Where on earth does it state that the middle voice is a featrure of vernacular and/or informal English? I've searched for qualified sources, but cannot find anything.
middle voice and register
"Where on earth does it state that the middle voice is a featrure of vernacular and/or informal English? I've searched for qualified sources, but cannot find anything."
1. Have you tried googling "English middle voice"? Lots of stuff there.
2. For what it's worth, the "English middle voice" is a pretty contentious subject. I'm not at all convinced of its existence myself but others are. To me, it's a bit like claiming English has a "dative case."
1. Have you tried googling "English middle voice"? Lots of stuff there.
2. For what it's worth, the "English middle voice" is a pretty contentious subject. I'm not at all convinced of its existence myself but others are. To me, it's a bit like claiming English has a "dative case."
<1. Have you tried googling "English middle voice"? Lots of stuff there. >
Nothing on it being vernacular or informal.
<I'm not at all convinced of its existence myself but others are. >
That's fine, but what name would you give to these constructions?
This book reads well.
The wine is drinking well at present.
Wheat grows well on this farm.
Sheila seduces easily and willingly.
Nothing on it being vernacular or informal.
<I'm not at all convinced of its existence myself but others are. >
That's fine, but what name would you give to these constructions?
This book reads well.
The wine is drinking well at present.
Wheat grows well on this farm.
Sheila seduces easily and willingly.
"That's fine, but what name would you give to these constructions?
This book reads well.
The wine is drinking well at present.
Wheat grows well on this farm.
Sheila seduces easily and willingly."
Four sentences all in the active voice.
This book reads well.
The wine is drinking well at present.
Wheat grows well on this farm.
Sheila seduces easily and willingly."
Four sentences all in the active voice.
<<Four sentences all in the active voice.>>
If these are in the active voice, then books can read and wine can drink. Obviously they can't, and these sentences aren't passive either, so they must be middle.
If these are in the active voice, then books can read and wine can drink. Obviously they can't, and these sentences aren't passive either, so they must be middle.
<Four sentences all in the active voice. >
Syntactically, yes, but what about semantically?
Syntactically, yes, but what about semantically?
Well, as you can see by Josh's response, there isn't agreement on this.
I tend to take WYSIWYG approach.
That's to say, I go by what's there. In the four sentences, the verbs are all in the active voice.
English obviously doesn't use a "middle voice" verb form to express this aspect of meaning any more than it uses a dative noun/pronoun form to express the meaning of "indirect object."
I don't seem to recall ever encountering anyone arguing that (for example) the word "boy" in "I gave the book to the boy" is "semantically dative."
Unless of course they think that Latin grammar concepts are universally applicable to all languages...
I tend to take WYSIWYG approach.
That's to say, I go by what's there. In the four sentences, the verbs are all in the active voice.
English obviously doesn't use a "middle voice" verb form to express this aspect of meaning any more than it uses a dative noun/pronoun form to express the meaning of "indirect object."
I don't seem to recall ever encountering anyone arguing that (for example) the word "boy" in "I gave the book to the boy" is "semantically dative."
Unless of course they think that Latin grammar concepts are universally applicable to all languages...
<I tend to take WYSIWYG approach.
That's to say, I go by what's there. In the four sentences, the verbs are all in the active voice. >
So you are saying that semantics is not relevant, right? You see object and sublect, but not agent, theme, patient etc,, right?
Hmm.
So if they are in the active voice, the book in "this book reads well" is the book is the doer of the action, right? If not, what do you mean by active voice?
That's to say, I go by what's there. In the four sentences, the verbs are all in the active voice. >
So you are saying that semantics is not relevant, right? You see object and sublect, but not agent, theme, patient etc,, right?
Hmm.
So if they are in the active voice, the book in "this book reads well" is the book is the doer of the action, right? If not, what do you mean by active voice?
"So you are saying that semantics is not relevant, right? You see object and sublect [sic], but not agent, theme, patient etc,, right?"
No, I'm not saying semantics is irrelevant. Indeed, I detect considerable confusion here about just what "semantics" is supposed to be.
Josh stated:
"If these are in the active voice, then books can read and wine can drink. Obviously they can't, and these sentences aren't passive either, so they must be middle."
Obviously books can "read" and wine can "drink," or they wouldn't be the subjects of active verbs. Josh's argument about the "middle voice" appears based more on the laws of physics than linguistics. It doesn't seem to have occurred to him that a verb can have more than one shade of meaning. Take these two phrases:
That boy reads well
This book reads well
The simple fact is, the verb form "reads" has two separate meanings in each phrase. In the first, the boy is good at reading. In the second, the book exhibits a measure of "readability" (I seriously doubt any native English speaker is likely to interpret it as meaning "this book is good at reading").
Arguing for a "middle voice" is putting the semantic cart before the grammatical horse, so to speak. It is how words are positioned and their form in any utterance that creates meaning. Juxtaposing noun "book" with the active verb form "reads" and qualifying it with "well" creates a distinct semantic concept.
"Who or what is the agent here, IYO?
'The gates open smoothly.'"
