The book reads well.

[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.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by MrP

2. "To read" in the sense "to bear reading", "to be readable" is recorded from 1668; in the sense, "to have a specified character when read", "to produce a certain impression on the reader", from 1731.

Lovely!

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by MrP

2. "To read" in the sense "to bear reading", "to be readable" is recorded from 1668; in the sense, "to have a specified character when read", "to produce a certain impression on the reader", from 1731.

Finally.

Now, I wonder...

Given the wording here, "to produce a certain impression on the reader", the first thing that comes to mind is who or rather what is the semantic subject, the thing producing the impression. It's certainly not the reader, the person, nor is it 'the book' per se - Andrew's intuition speaks loudly, and tenatiously, against that. So then, could the true subject of mediopassive read be a projection or extension of the verb phrase itself;i.e., The book reads well means Reading the book produces a good impression on the reader?

All the best.

[svartnik]

Originally Posted by Lenka

Is the sentence below correct?

The book reads well.

read =
a : to yield a particular meaning or impression when read
b : to be readable or read in a particular manner or to a particular degree <this book reads smoothly>
c : to consist of specific words, phrases, or other similar elements <a passage that reads differently in older versions>

Definition of read - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

'(R)ead' may be used in mediopassive sense as we can see above, and 'read' has stative meaning.
.

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

So then, could the true subject of mediopassive read be a projection or extension of the verb phrase itself;i.e., The book reads well means Reading the book produces a good impression on the reader?

I suppose I look on "The book reads well" as a kind of "inversion with pathetic fallacy" of "The author writes well" (cf. "The music sounds nice"). But I will have to think about this.

At a tangent: it may be worth noting that passive constructions were much less common, in earlier forms of English; active constructions of this kind seem to have filled the gap.

For instance, the passive present progressive only swims into view at the beginning of the 19th century. Before then (and perhaps for some time after, as the p.p.p. wasn't warmly embraced by all), you would have said "The house is building", rather than "The house is being built".

When such constructions were commonplace, it would not presumably have seemed outlandish to transfer the structure of a phrase such as "The post-chaise drives well" to the phenomenon of reading a book – even while granting that, though the vehicle did at least "do" something, the book didn't.

MrP

[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.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

When such constructions were commonplace, it would not presumably have seemed outlandish to transfer the structure of a phrase such as "The post-chaise drives well" to the phenomenon of reading a book – even while granting that, though the vehicle did at least "do" something, the book didn't.

Should that be a criterion though, that the verb's object "do" something?

Consider this. Mediopassive is just another way of promoting the verb's object. Like passive voice, the verb phrase is inverted, but unlike passive voice, which requires passive morphology;i.e., periphrastic BE +ed/en (e.g., is peeled, was eaten), in mediopassive voice a verb requires active morphology (i.e., peels).

Active: X peels Y
Passive: Y is peeled by X
Mediopassive: Y peels Adverb (by X) Ex: Ripe oranges peel easily.

Note, in all three voices the adverb easily modifies the verb, not the object:

Active: X easliy peels Y
Active: X peels Y easily
Active: Easily, X peels Y
Passive: Y was peeled easily.
Mediopassive: Y peels easily.

In other words, Y does not "do" anything, nor does it have to "do" anything. It's acted upon. Pragmatics tells us that: oranges can't peel themselves. In sum, why should the fact that the book doesn't do anything here be a criterion?

Mediopassive: The book reads well.

All the best.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Andrew Whitehead

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.

Which it does. The verb's theta roles don't change here:

Active: X reads Y (Y is acted upon)
Mediopassive: Y reads well (Y is described as having been acted upon)

Now, if you're saying the verb read has to be lexically stative in order to be compatible with mediopassive voice, then given that logic, wash, a dynamic verb, shouldn't work in mediopassive voice, and yet it does; e.g., The clothes wash easily.

Originally Posted by Andrew

With mental activities nothing happens to the object, so they shouldn't be used in mediopassive.

Why should "do" be a criterion? You need to explain that more.

