[Andrew Whitehead]

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.

You can't simply ignore the properties of the verb. If the mediopassive construct is going to carry the idea of 'stative', then the verb that carries the action in the construct has to carry the idea of 'stative' too.

If it doesn't, then you are effectively altering the meaning of the verb to suite the construct.

The semantics of the verb read is different from that of wash, break, like, enjoy, and hate. Right?

Wrong. You are implying that wash, break, like, enjoy, and hate are all identical and that reads is the only one that differs. That is not true: they all differ from the rest in some way, and I suspect that you know that as well as I do. Lets not play rhetorical games...

Now, given that read is the odd one out of that bunch, why use that bunch as examples?

1) wash and break are not my examples, and I have already pointed out that they differ fundamentally from reads

2) As I said previously, I chose them because, like read, they are all mental activities. A passive voice is about what happens to an object. With mental activities nothing happens to the object, so they shouldn't be used in 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.

What do you expect me to do?!

I object to mediopassive 'read' because it is a mental activity, so I compare it to other verbs that we both agree can't be used in the mediopassive because they are mental activities. That makes sense to me...

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.

Arguing that like and wash work in the mediopassive so read must too is like saying apples are green and I can prove it: apples are green because grass is green. This is a silly argument Casi, words are ideas, not objects.

That is not the basis of my argument though. The basis, as I have said several times before, is that the mediopassive requires a stative quality in the verb.

Transwicki:'a grammatical voice in which the actor of a stative verb is not expressed'

You cite SIL that agrees with this, so I assume you do too. Yet, reads is an active verb - don't you agree? - and arguably intransitive in this use.

I did? Could you show me where?

I did, in my previous post.

Originally Posted by Casiopea
Mediopassive voice is a passive voice in which the

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

Uh, yeah.

Oh oh... the 'people say it so that makes it right' argument?

First, what about mediopassive Her face reads well? How does that sit with you?

It sits as possibly irrelevant, possibly a rhetorical device. Reading a face is a different field of reference to reading a book, but that is hidden behind the idea of reading with hands instead of eyes.

If the question is about reading by touch, then lets use the example 'the braille book reads well' - and here nothing changes.

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.

So, you want me to categorise 'reads' so you can quote a dictionary at me that says reads isn't a psych verb?

I use the phrase 'mental activity' because that is what I mean. 'Reads', used to mean 'enjoy reading a book' (as in 'the book reads well') carries the idea of understanding. Understanding is a mental activity.

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.

If you cite a source to support your PoV, it is reasonable to assume that the idea expressed by that source agrees with your own ideas, right?

Second, where did I tell you to ignore the semantics of mediopassive voice? It's all about the semantics.

You cited a source telling us that in 'the book reads well' the meaning is lexically derived, and commented that 'they are still using it. It's entered the wet-wear, it's been processed; it's now part of their grammar, the rules. The question now is, where do they house that new information? It has to have some sort of semantics to it. So, what are those semantics?'

I took that to mean that your PoV is that people are using 'the book reads well' so we should ignore the current semantics of 'read' and invent a new set that matches use. That is also what Fagan is saying, and I presume you agree with the source you cite.