Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Mediopassive/labile verbs; was: very confused - syntax question

From:Raymond A. Brown <raybrown@...>
Date:Wednesday, July 7, 1999, 5:33
Just a few points on what, hopefully, will be my last post on this topic   :)

At 3:28 pm -0400 6/7/99, John Cowan wrote:
> >As I said before, the historic use of "medio-passive" is to name >*forms* that can be used for either the middle or the passive voice >in Gk, Skt, Hittite. It has apparently been buccaneered to >name not a voice (as I thought) but a verb class also >known as "unergative".
Just so - nice to know that I was not the only one caught off foot by this relatively new use of 'medio-passive' to denote a _class_ of verbs and not a 'voice' - indeed, a class which in English is morphologically active :) ------------------------------------------------------------------ At 5:57 pm +0200 6/7/99, Lars Henrik Mathiesen wrote:
>(I've totally lost track of who said what by now...) > >IMO, what confounds this discussion is the use of the word voice.
.... [snipped - but excellently explained - thanks, Lars] ....
> >On the other hand, Jennifer's language has a morpheme that gives a >verb form a sense that is either reflexive or passive according to the >nature of the subject. This is in fact exactly what the voice called >mediopassive in PIE did, and what mediopassive voices do in many other >languages, so I don't really know why this sense of the word is being >dismissed as irrelevant.
Nor I indeed. And when I briefly outlined the _morphological_ uses of 'middle', 'passive' & 'mediopassive' in ancient Greek, I was attempting to be helpful, not indulge in some irrelevant passion. That I didn't quote Sanskrit & Nesite (Hittite) examples is simply because I'm less familiar with them. ------------------------------------------------------------- At 1:17 pm -0700 6/7/99, Sally Caves wrote: [....]
>me! So I guess I don't need your endorsement. So I guess you can >relax! :)
I am relaxed - indeed, finding this thread a little tedious now. Lars has IMHO put the arguments forward clearly, concisely and cogently - better than I can. .....
>> >> So how about a little us conlangers coming up with better ideas? >> > >> >See Charles' post a few hours back. LOL >> >> Which one? And my suggestion wasn't meant to be a dead, serious >> proposition: just a little half-fun, half-serious idea. > >Neither was Charles's!
>Charles: >> Yes, we must reform the outlandish terminology. >> First, eliminate those nasty clitics. . . >> But for voices we need a totally new set: >> >> Transigent voices: >> >> Leftist: I eat the fish. >> rightest: The fish be eaten by me.
etc. Oh yes - I remember that one. I also realized Charles wasn't being serious (at least, I don't think he was :) - so I hadn't kept a copy. Ray. ======================================== A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language. [J.G.Hamann - 1760] ========================================