Mediopassive/labile verbs; was: very confused - syntax q.
|From:||From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html <lassailly@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, July 6, 1999, 18:06|
Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 06/07/99 17:00:09 , Lars a =E9crit :
> --- another class is called 'causative' because the sense of the
> _transitive_ construction is 'causative' compared to the intransitive.
it isn't. i strongly oppose this - my only opportunity for that ;-)
this is a recently widely spread, "logical" trend i don't understand.
cause and finality are different. read Plato. listen to Michael Jackson.
intransitive isn't reductible to "x causing y".
"x seeing y" is not "x causing y to be seen".
"z shows y" is not "z causing x to see y".
this kind of wrong simplification only evidences today's
mathematical cul-de-sac and a-culturation where unsemantic
linguistics leads us. retrospective aspectivation does exist.
i met it.
> The morphology and syntax of a English verb construed transitively is
> exactly the same across the classes of labile verbs, and indeed for
> pure transitive verbs as well. The same goes for intransitive uses. I
> see no reason for claiming that a subset of the labile verbs are in
> some special magical 'mediopassive voice' when used intransitively.
i agree. but the fact that all of them are mechanically intransitive in
both or troth of english and some of its as close relatives as japanese
may tell us something.
> Also, this classification is arguably purely descriptive, by which I
> mean that we do not have to assume that language users classify verbs
> this way --- they may have a pair of 'lexicon entries' for each labile
> verb, giving the separate meanings of transitive and intransitive
> uses. Trask's 8 classes then describe the logically possible relations
> between a pair of senses, or at least those found in English.
indeed : sense, meaning, semantics, oops !
> 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.
yeah... i didn't think of that. or maybe Jennifer is a native english speake=
who knows ?
> Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@...> (Humour NOT=20marked)
(don't take it wrong - i'm on vacation and i'm no linguist)