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

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!
[snip]
>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]
========================================