<<I can't steal my brear from the baker's everyday..." >>
I meant "bread" not brear. My post above's got a lot of mistakes. Sorry
Pete
I meant "bread" not brear. My post above's got a lot of mistakes. Sorry
Pete
Notional passives
Hoping 12XXX can stay on topice, I post this again:
"Do you use constructions, such as the ones below, in your variant of English?
This book reads well.
This shirt irons easily.
The cake should cook slowly.
"Do you use constructions, such as the ones below, in your variant of English?
This book reads well.
This shirt irons easily.
The cake should cook slowly.
"Do you use constructions, such as the ones below, in your variant of English?
This book reads well.
This shirt irons easily.
The cake should cook slowly."
I doubt there is any variant of English that doesn't.
This book reads well.
This shirt irons easily.
The cake should cook slowly."
I doubt there is any variant of English that doesn't.
"01RH, only because it's somewhat philosophical, does that mean we could disregard Grammarian theories and explanations of a language?"
The problem with the concept of "notional passives" is that it is not so much based on observation of the language but rather on making the language fit preconceived notions of grammar.
It's as if the presence of "irons" in the active voice with the subject "shirt" so rattles us that we have to justify some other explanation to rationalize it with our engrained grammar dictums.
Why overcomplicate?
The problem with the concept of "notional passives" is that it is not so much based on observation of the language but rather on making the language fit preconceived notions of grammar.
It's as if the presence of "irons" in the active voice with the subject "shirt" so rattles us that we have to justify some other explanation to rationalize it with our engrained grammar dictums.
Why overcomplicate?
<<It's as if the presence of "irons" in the active voice with the subject "shirt" so rattles us that we have to justify some other explanation to rationalize it with our engrained grammar dictums.>>
To some extent, as I said long ago, you're right. However, We, human beings tend to rationalize things and justify them reasonably. We use to go beyond. thought... that's in our nature. Ever since men started to make paintings in their caves.
<<Why overcomplicate?>>
Our existence on this earth is a whole story of overcomplications, my friend. It's the price for civilization. The more the man was overthinking things, the more complicated he became... and here we are, arguing about a very abstract grammar theory, but I as I demonstrated above, If something is abstract and philosophical it doesn't mean it's not true.
This seems like a debate between guys supporting "Rationalism" and "Empiricsm", and this is not about Epistemology, it's only grammar
<<The problem with the concept of "notional passives" is that it is not so much based on observation of the language but rather on making the language fit preconceived notions of grammar. >>
You sound very much like an empiricist, mate. ;)
Kind regards
Pete from Peru
To some extent, as I said long ago, you're right. However, We, human beings tend to rationalize things and justify them reasonably. We use to go beyond. thought... that's in our nature. Ever since men started to make paintings in their caves.
<<Why overcomplicate?>>
Our existence on this earth is a whole story of overcomplications, my friend. It's the price for civilization. The more the man was overthinking things, the more complicated he became... and here we are, arguing about a very abstract grammar theory, but I as I demonstrated above, If something is abstract and philosophical it doesn't mean it's not true.
This seems like a debate between guys supporting "Rationalism" and "Empiricsm", and this is not about Epistemology, it's only grammar
<<The problem with the concept of "notional passives" is that it is not so much based on observation of the language but rather on making the language fit preconceived notions of grammar. >>
You sound very much like an empiricist, mate. ;)
Kind regards
Pete from Peru
Hmm. "The shirt irons well" is not in the active voice. If it was, you could extend the sentence to include an object (The shirt irons [what?] well), because "irons" would be a transitive verb. However in this case, the only thing the shirt could possibly iron, is itself (and that's leaving aside the semantic absurdity of the phrase and focusing completely on structure). It is Subject - Verb - Object=Subject. Right? Right. Well, that's the middle voice.
"An intransitive verb that appears active but expresses a passive action characterizes the English middle voice. For example, in <The casserole cooked in the oven>, cooked appears syntactically active but semantically passive, putting it in the middle voice. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_voice
"An intransitive verb that appears active but expresses a passive action characterizes the English middle voice. For example, in <The casserole cooked in the oven>, cooked appears syntactically active but semantically passive, putting it in the middle voice. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_voice
"An intransitive verb that appears active but expresses a passive action characterizes the English middle voice."
To which I can only reply:
"[N]ot so much based on observation of the language but rather on making the language fit preconceived notions of grammar."
QED.
To which I can only reply:
"[N]ot so much based on observation of the language but rather on making the language fit preconceived notions of grammar."
QED.
"This seems like a debate between guys supporting 'Rationalism' and 'Empiricsm', and this is not about Epistemology, it's only grammar."
Correct.
