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

Raymond A. Brown wrote:

> >
> >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.
It wasn't irrelevant; my word was unintentionally harsh.  In retrospect,
this was useful information and I saved your post.  No passions and no
knowledge bytes are irrelevant.  I was after someone who could tell me
that
"mediopassive" was an acceptable term to use for the subject-patient
construction.  I don't entirely trust Trask, or I don't entirely
understand
his cross references.  "See *middle voice*" and the two definitions
don't
compare.  Even his "unergative" doesn't corroborate Lars' assurances
that
this term can be unambiguously applied to the subject-patient
construction.
But the book was recommended to me, and I checked other books on
linguistic
terms and found this one the most comprehensive.

> Lars has IMHO put the arguments forward clearly, concisely and cogently.
Indeed he has.


Sally