Meaning of "voice"

Re: Meaning of "voice"

Postby Paul-Nitz » April 28th, 2013, 2:00 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:As for what the term voice refers to, I think the best practice is to use it for the inflectional / morphological forms and use the term diathesis for the more abstract or conceptual notion of how a verb's synactic subject and object relate to the verb's arguments

RandallButh wrote:So Greek diathesis has two formal categories in some tenses and three formal categories in other tenses. But I don't recommend calling the morpho-syntactical categories "voices". That word is already defined in English, and it is always more difficult to erase a common, errant meaning, than to create a neologism built on a zero-meaning word. It may be simplest, and better, to say that some tenses have two categories of diathesis (whose FORMS are called ἐνεργητική and μέση ) and some tenses have three categories of diathesis (whose FORMS are called ἐνεργητική, μέση, παθητική). When a student inevitably asks, "is the παθητική like 'passive voice' in English?", the teacher can say "No, the Greek uses this category for many things that are not passive in English, like πορευθῆναι 'going away'."

At the stage of explaining, not naming, the categories, then [κοινή] and [ἑαυτική] become useful because they unite the μέση and παθητική categories, something that the Greeks did in some tenses, and then add the special use of παθητική with transitive verbs as 'passive'.

By the way, shall we call these three κατηγορίαι τῆς μορφῆς, or something like three σχήματα? I have tended to use σχήματα for different classes of forms, like verbs ἀγαπᾶν ποιεῖν πληροῦν.

Let me try this out and check my understanding.

There are 2 categories of endings in the present and three in the aorist and future:
    ἐνεργητική κατηγορία τῆς μορφῆς -- αἰτῆσαι, αἰτῶ, αἰτήσω, ᾔτησα”
    μέση κατηγορία τῆς μορφῆς -- αἰτεῖσθαι, αἰτοῦμαι, αἰτήσομαι, ᾐτησάμην
    παθητική κατηγορία τῆς μορφῆς --αἰτηθῆναι, αἰτηθήσομαι, ᾐτηθην,
The respective διάθεσις of these three κατηγορίαι may be one of these διαθέσεις: κοινή, ἑαυτική, παθητική

The κοινή διάθεσις is consistently indicated by the first category, ἐνεργητική κατηγορία τῆς μορφῆς -- αἰτῆσαι. The second and third category may indicate either ἑαυτική or παθητική διάθεσις.

    κοινή διάθεσις signifies a “common” or default sense. In English we would call this the “active voice” sense.

    ἑαυτική διάθεσις indicates an emphasis to one degree or another on how the subject is affected. The action may be done very personally by him, to his advantage/disadvantage, or may be done to himself. The extreme degree of affectedness on the subject might indicate an action which in English we would call “passive.”

    παθητική διάθεσις is a label used when the verb is clearly, by form and usage, carrying a "passive" idea.

Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Paul-Nitz
 
Posts: 207
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am

Re: Meaning of "voice"

Postby Louis L Sorenson » April 28th, 2013, 10:20 pm

Carl Conrad argues that the term 'active voice' really should only be used for transitive verbs (verbs which take an object), and that using the term 'active' for one of the paradigm patterns is a poor choice of an English word for the Greek term ἐνεργητική, the term used by Greek grammarians for the verbs in -ω and -μι.

It needs to be understood that the designation of these verb forms as “active” is descriptive
in a meaningful sense only when a verb is transitive and takes an object. Perhaps we could say
that these verbs are all “active” in the sense that the grammatical subject is a “participant” in the
verbal action, but that is too vague and it also opens the door to the misleading conception of
“deponency” since in reality it is just as true that the grammatical subject of “middle-passive”
verbs is a “participant” in the verbal action. Therefore, although we call this verb-form “active”
in accordance with traditional terminology, we should view it as the “default” form of
conjugation for a Greek verb. The “active” voice-forms quite commonly are used to indicate
transitivity and in that case do take an object, explicitly or implicitly. But it is also true that quite
a few verbs in this “active” verb-form are intransitive—verbs such as εἰμί (“I am”) and τρέχω
(“I run”), and there are a few verbs that are commonly used in Greek with meanings that might
normally be considered “passive.”



Conrad calls the forms 'morphoparadigms.' (I wonder if we could use the Greek term παράδειγμα 'pattern' for τὸ σχῆμα τῆς κατηγορίας τινος.'

