BenAskins wrote:Is there a clear taxonomy for discerning whether a morphodigmatic middle-passive or passive participle functions semantically as intransitive or middle or passive?
BenAskins wrote:Thank you, Dr. Conrad.
I was actually just reading your article (http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/d ... cGrkVc.pdf) and found this answer to my question: "The principle to be understood here is that middle-passive morphoparadigms do not, in and of themselves, indicate necessarily either a transitive or intransitive nor middle nor passive meaning. They are ambivalent and flexible and must be interpreted each in accordance with the character of the verb in question and the contextual indicators of the instance under examination." Very helpful.
So in the case of hapax legomenon, such as ἀνεμιζομένῳ or ἀνεμιζομένῳ (James 1:6), how do we discern the participles' correct voice?
Jas 1:6 αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει μηδὲν διακρινόμενος· ὁ γὰρ διακρινόμενος ἔοικεν κλύδωνι θαλάσσης ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζομένῳ.
.ῥιπίζω aor. 3 sg. ἐρρίπισεν Da 2:35 (Aristoph. et al.) blow here and there, toss, of the wind (Da 2:35; EpArist 70), that sets a wave in motion on the water, pass. (Philo, Aet. M. 125 πρὸς ἀνέμων ῥιπίζεται τὸ ὕδωρ; a quot. in Dio Chrys. 15 [32], 23 δῆμος ἄστατον κακὸν καὶ θαλάσσῃ πανθ᾿ ὅμοιον ὑπ᾿ ἀνέμου ῥιπίζεται; Cass. Dio 70, 4 ῥιπιζομένη ἄχνη. See also Epict., fgm. F 2 p. 487 Sch.) ὁ διακρινόμενος ἔοικεν κλύδωνι θαλάσσης ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζομένῳ Js 1:6.—DELG s.v. ῥίπτω. M-M.
ἀνεμίζω (Att. ἀνεμόω) pass. be moved by the wind (schol. on Od. 12, 336) κλύδων ἀνεμιζόμενος καὶ ῥιπιζόμενος surf moved and tossed by the wind Js 1:6.—DELG s.v. ἄνεμος. M-M.
cwconrad wrote:Neither English version is really to be preferred here;
cwconrad wrote:The Greek morphological distinction is simply upon an unmarked ("active") "middle-passive" voice form and a voice form that is marked for subject-affectedness.
BenAskins wrote:Thank you again, sir.cwconrad wrote:Neither English version is really to be preferred here;
So would a decision for an English translation need to be based on broader contextual considerations (i.e. literary themes, rhetorical devices, etc.)?
cwconrad wrote:The Greek morphological distinction is simply upon an unmarked ("active") "middle-passive" voice form and a voice form that is marked for subject-affectedness.
BenAskins wrote:But aren't there a variety of categories for understanding "subject-affectedness" (e.g. full middle/indirect reflexive middle, reflexive, reciprocal, passive [Barber, 1975])? Why are these variety of categories so often reduced simply to the passive English voice, rather than the active (as in most EVV of Js 1:6)?
cwconrad wrote:"The Greek morphological distinction (between "active" and "middle-passive" forms) is simply upon an unmarked ("active") voice form and a voice form ("middle-passive") that is marked for subject-affectedness."
BenAskins wrote:cwconrad wrote:"The Greek morphological distinction (between "active" and "middle-passive" forms) is simply upon an unmarked ("active") voice form and a voice form ("middle-passive") that is marked for subject-affectedness."
Another pair of questions, regarding markedness: in the case of the two terms mentioned above there isn't any morphological marking, is there? They would have to be semantically marked instead. Am I correct?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest