Notional passives
Well, you have built up some lovely theories here but ultimately that is all they are.
In sentences like "This shirt irons easily," your complicated and overwrought intellectualizations about "what is going on" are no more valid than my simple explanation: that English allows the active voice with this verb and that there is a particular shade of meaning to "iron" in this context akin to "collapse" in "the building collapses quickly."
But now we're on syntactic subjects, semantic objects, surface subjects, deep subjects and so on.
None of this is fact. It's all linguistic theory. You certainly don't seem to like it challenged much. And I note the rapid resort to abusive ad hominem language: not very scholarly, chaps.
Enjoy yourselves though!
<<And I note the rapid resort to abusive ad hominem language: not very scholarly, chaps.>>
I can't speak for the others, but I have used no ad hominem language.
<<In sentences like "This shirt irons easily," your complicated and overwrought intellectualizations about "what is going on" are no more valid than my simple explanation: that English allows the active voice with this verb and that there is a particular shade of meaning to "iron" in this context akin to "collapse" in "the building collapses quickly.">>
So my system is a complicated and overwrought intellectualization, and your system redundantly adds dozens of definitions to dozens of separate verbs. Personally, I think that one short rule is simpler than pages and pages of new definitions.
<<None of this is fact. It's all linguistic theory.>>
I agree wholeheartedly. Nothing more remains to be said here.
You seem to have very personal definition of English grammar, 12GOD. How does your description of the English active voice differ from this one?
"Active Voice
In sentences written in active voice, the subject performs the action expressed in the verb; the subject acts."
<Personally, I think that one short rule is simpler than pages and pages of new definitions.>
Indeed.
"In sentences written in active voice, the subject performs the action expressed in the verb; the subject acts."
Ignoring your attempts at personal abuse, I note that, for someone so "knowledgeable" you can't get it through your head than the verb "iron" might have a fully active meaning here.
You're so hide-bound by "rules" and so stuck on the physical reality that a shirt can't iron itself that you cannot seem to grasp that that is not what is meant by the verb here.
< stuck on the physical reality that a shirt can't iron itself that you cannot seem to grasp that that is not what is meant by the verb here. >
I think I've shown that I think nothing of the kind. You seem a bit lost.
You missed the question:
<How does your description of the English active voice differ from this one?
"Active Voice
In sentences written in active voice, the subject performs the action expressed in the verb; the subject acts." >
As I stated, you just don't get it.
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."
You know what?
Taking a leaf out of the World War One history books, I'm calling a truce on this one for now.
Regardless of our differences, I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas, a Happy Hannukah and all the best in the New Year.
12WHATEVER
12??, I agree completely. As far as I'm concerned, we've all made our viewpoints known here, and I'm not going to participate in this argument anymore. My experiences in the dreaded "A concept of time" thread have given me an aversion to these endless back-and-forth exchanges. ;-)
<<Regardless of our differences, I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas, a Happy Hannukah and all the best in the New Year.>>
Ditto. Happy holidays to everyone!
"My experiences in the dreaded 'A concept of time' thread have given me an aversion to these endless back-and-forth exchanges."
Oh boy, I am with you on that.
Will that thread never die?
Indeed this type of structures is called "middle voice", "middle construction" or "mediopassive voice".
It can also be referred to as "ergative structures", by analogy with the models of languages that use absolutive/ergative cases instead of nominative/accusative.
"Ergative" can sometimes be used in English to refer to syntactic subjects of intransitive verbs, those subjects having the thematic roles of patients.
Yet there is a difference between those two examples :
- the shirt washed well
- the window opened
Both have a patient used as the syntactic subject of the verb. The difference is the first sentence is indeed a middle construction whereas the second one can be analysed as a causative construction (someone opened the window => the window opened : there is a generic agent; in the mediopassive construction, there is no implied agent).
My last paragraph is a bit wrong. To be more accurative, the causative construction implies a definite agent (that is not expressed) whereas the middle construction implies a generic agent (that is not expressed either).
The same sort of structure exists in French but it can go even further.
In English you can say "The shirt washes well, the car drives well" ... but you cannot say "the shirt washes" (correct me if I'm wrong - at least it sounds weird) nor "the meal eats well" (correct me again if necessary).
In French we can use those sorts of structures :
- We can used about all the verbs, like "eat" : "ça se mange bien"
- We can often supress things like "well", "easily", etc : "ça se mange" (which means it's edible - or in a more biased meaning that it's yummy or on the contrary it is quite hypocritical a way to pretend you like it) whereas I don't thing you can say "it eats" to say "you can eat it well/with pleasure, etc."
I think 12XX refuses any kind of intellectual explanations and does not want to do anything with Grammar. And as they were posting on He's shown an attitude which is more like being afraid of knowledge... However, what he says does make soe sense... it's only an explanation I haven't heard before.
I'd say I agree with M56 and Lazar. Although some say they have complicated the language, that theory of middle voice is the one that sounds more correct to me.
Syntactic.- it has to do with the structure of the sentence.
Semantic.- it's about the actual meaning of what is being said.
ACTIVE VOICE (transitive verbs)
Anyone can iron this shirt quite easily.
Syntaxis.- Subject + verb + object + adverb.
Semantic interpretation.- The subject does the action expressed by the verb, the object undergoes the action. the adverb expresses the way in which the action is performed.
PASSIVE VOICE
This shirt can be ironed easily (by anyone).
Syntaxis.- Subject + verb + adverb (+ agent).
Semantic interpretation.- The subject undergoes the action expressed by the verb, in this case the Subject does not do anything. The one that performs the action is the agent, who is not important in this sentence.
MIDDLE VOICE
This shirt irons easily.
Syntaxis .- Subject + verb + adverb.
Semantic interpretation.- The subject undergoes the action expressed by the verb, the subject doesn't do anything here. The one that performs the action would be an agent that is not mentioned in any way or form. Therefore, This tense has that structure of the active voice, but the meaning is more like that of the passive voice.
ACTIVE VOICE (intransitive verbs)
I work very hard
Sintaxis .- Subject + verb + adverb.
Semantic interpretation.- The subject doesn't undergo any action since it's the performer of the action. the adverb gives more detail about the way in which the subject performs the action expressed by the verb.
Despite the similarity with the MIDDLE VOICE, they are different indeed. In here there is no passive meaning since the subject performs the action, unlike the MIDDLE VOICE.
That's the thing, 12IN, you must understand. A sentence with a passive meaning has very little to do with the verb, but it's about the subject. If the subject performs an action, then it's ACTIVE in meaning, if the subject does not do anything but actually is affected by the action of a verb, then it's PASSIVE in meaning.
No one wants you to think this way, only to understand that it's the easiest way to see it, so non-native speakers can understand this more easily.
Pete
It is indeed the easiest to understand it, Pete.
If some of you have knowledge in Chomskian generative grammar, you can understand well how the structure works (it works as a passive, as a matter of fact): "the shirt" (or whatever it is) is the "internal argument" of the verb (= "patient", "theme" ... but absolutely not "agent") but this argument moves up to the subject position to receive the nominative case (because the verb, in such a case, gets inaccusative). Which indeed shows that the subject is only subject syntactically speaking but is semantically speaking the patient (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).
<<(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.