middle voice and register

<Another way to say this: he does not like to lick your boots in most discussions and says things in the straightforward way.>

Can his "straightforward" way explain why these don't work.

"Some people {murder/lynch/assassinate/massacre/execute} easily." >

<<Can his "straightforward" way explain why these don't work. >>

I doubt it.

He hasn't even given his definition of "agent".

I think this "middle voice" thing is bullshit. No one says shit like "This ball doesn't kick very well." in real life. That sentence was made up by some linguist.

"Can his 'straightforward' way explain why these don't work.

'Some people {murder/lynch/assassinate/massacre/execute} easily.'"

Who says they don't work? You? I can certainly see circumstances where they might occur in colloquial use. It would all depend on dialect and context.


Deputy: Sheriff, we had to string up that Barton feller twice to make sure he was dead.

Sheriff: Face it boys, some folks just don't lynch that easy.

<Who says they don't work? You? I can certainly see circumstances where they might occur in colloquial use.>

Great, but why don't they "work" in non-colloquial use?

<Deputy: Sheriff, we had to string up that Barton feller twice to make sure he was dead.

Sheriff: Face it boys, some folks just don't lynch that easy. >

What/who would be the causer of the difficulty in the affirmative form and would the causer be volitional in the act of being hard to lynch?

"Some people don't lynch easy/easily."

"Great, but why don't they 'work' in non-colloquial use?"

If by "non-colloquial usage" you mean "formal usage," then probably for the same reason we don't use "ain't," "it's me," "who [vice whom]" or a host of other words and constructions: an arbitrary judgment based on social mores about what constitutes "formal language" and what usages are acceptable to it.

12IC, could you please tell me if "Curtains" below is the Patient or the Agent?

"Curtains like these are selling right in the city of Chicago for $1.50."

They don't work well, Pos, because most folks don't consider subjects to be proactive in such as:

She's so rapeable.
He deserved to die. He was so killable.

..........

<The agent is "the gates." Again, the fact that, physically, gates can't open themselves is neither here nor there; grammatically, the gates are the agent of the action "open." English allows this construction in the active voice. >

05Ho, do you have a different definition of "Agent" to this one?

Definition

Agent is the semantic role of a person or thing who is the doer of an event.

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsAgentAsASemanticRole.htm

An agent is usually the grammatical subject of the verb in an active clause. A prototypical agent is conscious, acts with volition (on purpose), and performs an action that has a physical, visible effect.

"05Ho, do you have a different definition of 'Agent' to this one?"

Yes, I do. That's because I think that many language definitions of "agent" attempt to conflate physical realities with linguistic ones.

To me, the argument that "shirt" is inanimate and thus can't be an agent is fallacious. The term "agent" in the grammatical sense simply identifies the word (or words) that causes a verb to act or "do something."

I know this might not conform with others' definitions but that's fine. Definitions are by their very nature simply considered opinions, not immutable laws.

And on that note, I often find it interesting that those who profess to be descriptivists about language can often be more prescriptivist than the prescriptivists themselves.

`<To me, the argument that "shirt" is inanimate and thus can't be an agent is fallacious. The term "agent" in the grammatical sense simply identifies the word (or words) that causes a verb to act or "do something." >

Now you're saying that verbs act? Where are you going with all this nonsense.