I'm currently going through a review-all Japanese Linguistics reading. Now I've got to the part where verb types are described and it's been bothering me how this particular topic has been addressed. Not just in one particular grammar book, but in all of them.
The issue here is as follows:
Do stative (versus eventive) predicates have an object which is marked by が?
I'm just curious to see what other people actually think, and to hear of any source where this may be analysed differently.
is not to be thought as it'd be in English language, that is, to think as the subject being an actor (and therefore the verb "to understand" wouldn't be considered as stative). Isn't the point of stative predicates to describe a state and therefore "that problem IS not understood" (~I don't understand that problem)? This troubles me a lot. Why isn't the verb 分かる treated as "to be understood", a property of the SUBJECT (thus が) instead of an action (where を would mark the accusative case/ the object)?
Some more examples
Furthermore, is it possible to use the particle は in these cases? It seems too emphatic to use the が particle when further context is provided
Thank you in advance.