entiendo perfectamente; la que parece que no se ha explicado nada bien soy yo, lo siento. Intentando darle una explicación que se ajuste más a lo que dices:

It´s a repeated habit in the past, so then you use ´used to´ in your sentence.  Now, it may be possible that a past habit may be regarded as a past state in the book (for me they are not the same, but I could be wrong).

Un saludo.


----------



## nickless

Podría ser. Aunque parezca increíble a veces se pueden encontrar teorías completamente diferentes y a veces incluso contradictorias en distintos libros... Sea como sea, gracias a todos por vuestros comentarios y aclaraciones.


----------



## k-in-sc

I've seen foreros cite some really bizarre "rules" they were taught about English. Fewer rules and more examples, I say, including examples of how *not* to say things. ...

Edit: And no, you would not say "Robert would smoke like a chimney" unless you were referring to a *specific situation* in which he usually smoked a lot. If you just mean he formerly was a heavy smoker, you would have to use "used to."

You guys seem to be confusing stative and intransitive verbs. Did anybody read the Wikipedia article?

"A stative verb is one which asserts that one of its arguments has a particular property (possibly in relation to its other arguments). Statives differ from other aspectual classes of verbs in that they are static; they have no duration and no distinguished endpoint. ..."

He smoked (for years): stative.
He smoked a cigarette: dynamic.

At that time, he understood her (=he used to understand her, but now they've grown apart): stative.
Suddenly he understood what she was saying: dynamic.

He played the piano (=was a piano player): stative.
He played the piano at the wedding: dynamic.


----------



## nickless

k-in-sc said:


> He smoked (for years): stative.
> He smoked a cigarette: dynamic.


 
Vale, estaba hecha un lío pero creo que con esto empiezo a ver la luz  
Muchas gracias.


----------



## k-in-sc

Was the exercise trying to show that you don't use "would" with stative verbs?
Obviously it's a subtle point, since it seems to have escaped even blasita


----------



## nickless

k-in-sc said:


> Was the exercise trying to show that you don't use "would" with stative verbs?
> Obviously it's a subtle point, since it seems to have escaped even blasita


 
Yes, I already said that. That's why the two possibilities I was thinking of where (1) "smoke" is a stative verb or (2) the answer to the exercise is wrong.


----------



## blasita

> I've seen foreros cite some really bizarre "rules" they were taught about English. Fewer rules and more examples, I say, including examples of how *not* to say things. ...



Yes, you´re right, but hasn´t it happened to you when learning Spanish/other languages??  I think non-native speakers do need some rules and sort of rely on them, but I _completely agree_; I´ve been saying the same again and again: rules are rules, and what really counts is practice.



> Edit: And no, you would not say "Robert would smoke like a chimney" unless you were referring to a *specific situation* in which he usually smoked a lot. If you just mean he formerly was a heavy smoker, you would have to use "used to."



Yes, (¡of course!), I meant the first case, not that he formerly was a heavy smoker. Not a good example, sorry, esp after having said that ´I would smoke´ was incorrect.


I´m really happy Nickless has got it.  I´m not so sure at all I have, but this is my problem. And for sure, I´m not confusing intransitive and stative verbs here myself.
I think that there are quite a few grammarians´ opinions and views on this (not only Wikipedia´s), but this doesn´t mean that you´re wrong in what you´re saying at all, K-in-sc.  In fact, I suppose you must be right , but I just can´t see it myself.

Un saludo.


----------



## Scalpel72

nickless said:


> Hola.
> 
> Tengo un ejercicio sobre el uso de "uset to" y "would" para hábitos en el pasado y me he encontrado con una frase según la cual "smoke" sería un stative verb. He estado buscando listas de stative verbs y no encuentro ninguna en la que aparezca ni como stative verb ni como verbo que pueda ser ambos, stative y action verb. ¿Podría alguien ayudarme a resolver esta duda? A mi no me parece que sea un stative verb...



