Mediopassive/labile verbs; was: very confused - syntax q...

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 04/07/99 18:02:16  , Lars a =E9crit :

> But I'm talking about morphologically marked forms here. Trask is
>  talking about a specific type of labile verb. A 'mediopassively
>  labile' verb is not in the mediopassive voice when it's constructed
>  intransitively --- it just takes on a meaning reminiscent of that
>  voice in other languages. In fact, this type used to be called
>  'unergative', but that name is so bad that I can well understand that
>  Trask found another.
now i'm confused again. calling a voice "unergative" links that voice
to the ergative case only. i find this voice-case mirroring is very true.
but what if the active corresponding verb works with a nominative case ?
is it deponent ? why is there no difference made between transitive and
ditransitive verbs ? "the flower smells" may be reminiscent to
"the flower makes itself smelled by someone"
(french : "des voix se font entendre")
or to "the flower smells itself" ("les voitures se vendent")
in romance languages. but i understand from your post that
unergative verbs (whatever you call them) are not "linked" to reflexive
- even a cum-passive one - quite apart from the fact that
they are so expressed in romance languages.
japanese intransitive verbs "mieru" (to appear) or "kudakeru"
(to break) are neither passive or reflexive although they both
derive from active "miru" and "kudaku". there are separate
passive (mirareru, kudakareru) and reflexive forms.
japanese just consider them intransitive deriving from transitive
as opposed to transitive from intransitive like
intrans. mawaru > trans. mawasu ("to turn"). but how can i call
them "unergative" ? "kudaku" (to break) works ergative ok but
"miru" (to see) works nominative. the ergative based verb
("quasi-factitive") of "mieru" is "miseru" ("to show"),
while the factitive voice of "miru" is "misaseru" ("to have someone see").

mathias