4. The Morphoparadigms for Voice in Ancient Greek.
I use the word morphoparadigms (so far as I know, this is my own coinage) to refer to a
conjugational paradigm of a verbal system consistently used to convey a distinct category or
combination of categories of verbal information. With respect to Voice in ancient Greek it is
customary to speak of three voices: Active, Middle, and Passive but to speak of three
morphoparadigms of voice: “active,” “middle-passive” and “passive.” Traditional grammars of
ancient Greek have also described a category of conjugation called “deponent,” but there is
really no need for such a category of conjugation and the conception of “deponency” must be
seen as a deterrent to understanding the authentic nature of “middle-passive” verbs.


You can read Carl Conrad's papers at:
[url]
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/d ... cGrkVc.pdf[/url]

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/docs/UndAncGrkVc.pdf
Louis L Sorenson
 
Posts: 588
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA

Re: Meaning of "voice"

Postby Louis L Sorenson » April 28th, 2013, 11:18 pm

This thread has been a very enlightening discussion. I do have several questions though.

Ρανδαλ ἔγραψε·

Yes, διάθεσις is the better term for the category. It would probably help Greek students to go directly to that term and bypass English 'voice,' they won't get to collect $200 in either case.

So Greek diathesis has two formal categories in some tenses and three formal categories in other tenses. But I don't recommend calling the morpho-syntactical categories "voices". That word is already defined in English, and it is always more difficult to erase a common, errant meaning, than to create a neologism built on a zero-meaning word. It may be simplest, and better, to say that some tenses have two categories of diathesis (whose FORMS are called ἐνεργητική and μέση ) and some tenses have three categories of diathesis (whose FORMS are called ἐνεργητική, μέση, παθητική). When a student inevitably asks, "is the παθητική like 'passive voice' in English?", the teacher can say "No, the Greek uses this category for many things that are not passive in English, like πορευθῆναι 'going away'."


This discussion has been very helpful. I've recently read and re-read Carl Conrad's papers on Greek Voice, and sections in Greek grammars on Voice. I believe that students of linguistics (who study the structures and presentations of multiple languages) will have an easier time understanding the Greek verb, than students who are only taught English grammar (or that of their native language). But I still have several areas of question.

(1) How should I gloss the term παθητική? Passive? Experiencer? Patient? Given the wide range of meaning and variation between actor/experiencer/patient I don't think the gloss 'passive' is perhaps the best English gloss for παθητική. What did the Greek grammarians intended for an English gloss?

(2) Perhaps we should say each verb has several 'dispositions' or 'presentations.' What is the correct Greek term for this?

διάθεσις is the usual Greek term. But I wonder if a 'more modern' discussion of voice would choose another word.
LSJ: διάθεσις· ---3 Gramm., force, function, τοῦ ὀνόματος δ. εἰσὶ δύο, ἐνέργεια καὶ πάθος (e.g. κριτής, κριτός) D.T.637.29; esp. of the voices of the verb, δ. εἰσὶ τρεῖς, ἐνέργεια, πάθος, μεσότης Id.638.8; δ. παθητική, μέση, A.D.Synt.210.19, 226.10; also of tense, χρονικὴ δ. ib.251.1 (s.v.l.); διαβατικὴ δ. transitive force, ib.43.18.

ἔγκλισις should not be the term.
II in Gramm.,
---1 mood of a verb, D.H.Comp.6, D.T.638.7, A.D. Synt.248.14, etc.
---2 throwing back of the accent, Id.Pron.8.7, al.; change of acute to grave accent, Id.Adv.169.23.
---3 inflexion, Simp.in Cat.65.8, Dexipp.in Cat.33.8: generally, of derivative forms, Simp.in Cat.37.11.

πρόθεσις
---IV. Gramm., preposition, Chrysipp.Stoic.2.45, D.T.634.5, D.H.Comp.2, A.D.Synt.305.24, Pron.64.5.
---2. prefixing, placing first, Id.Synt.311.1, Pron.58.16.
---3. π. καὶ πτῶσις perh.stem (or root) and ending, Phld.Po.2.18.

προβολή
---1) A putting forward, esp. of a weapon for defence,
---2) putting forth, βλαστοῦ Gp.5.25.1.
---3) putting forward of a plea or case, Hermog.Stat.4, al.

πρόσωπον - I think this is too passive a term - it is more of a term of perception than presentation.
---3 Gramm., person, D.T.638.4,A.D.Pron.3.12, etc.; γυναικεῖα π. Alex.Trall.2.

I'm sure I've missed other words. But I think that the English term 'voice' should be deleted from Greek pedagogy. (Most first year students would use φωνή for the term 'voice'.) The English term 'voice' is too tied to the English active/passive dichotomy that English students of grammar want to peg to every verb. And that just does not fit Greek verbal usage. (As a curiosity, there are languages which do not have a passive voice. I think Lithuanian is one. This lack of a 'voice' has to be problematic to our 'either/or' concept of a verb.)

