impersonal vs passive

--- On Thu, 3/19/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> Subject: [tied] Re: *san,W- , "judged"? "rite"?, "journey"?
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 7:58 PM
>

> --- In cybalist@...
> s.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@... >
> wrote:
>
> > At 3:09:30 PM on Thursday, March 19, 2009, Rick
> McCallister
> > wrote:
>
> > > --- On Thu, 3/19/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@
> ...>
>
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > . . .
>
> >
>
> > >> I don't think a language would need an
> impersonal and a
>
> > >> passive both.
>
> >
>
> > > Why not? Spanish has both.

> > > Se vendió el carro. impersonal
>
> > > Ha sido vendido el carro. passive

There is a slight difference in that the passive can be tied to an actor:
e.g. Ha sido vendido el carro por el vendedor.
"The car has been sold by the salesman."
while the impersonal cannot be linked to an actor

Another difference is that the impersonal is the virtually the only one of the two used in the present tense (although you do see the passive in hackneyed forms such as "me es grato" [it is a pleasure for me], etc.), while both are used in the past.

Spanish also has a large stock of "reverse action verbs" which normally only appear in the 3rd person, gustar, of course, is the most common. These work like French plaisir and Italian piacere

There are also "accidentals" se + indirect object pronoun + 3rd verb
e.g. "Se me perdieron las llaves"
literally "My keys lost themselves on me."

>
> > Arguments based on what a language does or doesn't
> 'need' are pretty silly anyway.
>
> > Brian
>
> And now Brian will present his great idea.
>
> Torsten
>