Re: [tied] Re: The Meanings of Middle, or mana kartam

Am Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:59:40 -0000 schriebst du:

> --- 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?
>

What about this:

Impersonal becomes _passive_, either direct or indirect.

accusative -> nominative: someone beats me (imp.) => I'm beaten
dative -> nominative : someone gives me a book => I'm given a book

Reflexive becomes _medium_, either direct or indirect.

accusative -> nominative: I beat myself -> I beat+MED
dative -> nominative: I give a book to myself -> I give+MED book

Still your original question remains: Why should a language have
active and medium, but not the passive.

Joachim