Alan Patterson wrote:Upon further reflection, would it be correct for me to say that γινωσκω is Active (default) in FORM, but Middle in MEANING. [I've noticed that Mounce seems to first translate γινωσκω as "I know," and then concludes that γινωσκω is Active in meaning since the ENGLISH is Active in his translation.]
You've put your finger on what some of us, at least, think is a fundamental defect of grammar/translation pedagogy: the predilection for understanding Greek grammar and syntax in terms of English usage. I think your formulation more accurate, that γινώσκειν ordinarily is found in the default (active) voice-forms, although its meaning involves the intentionality that is commonly associated with middle-marking. Learn the verb's regular forms: γινώσκειν, γνώσεσθαι, γνῶναι, ἐγνωκέναι and link those to the meaning of the verb.
Paul-Nitz wrote:I wonder, is γινωσκω ever found in the midldle - γινωσκομαι?
I don't see the need to see γινωσκω as middle in meaning but active (κοινη, common) in form. If I "know," I just know. There's no extra self-affectedness indicated or needed. If I say "γνωσομαι" a self-affected idea comes in.
But I imagine these middle futures became codified over time out of a general "feeling" about what sounded right to the Greek ear. Once a verb became written in the middle by default, there's no huge significance in the voice. It's just the way they said it. There was no choice to say φαγω or γνωσω or μαθησω, was there?
I think that verbs of cognition and perception are subject-affected, but many of them don't regularly display middle-marking except in the future: ὁρᾶν, ὄψεσθαι, ἰδεῖν; ἀκούειν, ἀκούσεσθαι, ἀκοῦσαι but αῖσθάνεσθαι, γεύεσθαι, θεᾶσθαι ... The fact that a verb is in the "active" voice does not mean it isn't subject-affected; "active" voice is the default voice-form, while middle-marking calls attention to subject-affectedness.