tenses

Hi Paco,

Here are some comments.

(1) (x) I knew her five years ago.
This is wrong. "Five years ago" is a point-time adverbial and so it can't go with a stative verb "know". It sounds OK to me. My understanding is that you have lost contact with her, thus you don't know her now, you don't have a relationship now..
(2) (o) I've known her for five years.
This is right. It means we got acquainted with each other five years ago and still now we keep an intimate relationship. Sounds fine. The term 'intimate relationship' is one you need to be careful with, though!
(3) (o) I knew her for five years, but we lost touch two years ago.
This is right. As the state of my knowing her is now a past event, we can describe it in simple past tense. Yes. It could be rewritten like below.
 "I had known her for five years, but we lost touch two years ago." Yes.

You also say that ...I thought previously "know someone" could be a dynamic verb Well, I know you are interested in the history of language, its development and archaic expressions. So, I want to point out an archaic usage of 'know someone' that is extremely dynamic, at least if you do it right.

'Tom went into Mary's bedroom and knew her' is an archaic way of saying they had sex. The Christian Bible, in the Old Testament, is full of this usage. It's not even that long ago that people spoke of 'carnal knowledge'. In Britain, people would be (perhaps still are) charged with the crime of 'unlawful carnal knowledge' (of a minor, for example, to be more serious).

So, as I said, 'to know' has a dynamic history!

It makes you think again about some of the well-known sayings about knowledge, eg

'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'

or 'It's not what you know, it's who you know'.

Anyway, good luck with your pursuit of knowledge.

Best wishes, Clive

Tallulah Tam wrote:

Mr P.  Before rushing out to church - I live in the Bible Belt you know.  "During the seminar you attended last week, did you meet HIM?"  2) It was expected that he would be there to meet her. A definite appointment had been made.

This thread has acquired a strangely Biblical tone. However:

_____________________________________________

Two women are sitting in a bar in Palma de Mallorca chatting.

One woman notices a man across the room looking their way. She leans over to the other woman and says:-

"During the seminar you attended last week, did you meet HIM?" 

[Which is to be interpreted as:]

"It was expected that he would be there to meet her. A definite appointment had been made."

_____________________________________________

Are you sure about that, Tallulah?

MrP

May I play too?

"One woman" must know, or know about "the man", since she knows he was at the seminar. She also knows "the other woman", for the same reasons. She asks "the other woman" whether she met "the man" at the seminar. (I know you were there, I know he was there, so did both of you meet?) I don't see any hint of a date in the scene, unless "one woman" had a secret plot with "the man" so he and "the other woman" should get acquainted. 

Or unless, of course this is not the whole conversation, and for example, the two women enter the - what was it? a bar? - enter the bar, then, sit down, order, then "the other woman" says: "See that man over there, looking our way? He's a gynecologist". Then "one woman" answers "Did you meet him at the seminar?". But then "one woman" may or may not know "the man".

I think if the three of them knew eachother, the man wouldn't be just "looking their way", he would come and say hello, or be sitting with both women.

Tell me if I'm erring ...

Oh, I do think a well-mannered gentleman would at the very least nod or smile at both women if he knew both of them.

He would have left, then, or spilled a cocktail into her décolleté! 

And he wouldn't be looking but glaring at them/her