upvote
There are many verbs like this, and English is somewhat open toward using verbs that way, or becoming so.

Did English speakers say "this novel reads well" two, three hundred years ago?

reply
I have always wondered about this. The verb for the first person is to 'see'. To a third person you 'show'

For the first person there is 'listen' (or 'hear'). Does English not have a corresponding word for the third person ?

What about Germanaic or Nordic languages ? Do they have a third person analogue of 'listen' ?

reply
AFAIK listen used to be used therefor[sic] but it has fallen out of use nowadays. From wiktionary:

> Listen the watchman’s cry upon the wall.

Edit: formatting

reply
'Hear the watchman’s cry upon the wall' works the same way, no ?

I have clarified what I am looking for in a cousin comment.

reply
"tell"?
reply
Ah! That's not bad but it's not the same thing. Good nevertheless.

I can 'show' (or point someone to a) a sight that I am not myself creating in anyway. The word I am looking for would mean to 'make you hear' in the same may to show is to make you see.

I showed him the distant tower.

I ??? him the faint sound.

reply
play?

I played him the faint sound.

reply
Labile verbs is a source of ambiguity of natural languages (only western ones?) that we are all accustomed to.

The bell rang should become The bell was rung, either way it means The bell rang another bell.

reply
"the bell was rung" illustrates a cause (and introduces a question: who rang the bell?)

"the bell rang" illustrates an effect (the vibration and sound of the bell as it rings).

i think this is more an illustration of the ambiguity of the root word "ring", which can be an action by a subject upon an object, or to describe the behavior of the object itself.

reply
TIL!

Debates whether to update the sidenote with an explainer on ambitransitive and labile verbs

reply
Now do clam steamers and shrimp fried rice.
reply