The verb 'smoke' is not a stative verb;  but, a regular 'habitual behaviour'
Old habits die hard.
Robert used to play a lot of football ( not would)
John used to have a Cadillac ( not would)
I used to live in Rochester, Minn. ( not I would).
I used to be a heavy smoker ( not would)

Scalpel72


----------



## k-in-sc

I realize Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all, but it does explain this particular point in a way that makes perfect sense to me. And the fact is that you can't say "he would smoke" to mean "he used to smoke (=used to be a smoker)." Why not? Because in this context "smoke" denotes a state, not a series of repeated actions.

Stative:
He thought socialism would save the world.
He used to think socialism would save the world.

Dynamic:
He thought of new ways to save the company money.
He would think of new ways to save the company money.
He used to think of new ways to save the company money.


Edit: All those examples Scalpel72 gives are stative.
Living in Rochester, Minn., is not a repeated or habitual behavior. It is a state (and Minnesota is too ).
Being a football player, piano player, smoker, Cadillac owner, Rochester resident ... all are states.

It's obvious to me that nobody here is familiar with the idea of stative verbs. I wasn't either, until this thread.


----------



## blasita

> Stative:
> He thought socialism would save the world.
> He used to think socialism would save the world.
> 
> Dynamic:
> He thought of new ways to save the company money.
> He would think of new ways to save the company money.
> He used to think of new ways to save the company money.



Yes, K, but these examples are about ´think´, and this verb can be for sure both stative and dynamic (with two different meanings: have an opinion and what´s on your mind.)  And it´s in the books .

Gracias.


----------



## k-in-sc

blasita said:


> Yes, K, but these examples are about ´think´, and this verb for sure can be both stative and dynamic ...


Yes, so can "smoke." 


donbill said:


> The only way that I can see _smoking_ as a stative verb is in a very colloquial context such as the following.
> _He's smoking!_ = _He's angry_!


----------



## blasita

> Edit: All those examples Scalpel72 gives are stative.Living in Rochester, Minn., is not a repeated or habitual behavior. It is a state (and Minnesota is too ).
> Being a football player, piano player, smoker, Cadillac owner, Rochester resident ... all are states.
> 
> It's obvious to me that nobody here is familiar with the idea of stative verbs. I wasn't either, until this thread.



Sorry, but I thought I was familiar with this idea ...

_They used to play a lot of basketball_ (one of my sentences, quite a few posts ago.)  _Their dog used to bark at cats._  They´re not stative, but regular and habitual behaviour.

I know I´m a pain, K-in-sc, but I don´t see it clear at all.  I still think that a repeated past habit does not have to be a state in all cases.

PS Sorry, Scalpel, I´m not ignoring you; thanks for your contribution.


----------



## k-in-sc

blasita said:


> Sorry, but I thought I was familiar with this idea ...
> 
> _They used to play a lot of basketball_ (one of my sentences, quite a few posts ago.)  _Their dog used to bark at cats._  They´re not stative, but regular and habitual behaviour.
> 
> I know I´m a pain, K-in-sc, but I don´t see it clear at all.  I still think that a repeated past habit does not have to be a state in all cases.


No, those are not stative. "When he was younger, he played basketball (= he was a basketball player)" would be stative. "I hated my neighbor's dog because it barked (=constantly, it was a barker)" would be stative.


----------



## blasita

> _Robert didn't use to smoke before but now smokes like a chimney._


 The answer´s fine, Nickless, and I think we all agree on this.



> No, those are not stative.



OK!  Thanks. So:

_She was smoking a cigarette, wondering when she would see him again._ So, if you agree we can say this, ´smoke´ is not a stative verb.  However, I understand your arguments (that it can be both stative and dynamic/action): here it´s an action whereas in the original sentence it´s not (Robert wasn´t a smoker).

*But! *It´s just, again, in my opinion, being a smoker is a _habit_, not a state, so then you can´t state that ´smoke´ can be a stative verb. It´s a different case, ´smoke´ is ´smoke´; not like ´think´ or e.g. ´see´ (different meanings: when ´see´means ´understand´ and then it´s a non-progressive verb, so stative).

