Re: The Meanings of Middle, or mana kartam

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Joachim Pense <jo-01@...> wrote:

>
> 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

I started out with a PPIE impersonal in *-or or *-tor which becomes
both middle and passive (3sg only, I should have pointed out). You
start out with an impersonal and a reflexive and I don't know what
their endings are.

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

That's also a good question. My original question was, why does the
middle have such peculiar semantics?


Torsten