View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 20-Jul-2007, 13:08
Englishlanguage Englishlanguage is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Italy
Posts: 424
Current Location: Italy
First Language: Italian
Member Type: Student or Learner
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Englishlanguage is on a distinguished road
Default Re: burn down vs. be burnt down

Thank you Casiopea,
I'm just not really sure about the difference between the ergative verb and the middle voice.
An "ergative verb is a verb that can be either transitive or intransitive, and whose subject when intransitive corresponds to its direct object when transitive."
e.g.:
The window broke. Intransitive verb, the subject is "the window"
He broke the window. Transitive verb, "the window" becames direct object.
(from wikipedia)
While the middle voice is "an intransitive verb that appears active but expresses a passive action"
e.g.: The casserole cooked in the oven
(wikipedia).
Can't a verb be either ergative and a middle voice?
The sentence The house burnt down may be ergative since the subject The house becames a direct object when a transitive verb is used, as in He burnt the house down.
But it can also be a middle voice since the verb burnt expresses a passive action. The house burnt down = The house was burnt down.
Am I wrong? I really can't see a clear difference between them.
Why is the same verb ergative when it is used in the simple present and a middle voice when it is used in the simple past?
Reply With Quote