From: tgpedersen
Message: 47644
Date: 2007-02-27
>So, "I sacrifice for myself" -> "I am sacrificed"? Hm.
> Am Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:07:26 -0000 schriebst du:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > [Joachim Pense:]
> >>> Still your original question remains: Why should a language have
> >>> active and medium, but not the passive.
> > [Torsten Pedersen:]
> >> That's also a good question. My original question was, why does
> >> the middle have such peculiar semantics?
> >
> > I think there is a simple answer to this: The semantics of the
> > middle is what is left of the original passive category. As new
> > expressions specifically used of the passive developed the old
> > form was pushed back to the fringes, so that the semantic range of
> > the middle voice ends up being a patchwork of discontinuous
> > special usages, i.e. all the secondary usages of the category.
> > There remain however plenty of evidence that the middle voice also
> > included the passive and even had the passive for its central zone
> > of employment. So, the middle is, more than anything, a displaced
> > passive. I think that explains all the problems that have been
> > raised here.
> >
>
> That's the opposite of what I heard about the middle/passive story:
> What they tell is that middle came first, acquired a passive
> meaning, which at last prevailed in the daughter languages.