Re: please, no passives

[And Rosta <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!ucleaar>]

Bob Chassell writes:
>Please, do not use the term `passive' when you can use the term
>`conversion' and not drag with it an English presumption.
I sympathize with your reasons, but we should be aware that _passive_ and
_conversion_ are technical terms in linguistics: _passive_ refers
to object-to-subject promotion, while _conversion_ is normally used
when a word changes syntactic category with no concommitant morphological
marking. Perhaps you should instead advocate use of Lojban technical
vocabulary like _cmavo_ and _rafsi_ (& all those other words I utterly fail
to understand!).
--------------
And