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

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 04/07/99 17:05:42  , Sally a =E9crit :

[snip all the long interesting stuff]

i devoured your post and keep it in my virtual gilded library for now.
i understood less clearly your shift from medio-passive to passive
from your webpage. i find this quite far from classical OVS standard.
i knew volitional attaches to T. verbs. i just wrongly though it would
attach to medio-passive verbs to tell "li auto" is not a mere O
in an active OVS. why do you keep quasi-factitive bases like "to undress
someone" and "to boil something" ? is it because it makes more
sense to you ? because you find it more attractive ?

> > i see the flower > the flower appears-to me
>  > boku-wa hana-wo miru > hana-wa boku-ni mi-e-ru
>  > me-(NOM)-TOP flower-ACC see > flower-(NOM)-TOP me-OBL appear
> =20
>  Interesting!
>  =20
it's japanese. japanese is interesting. and unique, of course :-T.
i know plenty of japanese who would love to know that their
grammar is akin to such exotic languages as Basque and
Teonath (although japanese mediopassive is not transitive) ;-)
i swap (un)volitive and voice-cases :

kanan ka-W-A-tub Y-E-barazh
me see-VOL-AGE UNVOL-PAT-flower
i see flower

barazh ka-Y-E-tub W-A-kanan
flower see-UNVOL-PAT VOL-AGE-me
flower is seen by me

barazh ka-W-E-tub Y-A-kanan
flower see-VOL-PAT UNVOL-AGE-me
flower shows to me

barazh ka-Y-E-tub Y-A-kanan
flower see-UNVOL-PAT UNVOL-AGE-me
flower appears to me

etc. i spare you further development with resultative and factitive voices.=20
it's boring but writing it on a post helps me ponder whether it's ok like=20
Jennifer said.

mathias