So why overcomplicate that grammar by creating fantastical grammar categories for something that is ipso facto in the active voice?
It's akin to maintaining "man" in "I gave it to the man" is somehow dative case.
Correct.
So why overcomplicate that grammar by creating fantastical grammar categories for something that is ipso facto in the active voice?
It's akin to maintaining "man" in "I gave it to the man" is somehow dative case.
@03OH
I understand completely what you are saying, however what you are suggesting is to group two completely different phenomena/structures in the same category. If you say "The shirt irons well" is active voice, and so is "I iron shirts every day", you are basically saying that those two sentences follow the same structure. They obviously do not.
I think you are thinking too much as a native speaker (seeing that you are one, it makes sense, of course). Usually though, we take too many things for granted in our native languages, while they are not all that obvious to outsiders. So, if a learner reads that both those sentences are in active voice, and both those verbs have a transitive function, s/he would be utterly confused by the inability to attribute an object to one of them.
It is not about preconceived notions of the language. It is indeed about observation of how the language works. "The shirt irons [...]", seen as active voice, makes no sense: the shirt can iron nothing. It also can't be seen as passive voice (despite the passive meaning), because of the active structure; the middle voice was invented because there was a need to describe sentences active in structure, but passive in meaning. Nothing preconceived about it - it came as a result of observation, and as a solution to a grammatical handicap. Not to mention that the middle and mediopassive voices are not an invention of our times, but are in fact pretty ancient.
I understand completely what you are saying, however what you are suggesting is to group two completely different phenomena/structures in the same category. If you say "The shirt irons well" is active voice, and so is "I iron shirts every day", you are basically saying that those two sentences follow the same structure. They obviously do not.
I think you are thinking too much as a native speaker (seeing that you are one, it makes sense, of course). Usually though, we take too many things for granted in our native languages, while they are not all that obvious to outsiders. So, if a learner reads that both those sentences are in active voice, and both those verbs have a transitive function, s/he would be utterly confused by the inability to attribute an object to one of them.
It is not about preconceived notions of the language. It is indeed about observation of how the language works. "The shirt irons [...]", seen as active voice, makes no sense: the shirt can iron nothing. It also can't be seen as passive voice (despite the passive meaning), because of the active structure; the middle voice was invented because there was a need to describe sentences active in structure, but passive in meaning. Nothing preconceived about it - it came as a result of observation, and as a solution to a grammatical handicap. Not to mention that the middle and mediopassive voices are not an invention of our times, but are in fact pretty ancient.
"If you say 'The shirt irons well' is active voice, and so is 'I iron shirts every day', you are basically saying that those two sentences follow the same structure."
I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that in both examples, the verb "iron" is active voice.
"[W]e take too many things for granted in our native languages, while they are not all that obvious to outsiders."
No - we take everything for granted in our native language. That's the amazing thing about language: you need have absolutely no conscious grammatical knowledge to use it fluently.
"So, if a learner reads that both those sentences are in active voice, and both those verbs have a transitive function, s/he would be utterly confused by the inability to attribute an object to one of them."
Stop now. I'm not suggesting these sentences are both transitive. Indeed, I never even mentioned verb transitivity. Someone else introduced that idea. Voice and transitivity - apples and oranges. Who's confusing who here?
"'The shirt irons [...]', seen as active voice, makes no sense: the shirt can iron nothing. It also can't be seen as passive voice (despite the passive meaning), because of the active structure"
Again, you're getting all wrapped up with an argument over meaning. It's true that a shirt cannot iron anything but obviously it's also true that a shirt can iron well. There's a different meaning to the verb "iron" in each example here, that's all. Why overcomplicate that?
"Not to mention that the middle and mediopassive voices are not an invention of our times, but are in fact pretty ancient."
So? They might be perfectly suitable terms for languages which actually manifest such concepts in the inflection and/or construction of their verbs but in English they're of little or no account.
We might just as well teach that "the" in "the girl" is feminine because in some other language it would be.
It makes as much sense.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that in both examples, the verb "iron" is active voice.
"[W]e take too many things for granted in our native languages, while they are not all that obvious to outsiders."
No - we take everything for granted in our native language. That's the amazing thing about language: you need have absolutely no conscious grammatical knowledge to use it fluently.
"So, if a learner reads that both those sentences are in active voice, and both those verbs have a transitive function, s/he would be utterly confused by the inability to attribute an object to one of them."
Stop now. I'm not suggesting these sentences are both transitive. Indeed, I never even mentioned verb transitivity. Someone else introduced that idea. Voice and transitivity - apples and oranges. Who's confusing who here?
