[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Andrew Whitehead

Why is that [i.e., 'read is not a stative verb]' a problem?

Where SIL describes mediopassive voice as "a passive voice in which the verb has a stative meaning", they are referring to the semantics of the mediopassive contruct, the syntax, not the verb's lexically housed semantics.

Originally Posted by Andrew

How do [the verbs read and hate] differ, exactly? They are both mental activities, and both need a doer.

Not 'mental activities' per se, but rather psych(ological) verbs.

Originally Posted by Andrew

Check your Swan PEU, 412
Like and enjoy may be unusual as passive, but it is not forbidden.

That's very true, Andrew - what's with the word 'forbidden'? - but that's not the case with the examples you provided: mediopassive like and enjoy are ungrammatical. Do you know why?

Originally Posted by Andrew

No they are not [the same]. Nor, as I keep saying, are read, wash, and break.

OK. So, we agree, then. The semantics of the verb read is different from that of wash, break, like, enjoy, and hate. Right? Now, given that read is the odd one out of that bunch, why use that bunch as examples?

Originally Posted by Andrew

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

Right. In other words, stative is lexically derived, whereas SIL's description 'stative meaning' means structurally derived.

Originally Posted by Andrew

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."

The reason being, you are comparing read with verbs that can't and don't work in mediopassive voice. It's like saying, I think blue isn't a color. In fact, I can prove it: blue is not a color, because apples aren't colors.

Originally Posted by Andrew

...mediopassive requires a stative, as you said yourself.

I did? Could you show me where?

People understand [the semantics of mediopassive voice], so that proves it is grammatically correct?

Uh, yeah.

Originally Posted by Andrew

...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.

First, what about mediopassive Her face reads well? How does that sit with you? Second, sounds to me as if you're saying read is a psych verb, which would explain why you're using other psych verbs to compare it with.

Originally Posted by Andrew

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.

First, that the semantics of mediopassive verbs are lexically derived is not my idea. I believe I cited the source on that. In fact, you even referenced it in one of your posts. Second, where did I tell you to ignore the semantics of mediopassive voice? It's all about the semantics. Third, I don't object to your using stative, psych verbs as examples; they just don't support your argument - blue is not a color, because apples are not colors.

All the best.