The book reads well.

[svartnik]

Hello Casiopea

read = (intransitive verb) have qualities that affect understanding: to have particular characteristics that affect the way something is understood

This book reads well = This book has a quality that affects favourably the way it is understood.

Mediopassive voice is a passive voice in which the

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

I have a question here:

'What/Who is/are the actor(s) in the sentence that is not expressed? The readers? Could not be. The sentence tells us about a property of a given book.
I could not wade through all the posts you put in, so I am sorry if I ask you trivia.

[Dawnstorm]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

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.

If I'm not mistaken, the problem is this:

Agent (I) - works change on (wash) - patient (the clothes).

With a book, no change is worked on the patient. If the clothes are clean after being washed, what is the book? The only thing it is as a result of being read is "read" (familiar, etc.). But that "change" doesn't reside anywhere in the book; it's a property of the reader, not the book.

So, while the clothes being washed undergo a change, in the case of the book, it's the reader that undergoes the change, not the book.

If this is what Andrew means by it, I think I see the difference. But I'm not sure how this difference is fundemental, in a way that it should prevent people from saying "the book reads well." The data suggests people either don't see the problem, or don't find that it gets in the way.

I think the problem lies with philosophy rather than grammar:

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

How do we frame the difference between the book (physical object) and the book (ideal object)? I might say I've "read the book" if I read it on screen at Project Gutenberg. I might say I've "read the book", even if I read each chapter in a different format (chapter one - on screen, chapter two Audio-book [read?], chapter three library...). "Book" is both the medium and the message.

The book burns easily. vs. The book reads easily. "The book" isn't semantically equivalent (An electromagnetic pattern on some hard drive might compose a readable book - if translated by appropriate technology, but it doesn't burn easily.)

There may be world-views/philosophies that work against "The book reads easily," but mine doesn't, mostly because I can conceive of a book independent from either the physical object, or the psychological re-presentation (I tend towards phenomenology). If I tended to more idealistic or realist points of view, I might find the usage strange, too.

Am I making any sense?

[Andrew Whitehead]

If I'm not mistaken, the problem is this:

Agent (I) - works change on (wash) - patient (the clothes).

With a book, no change is worked on the patient. If the clothes are clean after being washed, what is the book? The only thing it is as a result of being read is "read" (familiar, etc.). But that "change" doesn't reside anywhere in the book; it's a property of the reader, not the book.

So, while the clothes being washed undergo a change, in the case of the book, it's the reader that undergoes the change, not the book.

Thats it - you understand!

I'm not sure how this difference is fundemental, in a way that it should prevent people from saying "the book reads well." The data suggests people either don't see the problem, or don't find that it gets in the way.

That may be true, but it looks incongruous to me...

Right, and that's what we expect in passive constructs as well

As far as I understand it, a passive construct foregrounds the action received by an object. The reader of a book is not the object.

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

In 'wash' the state of the clothes changes, the same applies to a peeled orange or a broken window, but not to a read book.

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.

Okay, I will try again.

A passive voice talks about what happens to the object of a verb, which is why we can ignore the actor.

A mediopassive, as I understand it (my field is literature, not linguistics!) differs from the usual passive by talking about an action that changes the state of the object.

Put simply

passive - the results of the action on the object - "the orange was peeled"
mediopassive - describe the action on the object - "the orange peels easily"

The first tells the result of the orange being peeled, which is why the verb is past participle. If we are talking about the result, then the act has to be in the past.

The second describes the act that changed the state of the orange.This is why the verb needs a stative quality (meaning 'describe a state'), and takes an active form in mediopassive, because the idea of the 'act' is carried by the verb.

In the case of reads, I have a problem.

'The book was read' - no problem - there was a book and somebody read it.

'The book reads easily' - problem - because the act is a mental activity there is no act that changes the state of the book, hence no stative reference, and no state-changing act to describe.

[Dawnstorm]

Originally Posted by Andrew Whitehead

That may be true, but it looks incongruous to me...

And that's data, too. So is my reaction (and it should be weighted differently, as I'm not a native speaker). I think it's a question of style rather than grammar.

I'm terribly irked by "I could care less", or the American punctuation habit of placing placing fullstops and commas inside quotation marks (in an American publication I should have written "I'm terribly irked by 'I could care less,'. Ick!)

Still, usage matters. That doesn't mean every bit of usage is correct. If you correct someone who's mistakenly written "there" for "they're", they'll blush. If you correct someone for using "I could care less", they'll defend their usage (or shrug at you). That's one difference; there are others that could be looked at (such as social stigmatising by usage of double negations).

I like live language more than rules, so I tend to be quite lenient. That doesn't mean I won't correct usage that irks me, but I'll usually add a into the mix.

***

Out of interest, what do you think of related usage:

The sign reads, "Do not disturb!"

The sign says, "Do not disturb!"

It says on the sign, "Do not disturb!"

***

And to those who accept "reads well", what adverbs are acceptable? All of them? Some?

The book is easy to read. - The book reads easily. [Probably]

The book is sad to read. - The book reads sadly. [I'd rather not...]

Hm...

[Andrew Whitehead]

I like live language more than rules, so I tend to be quite lenient. That doesn't mean I won't correct usage that irks me, but I'll usually add a into the mix.

As a native speaker living and working in Asia, I tend to dislike the 'usage makes it right' view. "I no like..." definitely gets plenty of usage around here, undoubtedly measured in millions, but I don't believe that makes it right.

Out of interest, what do you think of related usage:

The sign reads, "Do not disturb!"

The sign says, "Do not disturb!"

It says on the sign, "Do not disturb!"

'The sign reads...' is not right. You read the sign, but the sign doesn't read anything.

The other two are okay, as 'says' carries the idea of information going from the sign to you.

[Dawnstorm]

Originally Posted by Andrew Whitehead

As a native speaker living and working in Asia, I tend to dislike the 'usage makes it right' view. "I no like..." definitely gets plenty of usage around here, undoubtedly measured in millions, but I don't believe that makes it right.

I can appreciate this. I certainly would never say "I no like..." (although I might slip into the habit if "I don't like..." makes me stand out as a "snob", who knows?). At best, I'd treat it as a local (and perhaps informal) variation.

And I'd like to point out that I'm not in favour of "usage makes it right", either; there are common mistakes (my favourite example being "their/there/they're" confusion). The difference is in the attitude of the users towards the usage.

'The sign reads...' is not right. You read the sign, but the sign doesn't read anything.

The other two are okay, as 'says' carries the idea of information going from the sign to you.

Thanks for the reply. Given your position, this makes perfect sense.

[Andrew Whitehead]

At best, I'd treat it as a local (and perhaps informal) variation.

This is a very big 'local'... bigger than Europe!

[Dawnstorm]

Originally Posted by Andrew Whitehead

This is a very big 'local'... bigger than Europe!

Hehe, that's very true.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by svartnik

read = (intransitive verb) have qualities that affect understanding: to have particular characteristics that affect the way something is understood

'What/Who is/are the actor(s) in the sentence that is not expressed? The readers? Could not be. The sentence tells us about a property of a given book.

Very good observation, svartnik. The implication is that someone had to have read the book to know that it was readable. The subject is not important syntactically, as you have said, but it is required semantically in order to understand that it is the reader, not the book, that reads well.

[winston]

I think there is no end point to this thread.Now the book only reads well.I don't know what will happen, if the book sings and dances well.