"There is such as thing as "the middle voice" in English."
Who here agrees with that?
Who here agrees with that?
|
"There is such as thing as "the middle voice"
"There is such as thing as "the middle voice" in English."
Who here agrees with that?
I don't know how common it is to call it that, but Wikipedia discusses the "middle voice" in English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_voice#The_middle_voice). I think it's a useful distinction, because a statement like "The casserole cooked in the oven" doesn't really fit the passive voice, but it isn't really active because the casserole isn't doing the action of cooking, it's having the action of cooking being done to it. The number of verbs used this way in English is fairly small, though, which is probably why the topic doesn't come up very often.
- Kef
There is such a thing in English. So, yes, I do agree.
Look at this: http://antimoon.com/forum/t6541.htm
This issue has been argued several times before. I think yes, English does have a middle voice. In some verbs, which could be called "middle verbs", in which the use of the middle voice is standard: "fill, break, burn, wash, cook, grow." In other transitive verbs, like "eat", the middle voice is possible, but informal and much less frequent.
But in the end, this is a matter of interpretation: I simply think that the middle voice allows for a more elegant explanation of English verbs. I think I've made my viewpoint clear, and so have...um...I suppose, the "bivocals", so I hope this thread doesn't turn into another big verb battle. |