3) I think we really need to look at individual verbs and how each verb relates to its subject. I was reading "A Grammar of the Greek Language" by William Eduard Jelf (1862). It can be found on Google books. Even 200 years prior, students of Greek were trying to categorize the Greek verb in more modern linguistic terms as 'agent', 'patient' 'experiencer', ktl.

(4) The study of ancient Greek voice needs to look at modern studies of voice. Is the medio-passive voice still a part of the Greek language? Is it the same now as 2000 years ago? Can I argue from Modern Greek that an ancient text means the same as the modern?

I have more questions than answers. Again, this thread has really made me think/rethink my understanding of Greek 'diathesis.'
Louis L Sorenson
 
Posts: 588
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA

Re: Meaning of "voice"

Postby cwconrad » April 30th, 2013, 11:09 am

Note: Although this thread originated in the "Grammar Questions" subforum of the "Beginners Forum," I think it really belongs in the "Syntax and Grammar" subforum of "Greek Language and Linguistics." If some moderator approves, could that move be made, please?

Stephen Carlson wrote:...

One of the best things to come from the recent look at voice is to avoid thinking of diathesis (or your "force" or meanings) in terms of, say, English or our mother tongue, but to under its own logic. For example, who is say that a verb like ἔρχομαι is really "active" as in "I come" or more middle-like as in "I get myself here"? I think the answer has to defer to the Greeks: if Greek marks the form as middle, we ought to understand how it is middle rather than say, "but its meaning seems active, so it must be deponent."

One (of many) things I've come to realize and appreciate better after several years of attention to the matter of "voice" is that there's a reason why the category of "deponent" emerged originally and has held its ground over many centuries. The reason, in my opinion, is that the "voice" system in the ancient Greek verb all too obviously fails to conform or correspond adequately to the simple pedagogical framework of forms/morphoparadigms termed "active", "middle", and "passive" and linked to meanings described in these same terms -- "active", "middle", and "passive". The pedagogical tradition has accepted and perpetuated the notion of "deponency" as a device for categorizing all the forms and meanings for verbs that don't conform to the "teachable" framework of "voice." It is that pedagogical tradition that has resisted suggestions that we "set aside" the notion of "deponency" because without it a more rational systematic framework for understand "voice" forms and usage must supplant the existing one and it is pretty clear that this more rational systematic framework will not be at all as simple as the traditional one that has been taught for centuries. Why? Because the "middle voice" -- although indisputably a distinct formal and semantic category in Greek (as well as other languages) -- is, as Rutger Allan has so expansively demonstrated, "polysemous": it is employed to give expression to verbal notions of several kinds of reflexivity, perceptive and cognitive processes, spontaneous processes, and passive manipulation by external agents and instruments. Another factor that complicates the "middle voice" is that the historical development of the Greek verb has retained older "active" aorist and perfect-tense forms/morphoparadigms bearing "middle" meaning for a few verbs and has produced and expanded usage of an additional form/morphoparadigm (in θη) in addition to the oldest μαι/σαι/ται;μην/σο/το forms. The term "deponent" has served in traditional pedagogy as a catch-all designation for verbs (almost all of them indispensable words used in everyday discourse) that don't conform to the simple pedagogical "voice" framework. All of which is to say, as Stephen has expressed it above, that the doctrine of "deponency" has stood in the way of an effort to understand the real nature of "middle" voice in Greek as well as other languages.


Paul-Nitz wrote:... At the stage of explaining, not naming, the categories, then [κοινή] and [ἑαυτική] become useful because they unite the μέση and παθητική categories, something that the Greeks did in some tenses, and then add the special use of παθητική with transitive verbs as 'passive'.

By the way, shall we call these three κατηγορίαι τῆς μορφῆς, or something like three σχήματα? I have tended to use σχήματα for different classes of forms, like verbs ἀγαπᾶν ποιεῖν πληροῦν.

Let me try this out and check my understanding.

There are 2 categories of endings in the present and three in the aorist and future:
    ἐνεργητική κατηγορία τῆς μορφῆς -- αἰτῆσαι, αἰτῶ, αἰτήσω, ᾔτησα”
    μέση κατηγορία τῆς μορφῆς -- αἰτεῖσθαι, αἰτοῦμαι, αἰτήσομαι, ᾐτησάμην
    παθητική κατηγορία τῆς μορφῆς --αἰτηθῆναι, αἰτηθήσομαι, ᾐτηθην,
The respective διάθεσις of these three κατηγορίαι may be one of these διαθέσεις: κοινή, ἑαυτική, παθητική

The κοινή διάθεσις is consistently indicated by the first category, ἐνεργητική κατηγορία τῆς μορφῆς -- αἰτῆσαι. The second and third category may indicate either ἑαυτική or παθητική διάθεσις.

