ustify"> The new paper-backs are selling excellently. The suggested procedure will hardly apply to all the instances. Large native cigarettes smoked easily and coolly. Perhaps the loin chop will eat better than it looks. p align="justify"> The actions expressed by the otherwise transitive verbs in the cited examples are confined to the subject, though not in a way of active self-transitive subject performance, but as if going on of their own accord. The presentation of the verbal action of this type comes under the heading of the "middle" voice. p align="justify"> However, lacking both regularity and an outer form of expression, it is natural to understand the "middle" voice uses of verbs as cases of neutralising reduction of the voice opposition. The peculiarity of the voice neutralisation of this kind is, that the weak member of opposition used in the position of neutralisation does not fully coincide in function with the strong member, but rather is located somewhere in between the two functional borders. Hence, its "middle" quality is truly reflected in its name. Compare the shown middle type neutralisation of voice in the infinitive:
She was delightful to look at, witty to talk to - altogether the most charming of companions. You have explained so fully everything there is to explain that there is no need for me to ask questions. p align="justify"> Another problem posed by the category of voice and connected with neutralisations concerns the relation between the morphological form of the passive voice and syntactical form of the corresponding complex nominal predicate with the pure link be. As a matter of fact, the outer structure of the two combinations is much the same. Cf.: p align="justify"> You may consider me a coward, but there you are mistaken. They were all seised in their homes. p align="justify"> The first of th e two examples presents a case of a nominal predicate, the second, a case of a passive voice form. Though the constructions are outwardly alike, there is no doubt as to their different grammatical status. The question is, why? p align="justify"> As is known, the demarcation between the construction types in question is commonly sought on the lines of the semantic character of the constructions. Namely, if the construction expresses an action, it is taken to refer to the passive voice form; if it expresses a state, it is interpreted as a nominal predicate. Cf. another pair of examples:
The door was closed by the butler as softly as could be. The door on the left was closed. p align="justify"> The predicate of the first sentence displays the "passive of action", ie it is expressed by a verb used in the passive voice; the predicate of the second sentence, in accord with the cited semantic interpretation, is understood as displaying the "passive of state", ie as consisting of a link-verb and a nominal part expressed by a past participle.
Of course, the factor of semantics as the criterion of the dynamic force of the construction is quite in its place, since the dynamic force itself is a meaningful factor of language.
But the "technically" grammatical quality of the construction is determined not by the meaning in isolation; it is determined by the categorial and functional properties of its constituents, first and foremost, its participial part. Thus, if this part, in principle, expresses processual verbality, however statal it may be in its semantic core, then the whole construction should be understood as a case of the finite passive in the categorial sense. Eg: The young practitioner was highly esteemed in his district. p align="justify"> If, on the other hand, the participial part of the construction doesn't convey the idea of ​​processual verbality, in other words, if it has ceased to be a participle and is turned into an adjective, then the whole construction is to be taken for a nominal predicate. But in the latter case it is not categorially passive at all. p align="justify"> Proceeding from this criterion, we see that the predicate in the construction "You are mistaken" (the first example in the present paragraph) is nominal simply by virtue of its notional part being an adjective, not a participle. The corresponding non-adjectival participle would be used in quite another type of constructions. Cf.: I was often mistaken for my friend Otto, though I never could tell why. p align="justify"> On the other hand, this very criterion shows us that the categorial status of the predicate in the sentence "The door was closed" is wholly neutralised in so far as it is categorially latent, and only a living context may de-neutralise it both ways. In particular, the context including the by-phrase of the doer (eg by the butler) de-neutralises it into the passive form of the verb; but the context in the following example de-neutralises it into the adjectival...
