• JJJJS
    207
    Can anyone caution a guess as to why?

    To me it doesn't make sense to use 'realise' as a state verb as nothing is being 'realised' i.e. brought into reality... However, I always hear it used as a state verb and hardly ever as an action verb.
  • JJJJS
    207
    I mean 'hazard a guess' not 'caution a guess'

    hazard a guess is a collocation
  • Cavacava
    2.4k
    The following is from my 1805 edition of Samuel Johnson's "Dictionary of the English Language"

    1) To bring into being--Gianville
    2) To convert money into land.

    So then in the 2nd sense, as in 'to realize an estate'.
  • Bitter Crank
    11.1k
    If you didn't want to realize clichéd collocations before your very eyes you could have proffered a prediction or submitted a supposition. Who needs the hazards of guesses?
  • JJJJS
    207
    Jeremy Paxman uses it just after 0:15:

    This is an example of what I mean
  • Bitter Crank
    11.1k
    In this sentence "realize" is an action / transitive verb: "I realized I hate coconut." "I hate coconut" is the insight created by realized, and is the direct object of the transitive verb. "By selling these bonds I will realize a profit." Same here, will realize is a transitive verb, profit is the direct object.

    Does that seem not-right to you?
  • JJJJS
    207
    It's technically a transitive verb there, but what I don't understand is the fact it's also classed as an action verb. There's no action happening there in terms of tangible reality
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    Unrealised gains on an asset are 'realised' when the asset is sold. This reflects that the gains are made 'real' in the sense that they will for the first time (unless the asset was held in the accounts at fair value) be incorporated in the balance sheet and profit and loss statement.
  • Baden
    13.5k
    @JJJJS

    Traditional grammar doesn't deal very well with this and stuffs 'to realize' in as a 'state' or 'stative' verb along with 'to be' etc. There's supposed to be a grammatical commonality in terms of the non-use of the present continuous among state verbs, but there are loads of exceptions to that and in terms of the complement, realize takes an object either usually in the form of a clause (Bitter's 1st example) or a simple direct object (2nd example). Verbs like "to be" and "to have", truer state verbs, don't. It's a bit of mess, basically.

    So, I recommend looking at a functional grammar (see diagram below) to get this type of thing clear in your mind. It's in general a much better tool for understanding how the specific language you're looking at works than classical grammar is as the latter is stuffed with illogical rules, some of which are borrowed from other languages (Latin, for example, in the case of English).

    Anyhow, "realize" does represent a kind of state, a psychological (but not a relational) one, in the first example, the state of realizing something. So, it appears somewhere between pure relations and pure actions. The diagram below helps visualize the gradual transformation. Verbs like "to be" and "to have" are true state (or relational) verbs—they describe the subject either in terms of identification (e.g. "I am an animal trainer") or attribution (e.g. "I am scared" (intensive)), (I have a knife (possessive)), (I am in the cage (circumstantial)). Verbs like "to do", "to put" etc., on the other hand, are pure actions. Verbs like realize then in the first sense describe conscious thoughts, feelings and senses and behave in the grammar somewhere between pure "state" and pure "action" verbs hence why it's confusing to think of them as either and why they don't behave grammatically as either. (Though realize in the second sense of "made something happen" is, of course, much closer to a pure action verb).

    k2f9wlas92u0bqiq.jpg

    (BTW The "Existential" category refers to phrases like "There is a problem", "There seems to be a hurricane coming" etc...)
  • JJJJS
    207
    I think verbs like 'understand' 'remember' and 'figure out' fall into the same category
  • Baden
    13.5k


    Pretty much, I'd agree. I always find the above much more logical anyhow. Classical grammar is a confusing mish-mash of tradition and rationalization.
  • Cuthbert
    999
    Bitcoin. I now realise that I cannot realise my assets.
  • Bitter Crank
    11.1k
    Bill Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." referencing his affair with Monica Lewinsky, an intern who made it big.

    So, a single noun a sentence doesn't make, but can, none the less, convey all sorts of meaning, as "Bitcoin." does here.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.