I think a better and more convenient term for this is "the middle voice". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_voice .) I agree with M56 that these verbs are indeed active in form and passive in meaning. The concept of the middle voice is simple and very useful; I can't think of any other way to explain these verbs. (As M56 says, we would have to posit the existance of a reflexive pronoun which isn't there.)
Notional passives
<I think a better and more convenient term for this is "the middle voice".>
Might be better.
"An intransitive verb that appears active but expresses a passive action characterizes the English middle voice."
Might be better.
"An intransitive verb that appears active but expresses a passive action characterizes the English middle voice."
And we do have such as:
"This shirt washes itself", which would be like the Greek middle voice.
"This shirt washes itself", which would be like the Greek middle voice.
"12EC has gone all quiet. ??"
12EC went to bed. I'm in the UK, friend.
I believe you are all guilty of "overintellectualizing" the language processes involved here.
Why can't "this shirt washes well" simply be what it is? That is to say, the active voice.
The fact that the verb can be used this way merely means it has an additional meaning. In this case, the verb "wash" is clearly capable of expressing the meaning "undergoes washing" in the active voice.
12EC went to bed. I'm in the UK, friend.
I believe you are all guilty of "overintellectualizing" the language processes involved here.
Why can't "this shirt washes well" simply be what it is? That is to say, the active voice.
The fact that the verb can be used this way merely means it has an additional meaning. In this case, the verb "wash" is clearly capable of expressing the meaning "undergoes washing" in the active voice.
I just think the middle voice solution is more elegant. Let's just agree to disagree. ;-)
"'This shirt washes itself', which would be like the Greek middle voice."
"This shirt washes itself" is simply a reflexive verb in the active voice.
"This shirt washes itself" is simply a reflexive verb in the active voice.
"I just think the middle voice solution is more elegant."
Who does language exist for?
Speakers or Grammarians?
Answer: speakers.
That's because grammarians can't exist without language but language can exist without grammarians.
Who does language exist for?
Speakers or Grammarians?
Answer: speakers.
That's because grammarians can't exist without language but language can exist without grammarians.
<<Who does language exist for?
Speakers or Grammarians?
Answer: speakers.>>
That's true.
And I just think that your explanation is more awkward. You're saying that any verb that can appear in this context has to acquire an extra meaning as part of its definition. "To eat" gains the extra possible meaning of "to be eaten", "to read" gains the extra possible meaning of "to be read", and so forth.
I think this is cumbersome. Instead of adding 100 new meanings to 100 separate verbs, it would be much simpler to just have one voice that describes this phenomenon: the middle voice. In my opinion, it would be easier for learners of English to just learn this one simple rule.
Speakers or Grammarians?
Answer: speakers.>>
That's true.
And I just think that your explanation is more awkward. You're saying that any verb that can appear in this context has to acquire an extra meaning as part of its definition. "To eat" gains the extra possible meaning of "to be eaten", "to read" gains the extra possible meaning of "to be read", and so forth.
I think this is cumbersome. Instead of adding 100 new meanings to 100 separate verbs, it would be much simpler to just have one voice that describes this phenomenon: the middle voice. In my opinion, it would be easier for learners of English to just learn this one simple rule.
<I believe you are all guilty of "overintellectualizing" the language processes involved here. >
And you are dumbing it down to the doldrums.
And you are dumbing it down to the doldrums.
<Why can't "this shirt washes well" simply be what it is? That is to say, the active voice.>
You need to understand the difference between syntactic, semantic and pragmatic meaning.
As said a thousand times, something can be syntactically active, but have a passive meaning (semantic).
You need to understand the difference between syntactic, semantic and pragmatic meaning.
As said a thousand times, something can be syntactically active, but have a passive meaning (semantic).
<Who does language exist for?
Speakers or Grammarians?
Answer: speakers. >
And Lazar is, like you, a speaker. Are you saying that some speakers, such as you, should decide terminology and others may not?
Speakers or Grammarians?
Answer: speakers. >
And Lazar is, like you, a speaker. Are you saying that some speakers, such as you, should decide terminology and others may not?
<I think this is cumbersome. Instead of adding 100 new meanings to 100 separate verbs, it would be much simpler to just have one voice that describes this phenomenon: the middle voice. In my opinion, it would be easier for learners of English to just learn this one simple rule. >
I'm a learner, and I agree with you.
I'm a learner, and I agree with you.