"'The shirt irons [...]', seen as active voice, makes no sense: the shirt can iron nothing. It also can't be seen as passive voice (despite the passive meaning), because of the active structure"
Again, you're getting all wrapped up with an argument over meaning. It's true that a shirt cannot iron anything but obviously it's also true that a shirt can iron well. There's a different meaning to the verb "iron" in each example here, that's all. Why overcomplicate that?
"Not to mention that the middle and mediopassive voices are not an invention of our times, but are in fact pretty ancient."
So? They might be perfectly suitable terms for languages which actually manifest such concepts in the inflection and/or construction of their verbs but in English they're of little or no account.
We might just as well teach that "the" in "the girl" is feminine because in some other language it would be.
It makes as much sense.
<<So why overcomplicate that grammar by creating fantastical grammar categories for something that is ipso facto in the active voice?>>
<<"[W]e take too many things for granted in our native languages, while they are not all that obvious to outsiders."
No - we take everything for granted in our native language. That's the amazing thing about language: you need have absolutely no conscious grammatical knowledge to use it fluently.>>
It seems like you are too involved in getting knowledge through experience only, without rationalizing. You sound more and more like an Empiricist as this thread goes on, but some might as well take you for a person who is reluctant to get any further knowledge about his own language, since its not necessary.
Calliope, you are right.
<<So? They might be perfectly suitable terms for languages which actually manifest such concepts in the inflection and/or construction of their verbs but in English they're of little or no account.>>
You are partially right, because those "terms" as you call them do make sense for English as well, your reluctance to even intend to analise those concepts doesn't make them useless. And in fact, if I followed your school of thought, my friend, those terms and concepts are of no account for any language in fact. As a native speaker of Spanish, let me tell you that I need no grammar to speak fluently and make meself understood, but I learn grammar and try to look explanations for it because I want to know... I want knowledge, do you see?
<<We might just as well teach that "the" in "the girl" is feminine because in some other language it would be.
It makes as much sense.>>
This one is REALLY INTERESTING, although the explanation that it has to be that way because in other language it is... is a bit off this topic, since the middle voice hasn't been compared to anything existing in other language. And I guess it's a special characteristic of English... or maybe some other Germanic language... BUT YOU MADE A VERY GOOD POINT, MATE...
Regards
Pete from Peru
<<"[W]e take too many things for granted in our native languages, while they are not all that obvious to outsiders."
No - we take everything for granted in our native language. That's the amazing thing about language: you need have absolutely no conscious grammatical knowledge to use it fluently.>>
It seems like you are too involved in getting knowledge through experience only, without rationalizing. You sound more and more like an Empiricist as this thread goes on, but some might as well take you for a person who is reluctant to get any further knowledge about his own language, since its not necessary.
Calliope, you are right.
<<So? They might be perfectly suitable terms for languages which actually manifest such concepts in the inflection and/or construction of their verbs but in English they're of little or no account.>>
You are partially right, because those "terms" as you call them do make sense for English as well, your reluctance to even intend to analise those concepts doesn't make them useless. And in fact, if I followed your school of thought, my friend, those terms and concepts are of no account for any language in fact. As a native speaker of Spanish, let me tell you that I need no grammar to speak fluently and make meself understood, but I learn grammar and try to look explanations for it because I want to know... I want knowledge, do you see?
<<We might just as well teach that "the" in "the girl" is feminine because in some other language it would be.
It makes as much sense.>>
This one is REALLY INTERESTING, although the explanation that it has to be that way because in other language it is... is a bit off this topic, since the middle voice hasn't been compared to anything existing in other language. And I guess it's a special characteristic of English... or maybe some other Germanic language... BUT YOU MADE A VERY GOOD POINT, MATE...
Regards
Pete from Peru
<It's as if the presence of "irons" in the active voice with the subject "shirt" so rattles us that we have to justify some other explanation to rationalize it with our engrained grammar dictums. >
Nonsense. The whole thing comes out of a real understanding of how syntax, sematics and pragmatics can all be taken into account when discussing usage.
Why do you see "irons" as in the active voice there? Why is it active? Give us your definition of "active voice" if you can.
Nonsense. The whole thing comes out of a real understanding of how syntax, sematics and pragmatics can all be taken into account when discussing usage.
Why do you see "irons" as in the active voice there? Why is it active? Give us your definition of "active voice" if you can.
<The problem with the concept of "notional passives" is that it is not so much based on observation of the language but rather on making the language fit preconceived notions of grammar. >
As you've decided to control this thread, I give up on finding answers to my original question.
So, you think that the terms "active voice" and "passive voice" are both useless terms, right?
As you've decided to control this thread, I give up on finding answers to my original question.
So, you think that the terms "active voice" and "passive voice" are both useless terms, right?