Again, I think you must be right (because you are so knowledgeable and and experienced) , but I just can´t see why I´m wrong (¡Ten piedad, por favor! -  te ´robo´ la frase, donbill).  I repeat, I guess we agree (?), but there may be different ways of viewing things.

Un saludo.


----------



## k-in-sc

Yes, smoking is a (bad) habit. But smoking = being a smoker is also a state of being.
Obviously it's not on the usual list of stative-only verbs. It's one of the many verbs that can be either stative or dynamic.  
That's how I see it, anyway. But you know what opinions are like (a certain part of the body that we all have one of )


----------



## donbill

k-in-sc said:


> Yes, smoking is a (bad) habit. But smoking = being a smoker is also a state of being.
> Obviously it's not on the usual list of stative-only verbs. It's one of the many verbs that can be either stative or dynamic.
> That's how I see it, anyway. But you know what opinions are like (a certain part of the body that we all have one of )



This is fun, but maddening!

Smoking and being a smoker are not the same thing. One has to smoke (a dynamic act) in order to be identified as a smoker. One has to run (a dynamic act) in order to be identified as a runner. We could go on and on with this list. Smoking is the act that identifies the smoker; it is not the state in itself.

_Smoke_ isn't in the list of usual stative verbs because it isn't one! 

And that's pure opinion! It's correct, of course, but it's just opinion.


----------



## k-in-sc

Apparently people have different ideas of what is and isn't a stative verb.
Do you disagree that the same verb can be stative or dynamic?


----------



## blasita

> Apparently people have different ideas of what is and isn't a stative verb.
> Do you disagree that the same verb can be stative or dynamic?



No, personally I agree, and I actually gave some examples. But I´m afraid I disagree about ´smoke´.

To sum up, in our sentence, I see it as a past habit, not state. But, of course, you can argue that habits can be _seen_ as stative or dynamic, and I think this is what´s happening. However,  in my opinion, this is not enough to consider ´smoke´ a stative verb.
If it turns out that ´smoke´ can be a stative verb, believe me when I say that I´ll be more than happy because I´ll have learned something new for me.  But sorry, I can´t say I agree at this point.

¡Dios mío, qué pesada soy!


----------



## k-in-sc

If "play" can be stative, then "smoke" can be stative.


----------



## albertovidal

Well, if "play" is stative then it's wrong to say "I'm playing the piano"/"He's playing poker"


----------



## albertovidal

Pehaps this may help:

http://www.whitesmoke.com/stative-verbs
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/progressive.htm#stative


----------



## Scalpel72

k-in-sc said:


> Apparently people have different ideas of what is and isn't a stative verb.
> Do you disagree that the same verb can be stative or dynamic?




Stative verbs are non-progressive verbs. These verbs describe 'states' or conditions that exist; they do not describe 'activities that are in progress.
Common non progressive verbs :
MENTAL STATES : know, understand, believe, imagine, think, forget, remember, doubt, need, want, prefer, mean, suppose, recognize, realize.
EMOTIONAL STATE : love, hate, appreciate, dislike, like, fear, envy, care, mind.
POSSESSION : posses, have, own, belong
SENSE PERCEPTIONS : taste, smell, hear, feel, see.
OTHER EXISTING STATES : seem, look, appear, cost, owe, weigh, be, exist , consist of,contain, include.
the verbs THINK, have, taste, smell, feel, looks, appears, weigh, be,  can be both stative or non-progressive or progressive with different sense.
he is foolish ( character)
he is being foolish ( behaviour).
Very few be+adjectives are used in the progressive: foolish, nice, kind, lazy, careful, patient, silly, rude, polite, impolite.

