[Andrew Whitehead]

Originally Posted by casiopea

1) read is not a stative verb; like and enjoy are stative verbs.

Why is that a problem? From your earlier post...

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Mediopassive voice is a passive voice in which the

* verb has stative meaning, and
* actor is not expressed.

If anything, that should mean that like and enjoy can be used in mediopassive, but read can't be...

Originally Posted by Casiopea

2) read does not subcategorize for a doer as subject;hate does.

How do they differ, exactly? They are both mental activities, and both need a doer.

Originally Posted by Casiopea

3) read can be passive, like and enjoy cannot be.

The teacher was liked by the students
The show was enjoyed by all.

Check your Swan PEU, 412

"verbs that refer to wanting, liking, and similar ideas cannot usually be used in passive structures with following infinitives."

Like and enjoy may be unusual as passive, but it is not forbidden. The only verbs that cannot be passive are intransitive such as 'read' when used to mean "the ability to read" - in "the boy reads well" for example.

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Like, enjoy, hate, and read are verbs, but there's more to them than that category heading. They are not the same.

No they are not. Nor, as I keep saying, are read, wash, and break.

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Apparently you have a different definition of "lexically derived". What does it mean to you?

"Obtained from vocabulary", the meaning is derived from common usage. Similar to "lexical meaning" in which the sentence is ignored.

Originally Posted by Casiopea

It's not awkward at all, at least to me. You see, you just explained the mediopassive.

I have no problem with mediopassive, only with reads in the mediopassive. From my last post:-

"On a general note, you are going to great lengths to explain mediopassive, but my objection is with 'read' (or any other mental/sensory verb) not with the existence of mediopassive."

[QUOTE+Casiopea]On a general note, you are going to great lengths to explain mediopassive, but my objection is with 'read' (or any other mental/sensory verb) not with the existence of mediopassive.[/quote]

Originally Posted by casiopea

You see, they're not compatible with passive voice.

Unusual Casi, but not incompatible.

'Some 'stative' verbs - verbs which describe states rather than actions - are almost never found in the passive. Examples include lack, fit, resemble. You can't say Sports facilities are lacked by the University; you need to say The University lacks sports facilities. Not all stative verbs are like this, however: check in your dictionary if you're not sure.'

This is a side issue though, as mediopassive requires a stative, as you said yourself.

speakers don't know how to process the semantics of mediopassive read.

People understand it, so that proves it is grammatically correct?

So, what you're saying is that the book doesn't undergo a visable change, right?

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that there is no 'act' on the book - no 'happening' - that the only 'act' is thought and this must occur in the actor. This shows that 'read' is 100% action. No stative reference at all, and should not be used in the mediopassive because mediopassive requires a stative reference.

You can't get a mediopassive reading from ?The vegetables hate easily.

I can't get one from 'the book reads easily' either, for exactly the reasons you state.

Please, point out where - so that I can address it.

You tell me to ignore semantics because the mediopassive reading of 'the book reads well" is lexically derived, and then object to my examples on semantic grounds.