Three kinds of passives

[murtabak]

I've read that apparently there are three types of passive voice: eventive (describing the process), stative, and resultative (describing the state resulting from a process). But it seems that different languages encode them differently, for example in English:

(1) Eventive: The door is opened by the man
(2) Resultative: The door was opened not long ago
(3) Stative: The door is open

So English uses the same morphology for (1) and (2), and a different one for (3). Now contrast this with Malay/Indonesian, which uses the same forms for (2) and (3):

(1) Eventive: Pintu itu dibuka oleh lelaki
(2) Resultative: Pintu itu baru saja terbuka
(3) Stative: Pintu itu terbuka

Now contrast this with Malagasy, which apparently uses different verb forms for each:

(1) Eventive: Vohain'ny lehilahy ny varavarambe
(2) Resultative: Voavoha tsy ela ny varavarambe
(3) Stative: Mivoha ny varavarambe

So how does other natlangs handle them? Let's see them.

[Miekko]

Those distinctions are not unique to passives, and other categories can also exist in some languages.

You'll also find, I think, that what you label as (3) isn't a passive in English, and is not productive.


(1) Eventive: The door is opened by the man | the house is built by my uncle
(2) Resultative: The door was opened not long ago | the house was built years ago
(3) Stative: The door is open | the house is built ( - not quite the same! - )

[murtabak]

Those distinctions are not unique to passives,

Fair enough

and other categories can also exist in some languages.

I'd be interested to see that. This author claims that there is a fourth type in Germanic langs.

You'll also find, I think, that what you label as (3) isn't a passive in English, and is not productive.
(1) Eventive: The door is opened by the man | the house is built by my uncle
(2) Resultative: The door was opened not long ago | the house was built years ago
(3) Stative: The door is open | the house is built ( - not quite the same! - )

That's the point actually. From what I read, linguists seem to agree that (3) constitute a passive voice, albeit adjectival. And for me as a native Indonesian speaker, (3) is clearly passive. It's just that English doesn't use its usual passive construction to express the idea.

[Miekko]

and other categories can also exist in some languages.

I'd be interested to see that. This author claims that there is a fourth type in Germanic langs.

my point was: there isn't even a salient connection between these and the passives, it's just that these categories exist and combine in various ways. Reading your source, it seems very _theory specific_ and like it's using very _language specific_ terminology. I doubt this can be used in any sense as a guide to passives-per-se, this is rather phenomena that are passive-like. I doubt considering "the door is open" a passive is very common outside whatever theory those are used, since it lacks pretty much any passive-like features, AND the most salient point I was making about it: most passives don't have the stative form at all.

he point actually. From what I read, linguists seem to agree that (3) constitute a passive voice, albeit adjectival. And for me as a native Indonesian speaker, (3) is clearly passive. It's just that English doesn't use its usual passive construction to express the idea.

What your native Indonesian speaker intuitions tell you is irrelevant! No, linguists don't agree that (3) constitute a passive voice.