Scalpel72


----------



## SevenDays

The distinction between a _stative_ and a _dynamic_ *verb *is primarily syntactic. _Dynamic_ verbs take the progressive form, and so "smoke" _(I am smoking_) is dynamic. If I say _I used to smoke_, "smoke" is a _dynamic_ verbal. Let's keep in mind that adjectives and nouns can also be _stative_ and _dynamic_. So, in _I was a smoker_, "smoker" is a _stative_ noun (and "was" is the stative verb). In _I was a heavy smoker_, "heavy" is a _stative_ adjective, and "smoker" is a _stative_ noun

When we speak of _stative_ and _dynamic_, we also need to keep in mind the notion of _boundedness_, that is, whether or not there is an "end-point." Getting back to verbs, If I say, _I smoked_, "smoked" is both _dynamic_ and _unbounded_ (with no end-point). If I say, _I smoked from age 15 to age 30_, "smoke" is _dynamic_ and _bounded_ (with an end-point, "age 30"). In _I was an Englishman,_ "was" is _stative_ and _unbounded_; in _I was an Englishman for 55 years_, "was" is _stativ_e and _bounded_ (with an end-point, "age 55," when I became, say, a citizen of France).

Cheers


----------



## donbill

k-in-sc said:


> If "play" can be stative, then "smoke" can be stative.



How can play be stative?


----------



## Forero

I see several issues here that can lead to confusion—

First, I find the word _state_, and its derivatives, confusing in this context. We are using it to mean anything someone _is_, whether _is_ means _está_ or _es_. What we are meaning by _state_ here actually includes "state", "essence", "characteristic", "stance", "modus operandi", anything thought of as connected with a person in an ongoing sort of way.

Second, _habit_ is not a good word to use to distinguish a dynamic from a stative use. A habit is dynamic when we think of it as a repeated or customary action, but not when we think of it as "part of" a person.

And third, it is really not the particular verb we use but what we mean to say that distinguishes a dynamic use from a stative use. Almost any verb can be dynamic or stative, as needed, but there are a lot of verbs that are much more commonly used statively than dynamically.

Anything repeatable is dynamic. Anything a person does on a particular occasion is dynamic. 

Piano playing, the action, is dynamic, but sometimes people say "plays the piano" to mean "is a piano player" or "can play the piano", and then it does not refer to an activity engaged in but to a skill, which is a stative idea.

I prefer not to characterize a person by a habit that can kill them if they do it again, but when people use _smoke_ to characterize a person, that is a stative use of the verb.

I hope this helps.


----------



## blasita

> What we are meaning by state here actually includes "state", "essence", "characteristic", "stance", "modus operandi", anything thought of as connected with a person in an ongoing sort of way. Second, habit is not a good word to use to distinguish a dynamic from a stative use. A habit is dynamic when we think of it as a repeated or customary action, but not when we think of it as "part of" a person.



Forero, I completely agree with you about everything you say here. A habit should be understood in a broad sense (not only personal habits) but rather those characterizations.
But, I have never tried to make a distinction between stative and dynamic verbs talking about habits. I had said it: a habit can be both. I was just trying to give a possible answer to this thread´s question, and (still) haven´t commented myself anything on the ´play´ examples and so on.



> I prefer not to characterize a person by a habit that can kill them if they do it again, but when people use smoke to characterize a person, that is a *stative use* of the verb.



I agree, and I respect your opinion (well, you can´t imagine how much), but I think this ´_stative_´ use of the verb does not necessarily mean that ´smoke´ is a stative verb.


_Many verbs which regularly appear in sentences referring to dynamic situations can be used statively about habits […] Conversely, verbs with a strong stative potential like ´know´ may occasionally be used dynamically […] To cut a long story short: the action category allows us to classify situations, *not verbs*._  (´Mastering English: an advanced grammar for non-native and native speakers´- Carl Bache, Niels Davidsen-Nielsen)

So, exactly: stative IDEA, not verb (this is what I have been trying to say.) Grammarians sometimes have different views on many issues, but I think they agree that these verbs are not called stative verbs.

Thank you everyone for your interesting comments; you´re great. I´m learning and having fun at the same time. 

Un saludo a todos.


