I need > it needs; we improve the text > the text ?improves?

Let's start from this observation:
(1a) Ich brauche mehr Geld. (1b) Es braucht mehr Geld.

My point is: in German there is the verb "brauchen", which is transitive and needs a [+pers.] subject (I), but there is also a variant, "es braucht", "it requires" in English. Also transitive but [-pers.] subject.

In Dutch we cannot use the same verb. We say "Ik heb geld nodig" but the variant is different, "De operatie vergt/vereist (lit. asks/demands, idiom. requires) meer geld". A simple paraphrase is als possible: voor die operatie is meer geld nodig [needed], but that is not my focus.

That reminded me of another phenomenon in Dutch, something like "anonymizing"...
(2) we willen de situatie (2a) verbeteren/ verslechteren, we willen de inkomsten vergroten, verkleinen. [better/ worse, bigger/smaller]
If we are lucky, we will see this: de situatie (2b) verbetert/ verslechteren, de inkomsten ?vergroten?/? verkleinen"

In Dutch we have these [+ pers.] verbs meaning (2a) "making something COMP [better, worse, bigger, smaller]", often based on the adjective. There is a tendency to use the same verb to (2b) describe the result without referring to the cause/ the person bringing the effect about: Het verbetert/ het verslechtert/ ?vergroot?/ ?verkleint?. The latter are often used, it seems to me, but strictly speaking they are not (yet) standard.

Can you use the same (causative???) verb in that way, "anonymizing" the effect? We can always add "door X", "through/ thanks to us", though.

Greek is like German in that regard, the same verb is used both as transitive, or impersonal (is that what you call an "anonymizing' verb, that it's impersonal?). Eg:
-«Με χρειάζεται για να μεταφέρουμε τα βιβλία» [ˌme̞ xɾiˈa.z̠e̞t̠e̞ ʝa na me̞t̠aˈfe̞.ɾume̞ ˌt̠a viˈvli.a] = lit. me (s/he) needs (3rd p. sing. present indicative) in order/for we relocate (1st p. pl. present subj.) the books --> s/he needs me to relocate the books.
-«Χρειάζεται υπομονή» [xɾiˈa.z̠e̞t̠e̞ ipo̞mo̞ˈni] = (it) requires (3rd p. sing. present indic. as impersonal construction) patience --> patience required.

The verb is the deponent «χρειάζομαι» [xɾiˈa.z̠o̞me̞] --> to need, require, have to < Byz. Gr. deponent verb «χρειάζομαι» /xriˈɐ.zome/ (idem), a denominative from the Koine noun «χρείᾱ» /ˈkhreː.ɐː/ (fem.) --> need, want, necessity, request, purpose, requirement, desire, wish, use, praxis, benefit, help, service, function, association < Ancient Greek substantivisation as impersonal & unconjugated verb «χρή» /khrɛː/ --> it's necessary, one should (probably IE from *ghreh1- isolated within Greek).

Anonymizing; I was trying to be funny... But when you come to think of it: "it gets better" can be the anonymous version of "We are making things better" but of course strictly speaking in that context things get better thanks do/due to/ "through"?/ by us...

Can you then also say:
- (2a) We improve things - (2b) Things improve
- (2a) We worsen things [make things worse] - (2b) Things worsen
- (2a) We enlarge the space for ... - (2b) The space ??enlarges??

Modern Catalan uses necessitar in a similar way.

1a: Necessito més diners.
1b: Això necessita més diners.

The traditional way in Old Catalan, haver menester, is regarded nowadays as dated, old-fashioned or idiomatic.

For 1b, though, the verbs requerir 'to require' or caldre 'be needed' are more often used.

1b: Això requereix més diners.
1b: Calen més diners.

Caldre is only used in 3rd persons (cal, calen) and is intransitive. What comes after is seen as the subject, hence agreement of the verb in singular or plural is expected: calen més diners = are-needed more moneys (money is plural in Catalan). The verb is the equivalent of the French il faut, the Spanish hace falta.

ThomasK said:

Anonymizing; I was trying to be funny... But when you come to think of it: "it gets better" can be the anonymous version of "We are making things better" but of course strictly speaking in that context things get better thanks do/due to/ "through"?/ by us...

Can you then also say:
- (2a) We improve things - (2b) Things improve
- (2a) We worsen things [make things worse] - (2b) Things worsen
- (2a) We enlarge the space for ... - (2b) The space ??enlarges??

Click to expand...

(2a-2b) Yes we can, the former (2a) has to be in active voice, the latter (2b) in mediopassive (usually) to show either reciprocity or reflexivity

I'd say it is not that "anonymizing" but rather personal/impersonal.
In Russian, we say мне нужно больше денег - lit. "me-DAT, (it is) needed, more money-GEN" (where нужно, related to "needed", is an adverbial predicatve form). You can skip "me" and then it will be a general idea like "it requires (in this situation)", but it would be more natural with a topic/intro like "for that (e.g. deal)". The option based on the personal subject is possible, but it is formal/clumsy and semantically specific - я нуждаюсь в большем количестве денег ("I, have-a-need, in, greater amount-PREP, money-GEN"; the verb is reflexive - smth like "self-require") - in short, it is not what you say in everyday speech.

