Re: USAGE: YAEUT: "Molten" vs. "Melted"

I don't think it's an active/passive participle distinction, but that
"molten" is basically a fossilised adjective that derives ultimately from
"melt". "Melted" is just the productive form.
And I'm in disagreement as well about the state of the substance. Molten
lava is perfectly liquid alright, and so is molten iron. I tend to be in the
"viscosity" camp.

Eugene

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...>wrote:

> As regards "melted" and "molten", if I've properly understood some of the
> replies;
> (1) "molten" is more of a passive participle than "melted", while "melted"
> might
> be either passive or active.  On can say "is melted" or "is molten" or "has
> melted"; but one cannot say "has molten".
> (2) "molten" is more imperfective, and/or more present (or simultaneous)
> perfect; "melted" is more perfective, and/or more (recent?) past (or
> anterior).  "Molten plastic" is still in a state of igneous fusion; "melted
> plastic"
> may have re-solidifed (though in a way that makes the fact that it was once
> melted still relevant).
>
> (A) Is that correct?
> (B) Is there more to it?
> (C) Does some of it appear to be the workings of my own fevered brain
> rather
> than anything anyone else has said on this thread?
> (D) How much also applies to the other English verbs mentioned with more
> than one passive and/or perfect participle?
>

Reply