Originally Posted by Andrew

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

You're reading lexically stative. It's not. It's structurally stative. An intransitive verb that appears active in its morphology but expresses a passive action in its theta roles characterizes mediopassive voice; e.g., The braille book <patient> reads well.

Originally Posted by Andrew

...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.

Don't do that. Don't ignore the sematics of read, ignore the urge to interpret the structural subject (e.g., The book reads well) as the agent. The book is not the agent, right? How could it be? Lexically, it's the verb's semantic object, that is, the verb read subcategorizes for a <patient> role as its object) which makes The book a <patient> and acted upon - which is how speakers interpret it (See Fagan).

The book doesn't switch its semantic role from <patient> to <agent> in passive voice, so why should it switch roles in mediopassive voice?

As a <patient> The book doesn't act, it is acted upon - no matter where in the sentence it sits. Its sematic role (as part of the verb read's subcategorizational frame) is constant; it's the syntax (i.e., the word order) that's variable. That interplay between syntax and semantics is the very reason a mediopassive verb is understood as expressing a stative meaning: The book <patient> reads well. The book cannot act. So, ignore the urge to interpret it as an <agent> that can act.

All the best.

[Andrew Whitehead]

Should that be a criterion though, that the verb's object "do" something?

No, because we are discussing passive. The verbs object should have something done to it by the unstated actor.

Pragmatics tells us that: oranges can't peel themselves. In sum, why should the fact that the book doesn't do anything here be a criterion?

You need to explain that more.

No, the oranges don't peel themselves, but they do receive a peeling, and the clothes receive a washing, and the glass receives a breaking. The problem with the book is that it doesn't receive anything. Isn't that a criteria for any passive voice - that there is a receiver?

Mediopassive: Y reads well (Y is described as having been acted upon)

Exactly! In 'the book reads well' the book is not acted on. 'read' doesn't happen to the book, it happens in the actors mind - a mental activity.

if you're saying the verb read has to be lexically stative in order to be compatible with mediopassive voice, then given that logic, wash, a dynamic verb, shouldn't work in mediopassive voice, and yet it does; e.g., The clothes wash easily.

No, I am not saying it has to be lexically stative - though that would help. I am saying that the verb needs a stative reference, as wash does, to be used in mediopassive.

You're reading lexically stative. It's not. It's structurally stative.

No Casi, I am not reading lexically stative. Where did I ever say that? From my previous post

'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.'

The verb needs to carry the idea of stative, have a stative reference. I did not say the lexical meaning had to be stative.

ignore the urge to interpret the structural subject (e.g., The book reads well) as the agent. The book is not the agent, right?

Did I ever say the book was the agent? You seem to be seriously misunderstanding my objection here!

the verb read subcategorizes for a <patient> role as its object) which makes The book a <patient> and acted upon

This is where we differ: the book is not acted upon. Nothing 'happens' to the book. The only act happens to the actor - he receives knowledge/pleasure/information/whatever from the book.

The book cannot act. So, ignore the urge to interpret it as an <agent> that can act.

I have never had that urge...

[Casiopea]

That ripe oranges peel easily implies someone experienced peeling a ripe orange or two and therefore knows that oranges like that, even
though they haven't received a peeling yet, peel easily. Similarly, that book reads well implies someone experienced reading it and therefore knows that it reads well. It has 'received' a reading.

Originally Posted by Andrew

'read' doesn't happen to the book, it happens in the actors mind - a mental activity.

Right, and that's what we expect in passive constructs as well. (I can't seem to figure out what you want me to see. )

Originally Posted by Andrew

No, I am not saying it has to be lexically stative - though that would help. I am saying that the verb needs a stative reference, as wash does, to be used in mediopassive.

OK. Help me. How does wash have a 'stative reference' and read not have one?

Originally Posted by Andrew

Did I ever say the book was the agent? You seem to be seriously misunderstanding my objection here!

Actually, I'm starting to realize that myself at this point. From where I stand, I don't understand all that clearly what it is, exactly, you find problematic with mediopassive read. I know it has something to do with read being, to use your words, a mental activity, but I don't get why that is a problem.


All the best.