|
<<(I also maintain that "the shirt" is not acting in any way, it only undergoes the action - how could a shirt act anyway ? I don't think shirts are clever and capable enough to wash themselves with a brush in the bath everyday :-D). >>
Certainly!! and quite funny as well! It's something our 12XX should have realised long ago...
Pete
By the way, I think this "I hate spam" bit is quite ridiculous. Honestly, I don't believe this would prevent some morons from posting crap in the forum.
|
|
<<By the way, I think this "I hate spam" bit is quite ridiculous. Honestly, I don't believe this would prevent some morons from posting crap in the forum.>>
It does not prevent those morons from posting crap in the forum but it is supposed to prevent robots from posting automatic messages : robots cannot read and understand "Type "I hate spam" into the box below:" :)
|
|
<Grammatically, the shirt (subject) is acting; it is performing an action. You're not thinking; you're getting all knotted up over the meaning of the verb "iron." >
Yes, I know. I've already spoken about deep subjects and surface subjects. Did you miss it? In such sentences as above, the verb "iron" is syntactically active and semantically passive. You do understand the difference between syntax and semantics, don't you?
|
|
"I've already spoken about deep subjects and surface subjects. Did you miss it? In such sentences as above, the verb "iron" is syntactically active and semantically passive. You do understand the difference between syntax and semantics, don't you?"
We are now deep into linguistic theory here rather than self-evident grammar.
Grammar determines "iron" is active voice - that's obvious.
The argument whether this verb is "semantically passive" is more philosophical in nature.
It's not an argument I agree with either.
|
|
<We are now deep into linguistic theory here rather than self-evident grammar. >
Is there a problem with that? Are you afraid that you will reach the limits of your ability to discuss at such a level?
<Grammar determines "iron" is active voice - that's obvious.>
Are you referring to grammar as SYNTAX? Grammar is more than that, you know?
<The argument whether this verb is "semantically passive" is more philosophical in nature. >
Nonsense.
|
|
"Is there a problem with that [linguistic theory here rather than self-evident grammar]?"
None. Except it's now only theory. And pretty specious theory, in my opinion. The kind of theory that you make up as you go along. Thus terminology like "notional passives" and "semantically passive" can mean anything - or nothing.
"Are you afraid that you will reach the limits of your ability to discuss at such a level?"
Don't patronize me.
"Are you referring to grammar as SYNTAX? Grammar is more than that, you know?"
Again, please don't patronize me.
|
|
<"Are you referring to grammar as SYNTAX? Grammar is more than that, you know?"
Again, please don't patronize me. >
Upset? Awww!
|
|
"pash"?
Huh.
That rhymes with pish.
And posh.
|
|
<That rhymes with pish. >
Really? What does the verb "rhyme" mean to you?
|
|
The AHD thinks the construction worth mentioning. Why does 12XXX have a problem with this?
"NOTIONAL PASSIVE
is a name sometimes applied to structures wherein a verb in active voice works semantically to achieve a passive effect, as in This shirt washes well, which is notionally the same as the passive This shirt can be washed well.
http://www.bartelby.com/68/30/4130.html"
That seems like a very clear and easy to understand explanation in the opinion of this NNES.
|
|
I also can't understand 12XXXX's objections.
"Kang discusses notional passives, which are passive
without a passive marker and whose patient role is usually realized as an inanimate
subject."
Very straightforward, IMO.
|
|
Maybe 12xxxxx needs to read wider.
Here's a start:
Mention of the evolution of an action immediately brings to mind two other grammatical concepts, namely, transitivity and aspect. It is thus appropriate to clarify the relationships and differences between these notions. Traditionally, voice has been defined in reference to transitivity, or more narrowly in terms of the transitivity of a verb or clause; the active/ passive opposition most typically obtains with transitive verbs. A more important connection between transitivity and voice, however, lies in the notion of semantic transitivity, rather than strictly verbal or clausal transitivity.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15041330_ITM
|
|
"I also can't understand 12XXXX's objections."
I have no objections. If you want to go along with what is no more than one theory, go ahead.
Just don't try to present it as some sort of authoritative linguistic-cum-grammatical fact.
"Maybe 12xxxxx needs to read wider."
I have read wider; my reading has brought me full circle. I have gone way out there with linguistical theory and I'm increasingly sceptical of it.
More and more, I approach language as WYSIWYG.
|
|
|
What's "linguistical"? Isn't it meant to be "linguistic" theory?
|
|
<I have no objections. If you want to go along with what is no more than one theory, go ahead. >
LOL! Your objections to the use of the term "notional passive" are what have thrown this whole thread off. The topic question was a question about usage of a certain structure, NOT about terminology. You destroyed this thread with your pedantic nature.
|