The agent is "the gates." Again, the fact that, physically, gates can't open themselves is neither here nor there; grammatically, the gates are the agent of the action "open." English allows this construction in the active voice.
If you want to believe that this constitutes some sort of English "middle voice" though, fill your boots. To my mind, it's unnecessarily complicating things; a bit like arguing "the" in "the girl" is a feminine article.
No, I'm not saying semantics is irrelevant. Indeed, I detect considerable confusion here about just what "semantics" is supposed to be.
Josh stated:
"If these are in the active voice, then books can read and wine can drink. Obviously they can't, and these sentences aren't passive either, so they must be middle."
Obviously books can "read" and wine can "drink," or they wouldn't be the subjects of active verbs. Josh's argument about the "middle voice" appears based more on the laws of physics than linguistics. It doesn't seem to have occurred to him that a verb can have more than one shade of meaning. Take these two phrases:
That boy reads well
This book reads well
The simple fact is, the verb form "reads" has two separate meanings in each phrase. In the first, the boy is good at reading. In the second, the book exhibits a measure of "readability" (I seriously doubt any native English speaker is likely to interpret it as meaning "this book is good at reading").
Arguing for a "middle voice" is putting the semantic cart before the grammatical horse, so to speak. It is how words are positioned and their form in any utterance that creates meaning. Juxtaposing noun "book" with the active verb form "reads" and qualifying it with "well" creates a distinct semantic concept.
"Who or what is the agent here, IYO?
'The gates open smoothly.'"
The agent is "the gates." Again, the fact that, physically, gates can't open themselves is neither here nor there; grammatically, the gates are the agent of the action "open." English allows this construction in the active voice.
If you want to believe that this constitutes some sort of English "middle voice" though, fill your boots. To my mind, it's unnecessarily complicating things; a bit like arguing "the" in "the girl" is a feminine article.
<That boy reads well
This book reads well
The simple fact is, the verb form "reads" has two separate meanings in each phrase. In the first, the boy is good at reading. In the second, the book exhibits a measure of "readability" (I seriously doubt any native English speaker is likely to interpret it as meaning "this book is good at reading"). >
The second sentence implies an omitted agent, i.e. the author of the book. The book was made readable by the author. Middles can do that. They can express a certain quality of the object (above, the book), which is syntactically in subject position, and often suggest an outside agent/force. The object, in subject position, is often the Affected. It is affected by the verb.
<It is how words are positioned and their form in any utterance that creates meaning. >
No, it's that, semantics, pragmatics and context which creates meaning. Please read wider.
Please give us your definition of "agent".
This book reads well
The simple fact is, the verb form "reads" has two separate meanings in each phrase. In the first, the boy is good at reading. In the second, the book exhibits a measure of "readability" (I seriously doubt any native English speaker is likely to interpret it as meaning "this book is good at reading"). >
The second sentence implies an omitted agent, i.e. the author of the book. The book was made readable by the author. Middles can do that. They can express a certain quality of the object (above, the book), which is syntactically in subject position, and often suggest an outside agent/force. The object, in subject position, is often the Affected. It is affected by the verb.
<It is how words are positioned and their form in any utterance that creates meaning. >
No, it's that, semantics, pragmatics and context which creates meaning. Please read wider.
Please give us your definition of "agent".
<English allows this construction in the active voice. >
It is only active syntactically: it is passive semantically. Now, does that make it different to the majority of active voice sentences or not?
It is only active syntactically: it is passive semantically. Now, does that make it different to the majority of active voice sentences or not?
"Please read wider."
Please don't try to be patronizing with me.
As I said earlier, this subject boils down to a matter of opinion. Your concepts and mine are merely theories, not facts.
I might add that I think yours are even more theoretical than mine because they are based entirely on what you perceive to be the intellectual processes undertaken by a speaker to build a meaningful utterance.
I look at what is actually said, and determine the process from that.
Please don't try to be patronizing with me.
As I said earlier, this subject boils down to a matter of opinion. Your concepts and mine are merely theories, not facts.
I might add that I think yours are even more theoretical than mine because they are based entirely on what you perceive to be the intellectual processes undertaken by a speaker to build a meaningful utterance.
I look at what is actually said, and determine the process from that.
<As I said earlier, this subject boils down to a matter of opinion. Your concepts and mine are merely theories, not facts. >
Your "theories" don't even get close to those which have been put forward as opposition to the idea of a middle voice. Your approach is amateur and uninformed.
<I look at what is actually said, and determine the process from that. >
Wonderful, another person who has never thought deeply about usage. You go on using what is easy for you.
Your "theories" don't even get close to those which have been put forward as opposition to the idea of a middle voice. Your approach is amateur and uninformed.
<I look at what is actually said, and determine the process from that. >
Wonderful, another person who has never thought deeply about usage. You go on using what is easy for you.
My original question has not been answered:
Where on earth does it state that the middle voice is a featrure of vernacular and/or informal English? I've searched for qualified sources, but cannot find anything.
Where on earth does it state that the middle voice is a featrure of vernacular and/or informal English? I've searched for qualified sources, but cannot find anything.