----------



## donbill

Forero said:


> Piano playing, the action, is dynamic, but sometimes people say "plays the piano" to mean "is a piano player" or "can play the piano", and then it does not refer to an activity engaged in but to a skill, which is a stative idea.
> 
> 
> .



This is the central point of our debate. Some of us--and I include myself in this group--do not agree with characterizing a dynamic verb, such as _play the piano, _as stative. It may characterize what the person does; but, as we see it, it does not depict a state. I realize I'm looking at this very literally and that I'm following a strict definition of stative.

If we didn't get to disagree, the forum would be no fun at all! 

Thanks to all!


----------



## k-in-sc

Whether you want to call it a "stative verb" or not, "smoke" used in a stative sense would not take "would," which was the original question.


----------



## blasita

> Whether you want to call it a "stative verb" or not, "smoke" used in a stative sense would not take "would," which was the original question.



It´s not me who wants to call it ´stative´ but it is widely known as a non-stative verb. My answer to the title of this thread: No, it´s not.

The term ´habit´ should include not only personal habits (like ´Roger _plays_ the guitar´, ´Victoria _would_ call be every day before breakfast´), but also universal truths and abilities.  ´Sally _smokes_´ is not an instance of smoking but a characterization of Sally; a habit, statively used, but ´smokes´ is not a state. (These ideas and examples are taken from the same book.)

Look, K-in-sc, yes, it does not take ´would´ in the original question, but I personally doubt it is because ´smoke´ is a stative verb (I still think it is not.)  Why?  Because this ´stative sense´ is quite an advanced feeling, and Nickless said this grammar book  is for 12-14 year-old learners so,  (I might be wrong but) I do not think this is a feasible explanation here. If we called  ´smoke´, ´play´, etc. stative, almost all verbs would be stative verbs, and grammatically this is not like this.

So, I agree with Seven Days´ explanation, and this Donbill´s comment: 





> It may characterize what the person does; but, as we see it, it does not depict a state. I realize I'm looking at this very literally and that I'm following a strict definition of stative.



Now, I repeat, I think the only ´problem´ here may be just calling things differently.

Un saludito.


----------



## Scalpel72

donbill said:


> How can play be stative?



According to Martin Hewings 'Advanced grammar in use'

I used to smoke heavily when I was at university ( past states that have changed). 'Old habits die hard'
The factory used to be  in the city centre(not any more).
We used to play in the garden (not we would play)
in order *to use play with would* we need to mention  a specific time or set of occasions:
Whenever we went to my uncle Frank's house, we would play/used to play in the garden.
We do not use either 'would' or 'used to' when we say exactly how many times something happened, how long something took, or that something happened at a particular time.
We visited  Switzerland four times  during the 1970's
She went on holiday to the Bahamas last week.

Probably is a matter of ''to be or not to be''.

Scalpel72


----------



## blasita

> According to Martin Hewings 'Advanced grammar in use'
> I used to smoke heavily when I was at university ( past states *that have changed*). 'Old habits die hard'
> The factory used to be in the city centre(not any more).
> We used to play in the garden (not we would play)
> *in order to use play with would we need to mention a specific time or set of occasions:*
> 
> *Because, in my opinion,  this is another difference of use between ´used to/would´; it does not mean that ´play´ is a stative verb.*
> 
> Whenever we went to my uncle Frank's house, we would play/used to play in the garden.
> We do not use either 'would' or 'used to' when we say exactly how many times something happened, how long something took, or that something happened at a particular time.
> We visited Switzerland four times during the 1970's
> She went on holiday to the Bahamas last week.
> Probably is a matter of ''to be or not to be''.



Sorry, Scalpel, I cannot see how this shows that ´smoke´ or ´play´ are stative verbs (I don´t think it does.)

Thank you!


----------



## Scalpel72

blasita said:


> Sorry, Scalpel, I cannot see how this shows that ´smoke´ or ´play´ are stative verbs (I don´t think it does.)
> 
> Thank you!




