casiopea said:The actor is left unstated, but it is there:
casiopea said:Quick note, I don't get how 'wash' is 'a happening' and 'read' is not. I get the coined noun phase 'a happening'; I don't get how 'wash' is different from 'read' here:
:lol: That was cute!Can a lizard be called/call itself a reptile?
- No, (it can't), because it can't speak.
The preposition of is often omitted; e.g., on both (of) those sites. ;-)Lenka said:I don't understand when should I use both with "of". Would "on both OF those sites" be considered incorrect?
Very nice explanation. However, that is exactly how mediopassive verbs (not middle verbs) are described. :-DIn "the clothes wash well" there is a syntactical link between 'clothes' and 'wash' - 'wash' happens to the clothes.
In "the glass breaks easily" there is a syntactical link between 'glass' and 'breaks' - 'break' happens to the glass
In "the book reads well' there is no syntactical link between 'book' and 'reads' - reads doesn't happen to the book, it is performed by an actor.
In English,By the way, what is the difference between a middle and an ergative verb?
Casiopea said:Very nice explanation. However, that is exactly how mediopassive verbs (not middle verbs) are described.
In English,
Ergative: This vase broke.
Who or what broke the vase isn't important. What's important is the vase didn't break by itself. It required something or someone to break it.
Middle: This vase breaks easily. <actually, not 'Middle' (although that term is used), but mediopassive> ;-)
Who or what broke the vase isn't important. What's important is the vase is easily breakable.
That's the short answer. For a longer answer click here.
All the best. :-D
How many people setting out to learn English have a clue, or even need to have a clue, about what 'medopassive', 'ergative', or any other of the strange linguistic terms invented by academics, means?
I've lived quite happily and very productively through two millennia without ever either coming across or needing to use such terms.
I've lived quite happily and very productively through two millennia without ever either coming across or needing to use such terms.
If the person listening to what you say, or reading what you write, understands what you mean, it can't be wrong.
Surely language is about getting your point across to others, not about how much your choice of style conforms to some unknown third party's ideas about 'correctness'.
Both terms are used synonymously; I came across a site that says "mediopassive" is another word for "middle" :?: They shouldn't be used synonymously, though. In the majority of human languages spoken in the world, middle voice is often reflexive.... what is the difference between a middle verb and a mediopassive? I thought it was the same
With; e.g., break happens to the glass; wash happens to the clothes, and read happens to the book. The verbs in question are both active and passive: syntactically active (i.e., their morphology) but semantically passive (i.e., their roles). Break, wash, and read are done to the glass, the clothes, and the book, respectively, by someone. Someone experienced those acts.Is 'that' referring to 'with syntactical link' or to 'without syntactical link'?
What about the implied doer here?Andrew said:...if there is no stative-like reference, then we are definitely talking about an act and we must have a stated (or at least implied) actor, which excludes it from being used in a mediopassive.
The verbs in question are both active and passive: syntactically active (i.e., their morphology) but semantically passive (i.e., their roles). Break, wash, and read are done to the glass, the clothes, and the book, respectively, by someone.
What about the implied doer here?
Ex: The book reads well (for me).
Casiopea said:only read "feels" awkward. Could the reason for that be that read is not all that common in both passive voice?
OK. No argument here, but how do we account for it - given that it is used that way?My view is that 'reads' is one of those non-passive verbs that shouldn't be used this way.
It is accounted for in the same way that many other popular but grammatically unsound phrases are. Most people simply use the language with very little thought given to the structure or grammar. It is only a small bunch of weird folk like us that discuss things like this! :cheers:OK. No argument here, but how do we account for it - given that it is used that way?
OK. So what about the other people - you know, the ones who are not "most people"?Most people simply use the language with very little thought given to the structure or grammar.
OK. So what about the other people - you know, the ones who are not "most people"?![]()
Acceptability... Open that cans of worms and this thread'll go on for years with this one says and that one says. :lol: My question was more along the lines of, where did mediopassive read come from? ;-)You mean "Why do some grammar books say "The book reads well" is acceptable?" You can ask directly: I don't mind.
OK. So, where do you think they got it from?Andrew said:You would probably be better asking [grammarians], as I am not privy to their thoughts,
Do I assume that?Andrew said:...but deduction (or cynicism!) comes up with four reasons:
1) They consider, as you do, that 'reads' has a stative quality.
OK. Explain this to me, because it sounds as if you're saying grammarians make up words and, moreover, in doing so they don't use rules.Andrew said:2) They assume, by analogy, that if the structure is correct any verb can be inserted in there, stative quality or not.
First, what herd are they following? Aren't they, the grammarians, the supposed shepards?Andrew said:3) They follow the herd and think it is acceptable because the grammar book says so.
And, yet, you don't seem to run with that pack, so why assume that "they" do?Andrew said:4) If a lot of people are using it, it must be right.
OK. So, where do you think they got it from?
Casiopea said:Do I assume that?
First, what about stative, the book is readable? Second, couldn't the phrase 'has stative meaning' (See SIL) mean stative like?
OK. Explain this to me, because it sounds as if you're saying grammarians make up words and, moreover, in doing so they don't use rules.
First, what herd are they following? Aren't they, the grammarians, the supposed shepards?
And, yet, you don't seem to run with that pack, so why assume that "they" do?
I recently read a chapter on Morphology, sematics and argument structure in which Fagan (1988) argues the verb read in English is lexically derived
The first three are suspect: the data is contrived. Food, film, and job are inanimate; they cannot like, enjoy, or hate and, moreover, the verbs like and enjoy are linking verbs, whereas hate is not (See note below), so the first three sentences are not examples of mediopassive voice. They are not 'grammatical', to use your word.Andrew said:...'read' is therefore, somehow, agentless so
The book reads easily = the book is easy to read
then by the same argument,
The food likes easily = the food is easy to like
the film enjoys easily = the film is easy to like
the job hates easily = the job is easy to hate
the dog catches easily = the dog is easy to catch
are all grammatically correct.
If you have a question about the English language and would like to ask one of our many English teachers and language experts, please click the button below to let us know: