Do these constructions work, IYO?

[metal56]

Do these constructions work, IYO?

1. The thread won't pick up. It's part of the carpet.

2. The white wool knits much easier than the blue wool.

[tigertiger]

Do these constructions work, IYO?

1. The thread won't pick up. It's part of the carpet.

2. The white wool knits much easier than the blue wool.

Both non standard, but in the right discourse, they both work for me.

Variant 1. this thread also works IMHO

[metal56]

Do these constructions work, IYO?

1. The thread won't pick up. It's part of the carpet.

2. The white wool knits much easier than the blue wool.

Both non standard, but in the right discourse, they both work for me.

Variant 1. this thread also works IMHO

"Nonstandard" how?

[JuanTwoThree]

We've been here before with the discussions about "passivize" and (un) ergatives and non-accusatives.

It comes down to this IMO:

It seems so much easier to say "Shoulder of lamb doesn't carve as easily as leg" than "cannot be carved". Maybe passives are the wrong register or too wordy for daily use.

This does seem to be a common phenomenon particularly in more everyday and domestic situations.

It's not always picked up by dictonaries because it's a usage that trickles up.

Some of these are so familiar that we've stopped wondering about them. Though at first someone might have been struck by the oddness of "My book is selling well" or "These shirts don't iron"

Acceptability seems to work on a case-by-case basis: we all seem to have different tolerances and each verb that newly ergativizes raises some hackles and not others. I was taken aback by "This wine drinks so easily" the first time I heard it.

So "wrong" or "eh?" or "non-standard" mean "give me a moment until I've heard this or something like it a few more times"

To my mind, having no difficulty to keep it open, both your examples are fine. To be honest it's hard to think of an example that is egregiously shocking:

"The grass killed quickly with that new herbicide"

"The baby rabbits killed quickly" ??

[metal56]

We've been here before with the discussions about "passivize" and (un) ergatives and non-accusatives.

Hey, Juan, not everyone has.

Also, aren't my examples of "English middle constructions" and not ergative verb constructions?

To my mind, having no difficulty to keep it open, both your examples are fine. To be honest it's hard to think of an example that is egregiously shocking:

?? This ice-cream likes readily.

?? This contest wins easily.

?? This language understands well.

?? This story believes easily.

[JuanTwoThree]

Good examples. Totally unacceptable and it's hard to imagine that they ever will be. Why some and not others? Is it something to do with the fact that the ice-cream, the contest, the story and the language remain unchanged by the actions (if actions they really are) you have chosen.

You suggested this yourself in:


http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=2571

As to the terminology, after rereading the above I am still none the wiser (though better informed). You may be right. Since we speak and speak about a language that can't make up its mind about what to call the simplest things ( "infinitive" "to+infinitive" "infinitive without to" "bare infinitive" "infinitive marker and base form" "Uncle Tom Cobley") how and why we should nail down what this whatsit is strictly called is beyond me.

[metal56]

Good examples. Totally unacceptable and it's hard to imagine that they ever will be. Why some and not others? Is it something to do with the fact that the ice-cream, the contest, the story and the language remain unchanged by the actions (if actions they really are) you have chosen.

It's all to do with state verbs apparently. As middle formation is a process of stativity, state verbs cannot form such constructions. A middle turns an eventive verb into a state verb, so I'm told.

As to the terminology, after rereading the above I am still none the wiser (though better informed). You may be right. Since we speak and speak about a language that can't make up its mind about what to call the simplest things ( "infinitive" "to+infinitive" "infinitive without to" "bare infinitive" "infinitive marker and base form" "Uncle Tom Cobley") how and why we should nail down what this whatsit is strictly called is beyond me.

LOL! How true.

Anyway, for what it's worth:

The ship sank. (ergative)

Rafts sink easily. (middle)

[JuanTwoThree]

But if you push a boat or raft out into the sea, sometimes it just sinks. It's not always a substitute for what might be more accurately expressed by a passive (such as "The chicken hasn't (been) sliced very well").

These not-necessarily-have-to-be-in-the-passive-any-mores perhaps should conjure up a mental picture of inanimate objects anthropomorphing cartoonishly if the meaning is taken too literally: "Silk shirts don't iron at hot temperatures" make me think of a lot of posh shirts saying "Phew, if you think we're going to do any ironing in this weather you can think again".

"There's a chicken cooking in the kitchen" (cooking what?)


"The beef won't carve" (it wants to paint)

etc

[lolwhites]

What about This grammar book reads like a textbook on nuclear physics? How is the book changed by the act of reading it?

[JuanTwoThree]

Good point. It occurred to me at work that "My guitar plays like a dream" and "My car is driving much better now" don't involve much change either.

So back to the drawing board.

[metal56]

But if you push a boat or raft out into the sea, sometimes it just sinks. It's not always a substitute for what might be more accurately expressed by a passive (such as "The chicken hasn't (been) sliced very well").

These not-necessarily-have-to-be-in-the-passive-any-mores perhaps should conjure up a mental picture of inanimate objects anthropomorphing cartoonishly if the meaning is taken too literally: "

I'm not one of those who reads things in that way. If we are worried about such readings, is then necessary to strike such constructions from the language? Am I never more to hear "this book reads well", "china breaks easily", and so forth?

Are we never more to assign properties to objects?

[metal56]

What about This grammar book reads like a textbook on nuclear physics? How is the book changed by the act of reading it?

Need the book be changed? Maybe the sales of the book would be changed by the attribution of such a property as "diff¡cult to read/understand".

The purpose of such a sentence is to attribute “to the product certain properties that can be beneficially exploited by any potential agent”
(Felbaum, 1985: 29).

[metal56]

Good point. It occurred to me at work that "My guitar plays like a dream" and "My car is driving much better now" don't involve much change either.

So back to the drawing board.

Expressing a change from one state to another is not always the goal of such constructions. There, the construction (or speaker of the construction ) is indifferent to the Agent that performs the action. The idea is to assign a property to the guitar when played by "no one in particular.

I play my guitar like a dream.
Anyone can play my guitar like a dream.
My guitar plays like a dream
My guitar allows anyone/me to play like a dream.

And, to avoid thinking anthropomorphically, see this:

I play my guitar easily/competently/clumsily.
My guitar plays easily/like a dream.
*My guitar plays competently/clumsily.

"My car is driving much better now"

From the expression "much better now", we infer that change has taken place, don't we?

[JuanTwoThree]

Don't get me wrong metal56. I have no beef with any of these constructions at all. I'm all for "Wonderbread used to toast better" and the rest. Only that "The boat sank" might sometimes not be a shorter version of "was/got sank" whereas "That sausage ate sublimely" has to be.

No, the more the merrier say I and I suspect there are more all the time.

I merely point out that a perversely overliteral interpretation does lead to these cartoony mental pictures, which is part of the charm IMO.

I see what you mean about the car driving better.

[metal56]

No, the more the merrier say I and I suspect there are more all the time.

I merely point out that a perversely overliteral interpretation does lead to these cartoony mental pictures, which is part of the charm IMO.

.

Thank goodness. I'll defend my "quirky" constructions to the end.

Only that "The boat sank" might sometimes not be a shorter version of "was/got sank" whereas "That sausage ate sublimely" has to be.

Yes, it could be a bit Bermuda-trianglish at times. My wife, a NNES, loves such constructions. Her latest ones are "that cake is just asking to be eaten" and "the dress begged me to buy it".

)