They are not but produce a situation of 'HABIT' with smoking. And with play they repeatedly  'play in the garden' that cause a kind of a routine of playing into the past whenever they went to their uncle's house. You as well as to play  in the garden is a ROUTINE, habitual past or condition that existed into the past , but which no longer exists. 

Scalpel72


----------



## donbill

Scalpel72 said:


> They are not but produce a situation of 'HABIT' with smoking. And with play they repeatedly  'play in the garden' that cause a kind of a routine of playing into the past whenever they went to their uncle's house. You as well as to play  in the garden is a ROUTINE, habitual past or condition that existed into the past , but which no longer exists.
> 
> Scalpel72



Here's my last post on this issue. (I think I just heard applause!)

Habit and routine are not states. The very nature of each is to *do *something over and over again. My doing something repeatedly does not change it into a state, but it may identify me in some way. _I teach = I am a teacher._

_Los niños siempre jugaban en el jardín cuando visitaban a sus abuelos.
The children would always play in the garden / yard whey they visited their grandparents. _
That's routine, but it isn't a state.

_Cuando vivía en España fumaba porque todo el mundo fumaba.
When he lived in Spain he smoked because everybody smoked._
Another routine (_smoking_) but not a state.

All of the foregoing is not intended to change any minds. It's just my last response to a forero's post.

Saudos a todos


----------



## albertovidal

I do quite agree with you *donbill
*Anyway, at this time, I don't think we can change other foreros' opinions. So, as to me, this thread is closed.
Regards


----------



## Scalpel72

donbill said:


> Here's my last post on this issue. (I think I just heard applause!)
> 
> Habit and routine are not states. The very nature of each is to *do *something over and over again. My doing something repeatedly does not change it into a state, but it may identify me in some way. _I teach = I am a teacher._
> 
> _Los niños siempre jugaban en el jardín cuando visitaban a sus abuelos.
> The children would always play in the garden / yard whey they visited their grandparents. _
> That's routine, but it isn't a state.
> 
> _Cuando vivía en España fumaba porque todo el mundo fumaba.
> When he lived in Spain he smoked because everybody smoked._
> Another routine (_smoking_) but not a state.
> 
> All of the foregoing is not intended to change any minds. It's just my last response to a forero's post.
> 
> Saudos a todos




Thank you, Donbill, for your answer, and as a final point, I do think that a simple past verb is not a repeated action or habitual past.

Have a good evening, and thanks again for your opinion.

Scalpel72


----------



## Forero

nickless said:


> Vay, donbill, no conocía esa expresión, gracias. Aunque no, en la frase que me aparece en el ejercicio "smoke" significa fumar. La frase (de las respuestas) empezaba con "I used to smoke a lot" o algo así. Y puesto que no venía la alternativa "I would smoke a lot" dan a entender que "smoke" es un stative verb, ya que el ejercicio pedía que se usasen las dos formas en caso de ser posible. Pero claro, puede ser un error del libro, que al fin y al cabo, nadie es perfecto.


Finally, I see this context!

In "I used to smoke a lot", _smoke_ is dynamic.  _A __lot_ is incompatible with "used to smoke" = "used to be a smoker".

I think the real issue with _would_ in this case is that there is nothing here to tell us _would_ refers to a repeated or customary action in the past as opposed to a hypothetical situation. And _would_ has other possible meanings too. In contrast, _used to_ clearly refers to the past.


----------



## blasita

Superb explanation and examples, Donbill.

Thank you everybody for such interesting comments.

Un saludo a todos.


----------



## Irma2011

donbill said:


> Con la ayuda del diccionario, he encontrado _smoke_ en un contexto que encaja (tal vez) con tu post original.
> 
> _To be smoking / smoke_ puede significar_ estar enojado_. Es un uso muy coloquial.
> 
> _Smoking, the teacher shouted at his students._
> 
> "_How did you feel after learning that your friend has lost your computer?"_
> _"I was smoking!"_


Entonces, donbill, sería como _'echar humo'_ en español. No conocía este uso de _'smoke'_. Pero dices que lo has encontrado en el diccionario, ¿significa eso que no es un significado habitual o que incluso puede resultarle desconocido a un nativo? 
Mil gracias, como siempre.


