Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I'd never heard of the "mediopassive" voice before reading this article on Mental Floss, which defends the phrase "It eats salty."
So I did some research and found this additional defense (with some caveats) on StackExchange, usually a reputable source.
But I have to wonder how "mediopassive" came to be even remotely acceptable grammar. Never heard of it in any of my language classes.
I made the transition from scientific writing in the passive voice (for most of my career) to the active voice for a current client. Never knew there was a "middle ground." To me, the "mediopassive" voice seems contrived, gimmicky, lazy, and ambiguous. Not so much a question here as a rant. But would appreciate other viewpoints. Thanks.
Padma Lakshmi's mother tongue is Tamil, so her phrase "it eats salty" might be blamed on that, but there seems to be a semantic difference between "it tastes salty" and "it eats salty". If you taste saltine crackers, the salt on the surface has a pronounced impack. If you eat saltines, though, the dominant flavor is the cracker in your saliva. That is, it tastes pretty salty, but it doesn't eat that way.
And I thank you for drawing that Mental Floss article to my attention, for another reason. I kept seeing swai for sale in Walmart, and finally bought a 4-pound package for $11, just this afternoon. Knowing it's Thai catfish that's like bluegill,it allays my apprehensions. Not sure if I want to eat it, though. Farmed fish tastes different, because they're fed soy meal and corn meal, neither of which is a food wild fish don't get much of. On the other hand, farm fish are swimming in clean water. Catfish are bottom feeders. Maybe there are a lot of heavy metals, discgarges from plating businesses, in that water. It's hard to decide which fish is least dangerous to eat.
deaconB said: Padma Lakshmi’s mother tongue is Tamil, so her phrase “it eats salty” might be blamed on that ...
Yeah, I hear what you're saying. No idea if Lakshmi was raised in the US, or if English is her second language. She has a definite accent, but that doesn't really tell us much. Her other expressions are fairly standard and good English, so I'd guess she's just fallen into the same "mediopassive" gimmick used by so many others in that business. My wife watches those cooking shows all the time. Heard another phrase from Lakshmi last night: "Your presentation colors well."
Now that's a stretch. What's wrong with "Your presentation is colorful." I do not like this "mediopassive" trend.
And I'll pass on the swai, thank you. We also stay away from farmed fish for exactly your reasons. You can cook out bacteria, but not heavy metals. 🙂
It can be more than just a matter of being contrite or smartalecky. Consider this statement:
My house has aged well.
The verb age may have 2 senses, transitive and intransitive. If you mean it to be intransitive as it appears in the statement , then you discount the destructive effects of the weather (because the house performs the action on its own). On the other hand, if you think only of the weather as the actor of the verb (it ages the house), then you would undercut whatever good qualities about the house.
So in order to have it both ways- that the weather is rough and the house is well built so as to withstand it well- you have to do a little mind acrobatics: first, think of the verb as transitive, with the actor being the weather; and secondly, but simultaneously, give the greater credits to the house by recognizing it as the semantic actor of the verb. And that, I will say, is the true mindwork behind that statement, however subcontiously and instantaneously it plays out (pun really intended).
In the same vein, I would say there are rooms for rationales behind using verbs such as eat, read, sing, etc. , with the semantic actor purposely chosen to be the wrong one, the purpose being to give greater emphasis to its role.
RobertB said: So in order to have it both ways- that the weather is rough and the house is well built so as to withstand it well- you have to do a little mind acrobatics: first, think of the verb as transitive, with the actor being the weather; and secondly, but simultaneously, give the greater credits to the house by recognizing it as the semantic actor of the verb. And that, I will say, is the true mindwork behind that statement, however subconsciously and instantaneously it plays out (pun really intended).
Thanks for that insight. Probably the best justification I've read for the "mediopassive" voice. It's all about transitive verbs and psychological impact. Still not saying I like it, but I can see where it might have some effective applications.
So I guess I could say "The mediopassive voice hears/listens effectively in some cases." 🙂
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)