Re: Stative passive

Carsten Becker <post@...>
wrote:

> Is it really
> necessary to think about this in
> conlanging or is one passive enough to express
> both.
(or you make "the soup cooks" and "the door (is) open(s)" and "the pot is
broken" kinds o' mediopassive states/processes the pivot of your system and
you say the agent makes them into these states.)

You can get rid of all and any passive an "à l'anglaise" auxiliary system
modelled on the "I make it work" stuff. Let's call the passive auxiliary "to
get". Examples:

The door opens.
The agent makes the door open/ opens the door.
The door gets open.
The door gets the agent make it open.
The guy sees the girl.
The girl gets the guy see her.
The guy talks addressing the girl in the house.
The girl gets the guy talk adressing her.
The house gets the guy talk addressing the girl in it.
The house gets the girl get the guy talk address her in it.

A bit the same in bad, spoken French except that there is no need of
auxiliary, only topicization (or themization? :-):

La porte elle est ouverte.
L'agent il ouvre la porte.
La porte, l'agent i(l) l'ouvre.
Le type il voit la fille.
La fille, le type il la voit.
Le type il parle à la fille dans la maison.
La fille, le type il lui/y parle.
La maison (eh bien), le type il parle à la fille dedans.
La maison (eh bien), la fille, le type il lui parle dedans.

But I still prefer having a few voices because my conlang vocabulary is
based on compound words. "Prey" is "animal (who is) hunted" while a
"preybird" is "bird (who is) hunting". So if I get rid of passive voice,
well, I can't make up words properly anymore.