----------



## blasita

> Entonces, donbill, sería como 'echar humo' en español. No conocía este uso de 'smoke'. Pero dices que lo has encontrado en el diccionario, ¿significa eso que no es un significado habitual o que incluso puede resultarle desconocido a un nativo?.



Por si te sirve, Irma, sí creo que sería así en español, y yo lo conozco como: _be fuming_.  Yo tampoco sabía que se podía decir así, pero si Donbill dice que es posible, pues lo es, sí.

Un saludo.


----------



## Irma2011

blasita said:


> Por si te sirve, Irma, sí creo que sería así en español, y yo lo conozco como: _be fuming_. Yo tampoco sabía que se podía decir así, pero si Donbill dice que es posible, pues lo es, sí.
> 
> Un saludo.


Gracias, blasita, por responder. No sé cómo te quedan fuerzas después de este larguísimo debate sobre un asunto que, por otro lado, todos parecéis tener, y no hay duda de que lo tenéis, clarísimo en la práctica. Lo que pregunto a donbill no es si 'smoke' es lo mismo que 'echar humo', sino hasta qué punto su uso sería habitual, puesto que él dice haberlo encontrado en un diccionario.
Un afectuoso saludo.


----------



## Irma2011

k-in-sc said:


> He smokes: stative.





k-in-sc said:


> He is smoking: dynamic.


Perdonad por alargar este ya extensísimo hilo, cuando además, como ya dije, parece que todo el mundo está de acuerdo en cómo y cuándo utilizar 'used to' y 'would' para referirse al pasado. Pero me gustaría decir, k-in-sc, que creo que el contraste entre verbos de estado y verbos de acción se ilustra con el infinitivo, *'to smoke'/’to know’*, no con formas personales, como tú has hecho *-‘he smokes’,’he plays’/’he knows’ ‘he seems’*–, porque aquí se puede confundir esta noción con la de aspecto perfectivo y aspecto imperfectivo, que es algo distinto, como ya alguien ha dicho (pido doble perdón si todo lo que digo en este mensaje también se ha dicho ya).

'to smoke’ describes an action 
‘he smokes’ means ‘he performs the action of smoking on a habitual basis’
(‘he is a smoker’ does not describe an action’, the verb is ‘be’)




donbill said:


> _He plays the banjo_ is ongoing, but I don't see it as stative.QUOTE]Ongoing?





donbill said:


> donbill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way that I can see _smoking_ as a stative verb is in a very colloquial context such as the following.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donbill said:
> 
> 
> 
> _He's smoking!_= _He's angry_!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya sé que has decidido no escribir más mensajes en este hilo, por eso no espero una respuesta. Pero por si lees este mío, digo que aún en este caso supongo que se podría decir "He *would* smoke when anyone interrupted him unnecessarily", ¿no? (no es un ¿‘no?’ que requiera respuesta), lo que vendría a confirmar tu opinión sobre el carácter dinámico de este verbo.
Click to expand...


----------



## donbill

Irma2011 said:


> Entonces, donbill, sería como _'echar humo'_ en español. No conocía este uso de _'smoke'_. Pero dices que lo has encontrado en el diccionario, ¿significa eso que no es un significado habitual o que incluso puede resultarle desconocido a un nativo?
> Mil gracias, como siempre.



Es bastante común, Irma. Simplemente no había pensado en ese significado. Es coloquial, pero creo que cualquier nativo lo entendería. También puede significar que alguien está haciendo algo muy bien. Por ejemplo, si un tenista está jugando mejor que nunca, podríamos decir, _"Wow, he's smokin'!"_--probablemente sin la _*-g*_.

