That is one reason why I chose them, because that is exactly what I am saying about read. The book too is inanimate and cannot read.
Yes, I see that; however, the semantics of the structural subject (i.e., film, food, book), although important, are secondary to the issue at hand. The primary issue here is this. The verbs
like,
enjoy, and
hate are different from the verb
read in these ways:
1)
read is
not a stative verb;
like and
enjoy are stative verbs.
2)
read does
not subcategorize for a doer as subject;
hate does.
3)
read can be passive,
like and
enjoy can
not be.
A verb's category (i.e., transitive, intransitive, di-transitive, linking) and what it subcategorizes for (i.e., thematic roles) are separate from Voice (active, passive, middle, and mediopassive), and yet your examples marry the three.
Like,
enjoy,
hate, and
read are verbs, but there's more to them than that category heading. They are
not the same.
Andrew said:
If it is acceptable for an unseen actor to do the reading, can't an unseen actor also do the liking, enjoying, and hating?
That's another way of saying why isn't passive "The food is enjoyed (by us)" grammatical? Not all verbs can undergo the passive, especially stative verbs, and yet you use stative verbs in your examples. Note that, a mediopassive verb get its name from the very fact that it is between active and "passive". It has both active and passive qualities.
Andew said:
This is the other reason for my choice of examples In your previous post you said it didn't matter because (according to Fagan) "the verb read in English is lexically derived (See bottom of page 58 and top of page 59 here)".
Lexically derived as opposed to movement (i.e., transformation). That
like and
enjoy are stative and that
hate subcategorizes for a doer as subject is information that's housed within each verb's lexical make up. A verb carries its information with it into the syntax. That information is part of the verb. It is not derived via structure (i.e., movement), as is, say, passive and mediopassive voice.
Andrew said:
If that is true for 'reads' is must also be true for like, enjoy, hate, or any other mental activity. There is no semantic problem with inanimate objects that can't do any of these things, because the verb is purely lexical.
Apparently you have a different definition of "lexically derived". What does it mean to you?
Andrew said:
Why can't the dog be the object being caught? 'Catch' acts on the dog, so the dog is the object of the unstated actor catching it. It looks awkward I agree - but it is meant to. ;-)
It's not awkward at all, at least to me. You see, you just explained the mediopassive. :-D:up:
MedioP: The dog catches easily.
=> Meaning, people, in general, can catch the dog easily.
(It's a slow dog. :lol
Andrew said:
In my examples, the food is experienced by an agent left unstated,...
Verbs that subcategorize for an experiencer are the first ones I'd check, too, if I were looking at how mediopassive voice works. However, I wouldn't start with stative verbs. You see, they're not compatible with passive voice. ;-)
Andrew said:
I suspect that what is happening here is that you have seen 'the book reads well/easily' so often that you accept 'read' as a state, and as something that happens to the book.
I haven't seen or heard mediopassive verbs all that often, and the contexts in which they do pop up, especially
read, are in some way or another related to advertising. (By the way, opportunity and exposure work the other way, too. It could be said that those who find mediopassive verbs awkward haven't had opportunity or exposure enough to get a handle on their semantics. I, for one, wouldn't use that argument, though, because the underlying assumption there is that mediopassive
read is contrived, and as of yet, no one has offered evidence, substantial or otherwise that speakers don't know how to process the semantics of mediopassive
read. That verb is different from
break and
wash, in that it is not privy to both middle and mediopassive constructs, but to say that it's contrived, well...prove it.) ;-)
Andrew said:
Nothing happens to the book, which is why it is not the same as 'clothes wash easily' or 'glass breaks easily' where the clothes and the glass receive an action.
So, what you're saying is that the book doesn't undergo a visable change, right? OK. Let's change the object. What about,
Faces read well, especially to visually impaired people. Consider this. When clothes are washed, they don't change form, but an agent (water) acts upon them. When a face is read, it doesn't change form; an agent (hands) acts upon it.
Andrew said:
As mediopassive is essentially a passive voice this is important - an action has to be recieved for it to be passive. Something has to happen to the object.
First, you seem to be aware that mediopassive has passive like qualities, and yet you chose stative verbs as examples of mediopassive voice. Why? I am missing something.
Second, given
Her face was read (passive), nothing 'happens' to the structural subject/semantic object. ;-)
Andrew said:
[?The vegetables hate easily] How does that differ from "the book reads well"? You seem to be saying that it doesn't work because someone has to do the hating.
Not 'seem to be saying' but saying. ;-) You can't get a mediopassive reading from ?
The vegetables hate easily. That's the semantics of hate, not the semantics of the mediopassive. Again, lexical meaning and structural meaning are different. One is housed within the verb itself (i.e., transitivity, dynamic, stative, roles), the other is derived via structure (i.e., passive, mediopassive).
Andrew said:
That is true because 'hate' is a mental activity - and so is 'read'. Someone has to do the reading - but this doesn't matter in mediopassive because the unstated actor does it.
With the example,
Her face reads well the structural subject
Her hands do the reading, like water does the clothes.
Andrew said:
You seem to be switching mediopassive and middle at random... :-?
Please, point out where - so that I can address it. :-D
Andrew said:
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.
OK. What other verbs are there like
read that we can compare and contrast?:up: