True…! I’m prone to it myself, in late-night posts (e.g.).
It's a force that comes from within ... and it's name is probably ADD.
I gloss them morphemically, like usual. wa- is the stative auxiliary, and ma- is the punctual auxiliary, so if there’s no single-word translations I can use STAT and PUNC. (The former doubles as a transitivity marker, so it can be CAUS or COM too.)How do you usually gloss them? What do you give as the translation in a dictionary? The "be"/"get" distinction is useful, but it's awkward for a lot of words, and "be" is inherently ambiguous in these phrases.
The key here is that the adjectival root cannot be used on its own, and thus is ambivalent between stative and punctual readings. With a noun it naturally tends to be stative, so in a dictionary I write it as stative too.
However, consulting my dictionary for the example I gave, it looks like I got a bit muddled here. fŋim is in fact not an adjective: it’s an active verb, derived from the root √fŋi- ‘relating to breakage’. Like the adjectival roots, this one is ambivalent between readings. fŋim is the punctual stem, while the stative stem fŋiŋ means ‘be broken’. The intensive stem fŋin ‘be ground into small pieces’ also happens to be stative here, while the iterative fŋis ‘crumble away’ and atelic fŋi ‘flake off’ are dynamic. (*mafŋim doesn’t exist, while wafŋim actually means ‘break (tr.)’.) I have no really good way to gloss these, since in general the components of a verb stem aren’t easily glossable.
(If you want to discuss this further, it’s probably best to move to my scratchpad thread, where all this is documented in more detail.)