Saludos


----------



## donbill

donbill said:


> _He plays the banjo_ is ongoing, but I don't see it as stative.QUOTE]Ongoing?





donbill said:


> "He *would* smoke when anyone interrupted him unnecessarily", ¿no? (no es un ¿‘no?’ que requiera respuesta), lo que vendría a confirmar tu opinión sobre el carácter dinámico de este verbo.



In my opinion, perfectly correct and idiomatic.


----------



## Ricolo

donbill said:


> Es bastante común, Irma. Simplemente no había pensado en ese significado. Es coloquial, pero creo que cualquier nativo lo entendería. También puede significar que alguien está haciendo algo muy bien. Por ejemplo, si un tenista está jugando mejor que nunca, podríamos decir, _"Wow, he's smokin'!"_--probablemente sin la _*-g*_.
> 
> Saludos


 In Australia we say "he is fuming"


----------



## manicha

Hola. He estado pensado y, si bien no soy ninguna experta en gramática (y menos aún en la inglesa), lo que peor me suena de la oración es la forma negativa. En español, una frase como "Él no solía fumar" puede interpretarse como "fumaba algún pitillo de vez en cuando, pero no habitualmente", o bien "no fumaba" (en contraposición con "ahora sí lo hace"), aunque creo que la interpretación más natural es la primera. Es difícil hablar de "no-hábitos en el pasado", a menos que se haga en contraposición con el presente. Y casi todos los ejemplos de "I would't" que encontré en internet se pueden traducir más como la negación de un verbo en condicional que como la negación de una acción habitual en el pasado.


----------



## Irma2011

QUOTE=manicha;10600837]Hola. He estado pensado y, si bien no soy ninguna experta en gramática (y menos aún en la inglesa), lo que peor me suena de la oración es la forma negativa. En español, una frase como "Él no solía fumar" puede interpretarse como "fumaba algún pitillo de vez en cuando, pero no habitualmente", o bien "no fumaba" (en contraposición con "ahora sí lo hace"), aunque creo que la interpretación más natural es la primera. Es difícil hablar de "no-hábitos en el pasado", a menos que se haga en contraposición con el presente. Y casi todos los ejemplos de "I would't" que encontré en internet se pueden traducir más como la negación de un verbo en condicional que como la negación de una acción habitual en el pasado.[/QUOTE]
 
Hola, manicha.
Yo creo que se ha traducido tantas veces 'I used to' por 'solía', dando en ocasiones como resultado frases sin sentido, como sería, por ejemplo, 'solía vivir en Canadá pero ahora vivo en La India', que ya damos por bueno que 'no solía fumar' significa 'no fumaba', pero no es así, por lo menos yo no lo uso así. 'No solía' quiere decir que no lo hacía frecuentemente, pero alguna vez sí lo hacía.
Estoy de acuerdo contigo en que no es muy habitual hablar de 'no hábitos o repeticiones' en el pasado, pero hay casos, creo, en los que, sobre todo si hay una idea de ‘volición o determinación’ (que normalmente sería predominante), sí se podría encontrar. Por ejemplo:

_“He_* wouldn’t eat *_anything that contained meat”_ = ‘No tomaba nada que llevara carne’ (volición y acción típica o repetida)
_“I used all sorts of arguments to convince her, but she just *wouldn’t*__ *listen*”_ 
_“The key _*wouldn’t go* _in the lock, so I had to give up”_ (se puede pensar que es una sola acción, pero en realidad se compone de todos los intentos que se han hecho para abrir la puerta)
_“I used all sorts of arguments to convince her, but she just *wouldn’t*__ *listen*”_ 
(lo mismo)
_"He *wouldn't hear* of wearing a tie, not even on formal occasions"_
A ver qué te parece a tí, manicha.


----------



## manicha

Coincido contigo en que la idea de volición o determinación es muy importante. De hecho, el matiz de quería/no quería me parece fundamental. Pero no creo que sea aplicable a la frase del ejemplo. Quiero decir que pienso que no es que se negara a hacer algo (ya fuera una sola vez o sistemáticamente), sino que no tenía la costumbre de hacerlo.


----------

