--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Joachim Pense <jo-01@...> wrote:
>
> Am Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:55:47 -0000 schriebst du:
>
> > The impersonal is not a specialization of the middle or
> > passive, it is the other way around.
> >
>
> To me, that makes sense for the passive, but why for the middle?
An original impersonal construction with the instrumental
'a me factum' "by-me (it is) done"
gives the passive sense,
an original impersonal construction with the dative
'mihi factum' "for-me (it is) done"
gives the middle sense;
when case-changed to
'ego factum'
it has both senses.
In the latter case we actually need the double sense
"by-me for-me (it is) done"
which I suppose is possible too, since the two senses have fallen
together in one construction.
This doesn't impress me with its clarity. Is it comprehensible?
Torsten