--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > 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?
Verbs can be neutral as to active v. passive, with the difference made
by the presence or an absence of an explicit object. Chinese is often
cited as a clear example of a language where transitive verbs with
active meaning require explicit objects. I can't decide whether the
next point is relevant, but recall that in an ergative language the
voice contrast is not active v. passive but active v. antipassive.
Might not the middle v. active distinction be that the middle
expresses an interest (focus?) on the grammatical subject? I can't
square this with the notion of the middle being impersonal.
Richard.