At 3:21 am -0400 5/7/99, Mathias wrote:
>Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 05/07/99 06:41:52 , Ray a =E9crit :
=2E....
>i wrote "middle voice" but was thinking of medio-passive or
>unergative only as Sally and Lars corrected
Je vois.
>not greek middle voice generally which i departed 15 years
>ago upon my baccalaur=E9at after 5 years of sheer pleasure
>and no claim for learned fluency, i admit.
Yes - for what else does one read ancient Greek but sheer pleasure :)
Your emails are always a joy to read - always something thought provoking
somewhere. I think I'd like them better if you wrote in French but I'm not
sure how other list members would react.
Learned fluency in ancient Greek - if only! Such a rich and varied language
with its many dialects - it'd take a life time <sigh>
=2E....
>> >"passive" =3D to be given a prize
[snip]
>> I believe it's not
>> unknown elsewhere, but it's not found in most European langs.
>
>which implies a final dismissal ?
Most certainly not - it's a neat construction, at least we anglophones
think so :)
>>
>> It might be a good idea to have different terms to distinguish the first
>> passive from the second passive. But the scheme above seems to me
>> unsatisfactory on two counts:
=2E.......
>
>i am not english. i never said the first passive prevails.
I know you didn't - 'twas I said it :)
>i have a passive to make each case into a voice.
>i just don't know another name than "passif oblique".
Yes, 'oblique passive' would be the second one "X was given a prize", I
guess? That seems as good a term as any and works OK in English - thanks.
=2E....
>> (b) the use of "middle" is different from the centuries old use of the
>> term. This could cause confusion :)
>>
>i hope Sally's medio-passive and Lars's unergative please you.
'unergative' has the virtue or unambiguity but, as Lars says, the word is
ugly. The distinction between 'middle' & 'medio-passive' is unsatisfactory
for the reasons Lars explained - and the less ambiguous 'medio-passive
labile' is a bit of a mouthful.
[....]
>
>hence the temptative voice is valid. phew.
>i can see you understand my examples and what i suggest
>however wrong my terminology is.
I try - and I assumed you were using another's terminology :)
[snip]
>
>i understood that Jennifer wants to make any case a "subject"
>provided it is a "topic" and conversely. i was suggesting a way to
>do that with simple examples. if you make the topicized case
>into a voice, then it becomes a subject.
>brother-BEN to-prize =3D brother to-BEN-prize.
>making this suggestion may not be so wrong and confusing.
Yep - you could do this if you don't mind the peculiar passive forms we
come up with in English, e.g.
"Fred's misconduct was investigated into a year or so back & has been
talked about ever since".
But if Jennifer goes down that road, she'll likely finish up with just an
English relex - which I guess is not what she wants.
>i don't think sticking to IE grammar and terminology helps much anyway.
I think you're right. Japanese IIUC goes in for topicalization; maybe
Jennifer would do well to look at some examples.
=2E.....
>get out of IE now and then and breathe out : ahhhhhhh... hhhhhhhha.
>lush plants, golden beaches...
>OK. you're right and i'm wrong in your books.
Mais non!
I'm not infallible by any means (don't look too closely in the archives :)
and if you thought I was saying you were wrong - you've misunderstood what
I intended (indeed, in some places I specifically agreed with you).
Ray.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
[J.G.Hamann - 1760]
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D