"Like, enjoy, hate..." are, perhaps, not the best verbs to compare with "read", as read is an activity you have to make an effort for: You can say: "I'll read the book at five o'clock." You can't really say: "I'll hate you at five o'clock".
How about comparing:
1.a This sentence is strange to read.
1.b This sentence reads strangely.
2.a This puzzle is hard to solve.
2.b This puzzle solves hard.
I have no objection to 1.b whatsoever. 2.b sounds strange to me, though. Why is that?
***
Btw:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Casiopea The clothes wash well.
middle: they wash themselves 
mediopassive: they are washable The glass breaks well.
middle: it breaks itself
mediopassive: it is breakable The book reads well.
middle: it reads itself 
mediopassive: it is readable |
Would it be interesting to point out that the German version of "The book reads well," is, in fact, syntactically reflexive: "Das Buch liest sich gut" (Literally: "The book reads self well.") Now, I'm a native speaker of German, but I don't see any semantic reflexivity hear. The book doesn't read itself. The clothes wash well, would be rendered in the same way ("Die Kleidung wäscht sich gut.") Interestingly, "Glass breaks easily" takes a different pattern: "Glas (zer)bricht leicht."
How languages organise their syntax varies. The above distinction seems to be modelled on classical grammars (middle voice exists in Classical Greek, let's apply it to English). Not all grammatical terms transfer equally well (<- look a middle voice!), though.