Basically, my feeling is that the more... archaic languages are more impersonal, and the more modern languages tend to be more subject-oriented (where English is the king). This is expressed both in the diminished role of the topic-comment relation and in the predication forms, so finally it all comes down to the logic where there is a subject that (削除) fuc (削除ここまで) dominates the object in various ways :), whether it's an active or an overtly passive construction. We, Russians, are more impersonal: generally I do not "have smth", but "at me, there is smth" (there is an active form as well, but it is, again, more formal and semantically specific; it's interesting that in the Slavic languages to the West, the regular kind of "having" is active in form - and in the Ukraine, there is a split in this regard), I do not "like it" but "it likes itself to me" (the active form is closer to loving)... Btw, Japanese is even more impersonal in this sense.

I was quite aware of the awkwardness of the term, but I liked. Now, I do not deny the possibility that impersonal constructions are quite common in archaic languages, but is the number not fairly limited (such as the function NEED)? In my case I focus on this variation personal/ impersonal, which is something separate, I think. See #1: making x COMP-adj >>> x becoming COMP-adk.

This is lexically conditioned of course - as "need" is not an action; need/wish/attraction/etc are rather some kind of medium that arises between the expiriencer and the object. When you need or want something, the feeling is induced from outside and so essentially you are rather a recipient (thus in the dative) than an affecting force.

As for self-changing of smth, I think the ontological issue here is that a self-change can be both the result of someone else's actions - conceptually a passive position, or the product of the internal life of the entity (rather an active position). And the formal implementation is rather subject to the overall structure of the syntax used in this or that language. So, in Russian the form is reflexive in such cases (e.g. "it worses-self") - I believe the active form could never fit in this role because of the potential ambiguity caused by the fact that in Russian there is more room for contextual ellipsis of verb objects.

Ah, you are quite right: "need" is different indeed!!!

As for the self-change: interesting distinction (that I had not thought of as I was so focused on the variation of making vs. getting COMP Adj).

However, whereas I do think you are pointing out a very important distinction, I think my issue (this variation) exists in its own right, but I do admit my observations are based on my knowledge of West Germanic languages, where this variation often does not require a new verb or paraphrase - and where I consider that (sometimes "deviant") use of this transitivity/intrans. That change seems to impose itself naturally in my view: for the sake of simplicity and clarity... See (2a) and (2b)...

Polish

De operatie vergt/vereist (lit. asks/demands, idiom. requires) meer geld"
Operacja wymaga/żąda (dosł. prosi/żąda, idiom. wymaga) więcej pieniędzy".

require = zażądać, wymagać, życzyć sobie.

but;

Ich brauche mehr Geld.(I need more money)
Ja potrzebuję więcej pieniędzy.

potrzebować /pɔtʃɛbɔvaʨ/ (verb) = to need


trzeba (powinno się, należy) =it is needed, ought to.
(archaic or colloquial) trza

Trzeba to zrobić dzisiaj. = It needs to be done today
Trzeba ci wiedzieć. = You need to know.

Inherited from Proto-Slavic *terba. First attested in the 14th century.

niepotrzebny = unnecessary

ThomasK said:

I think my issue (this variation) exists in its own right, but I do admit my observations are based on my knowledge of West Germanic languages, where this variation often does not require a new verb or paraphrase - and where I consider that (sometimes "deviant") use of this transitivity/intrans. That change seems to impose itself naturally in my view: for the sake of simplicity and clarity... See (2a) and (2b)...

Click to expand...

Well, I think the main reason is that Germanic languages are more analytic and rely on stable word order schemes, where a sequence without an object itself sets up intransitivity. In synthetic languages, the philosophy is different - the word-form in syntax tends to be self-sufficient since the order can change, which in turn is dictated by the reliance on topic-comment structure (and the latter itself touches on the topic of impersonality, since in a paradigm where the topic-comment is the skeleton of the grammar, the subject of action is not so prominient, and can be relegated to a "frame" or "another instance" of the situation, but this is such a deep topic - you can't discuss it without getting stoned).

Finnish: As for the verb tarvita (to need) there is an impersonal way to use it, but the difference from personal usage is: the personal is used with noun objects, the impersonal with verbs. E.g. Tarvitsen rahaa "I need money" (transitive, personal sg 1st); Minun tarvitsee mennä "I need to go" (intransitive, impersonal sg 3rd).
To say Es braucht mehr Geld, we either use tarvita in "passive" (more correctly called active 4th person I think) or another verb like vaatia (require).
For 2a we use active transitive form e.g. suurentaa "to enlarge", and for 2b reflexive/passive forms e.g. suureta/suurentua "to become larger".