    κοινή διάθεσις signifies a “common” or default sense. In English we would call this the “active voice” sense.

    ἑαυτική διάθεσις indicates an emphasis to one degree or another on how the subject is affected. The action may be done very personally by him, to his advantage/disadvantage, or may be done to himself. The extreme degree of affectedness on the subject might indicate an action which in English we would call “passive.”

    παθητική διάθεσις is a label used when the verb is clearly, by form and usage, carrying a "passive" idea.


I think that Paul is trying here to perform two services at the same time: (1) formulate a framework for the ancient Greek 'voice" system including both the "voice" forms/morphoparadigms and the "voice" usages or semantic functions, and (2) bring together the traditional Greek terms drawn from Dionysius Thrax for the three "voice" forms/morphoparadigms and the new understanding of Greek voice usage in terms of unmarked and marked forms/morphoparadigms. I think there are some serious flaws in the elaboration here.

One flaw lies in retention of the terms ἐνεργητική and παθητική from Dionysius' categories for analytic grammatical categories. Paul wants to preserve a Greek-language basis in the framework, which is a good thing to do, but retention of the two words ἐνεργητική and παθητική at two different levels in the framework leads to confusion. I think that it reintroduces a doctrine of "deponency" through the back door: instead of being told in the lexicon that πορευθὴναι is a "passive with active meaning" we'll be told that it is "passive with middle meaning" and that ἐγρήγορα is "active with middle meaning."

A second flaw in Paul's formulation, I think, lies in restricting usage of my term ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις to "middle" usage and distinguishing παθητικὴ διάθεσις from ἑαυτική. My proposition that we use these two adjectives (κοινή and ἑαυτική) with διάθεσις to distinguish the undifferentiated, unmarked standard (erstwhile "active") forms from the two sets of forms (erstwhile "middle" or "middle-passive" and "passive") that are both marked for subject-affectedness or "reflexivity." While "reflexivity" may not be a word we want to use here in our description of the ancient Greek framework of "voice," it may turn out to be pedagogically useful when it comes to explaining how "middle voice" works.

We can point to sentences like the Spanish "Aquì se habla español": obviously Spanish doesn't "speak itself" but the reflexive form is used where the Greek middle-passive might be used. Or we can point to a German sentence like "Das versteht sich von selbst" and call attention to the reflexive usage as giving expression to how the subject makes itself understood -- a "middle-passive" usage. We can point to the equivalence of English expressions like the formal "Take your seats" and the colloquial "Sit yourselves down."

At any rate, I don't think we should use παθητικὴ διάθεσις as a term in contradistinction from ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις. Rather the "passive" sense is one of eleven subcategories of middle voice usage (indirect reflexive, direct reflexive, perceptive, mental activity, speech act, reciprocal, body motion, mental process, collective motion, spontaneous process, passive), all of which should be subsumed under the heading of ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις.

In sum, I think that there are three levels for which we need appropriate terminology. It would be nice to have a new terminology that points more clearly to what it is meant to indicate, but unfortunately, the attempts to supplant grammatical terms that are deeply-embedded in pedagogical usage seem to lead to competitive efforts to coin the right word and result in linguistic jargon. If, therefore, to the extent that we are going to retain traditional terminology for "voice" forms and usage, let's try to make sure that we use the terms univocally/unambiguously and let's put them where they belong in the framework. As I see it, there are these three levels of a satisfactory framework for understanding the ancient Greek voice system:

(1) names of the three forms/morphoparadigms: "active", "middle-passive", "passive" (ἐνεργητική, μέση, παθητική) -- previously I've suggested using "A", "MP1" and "MP2" or (as I'm doing in my retagging voice-forms for the Friberg AGNT/ANLEX) "A", "M" and "P").

(2) names of the two fundamentally distinct "voice" categories: κοινὴ διάθεσις (unmarked for subject-affectedness/reflexivity) and ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις (marked for subject-affectedness/reflexivity).

(3) names of the subcategories of usage under ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις: indirect reflexive, direct reflexive, perceptive, mental activity, speech act, reciprocal, body motion, mental process, collective motion, spontaneous process, passive
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: Meaning of "voice"

Postby Paul-Nitz » April 30th, 2013, 11:40 am

Thanks Carl. Could you explain more on this...
cwconrad wrote:In sum, I think that there are three levels for which we need appropriate terminology.


I think I was coming to the same conclusions. As I thought about it more, I wondered if the three morphological patterns or categories would best be described to my students simply by reminding them of the actual forms we see. I found that very helpful in some of your (Carl) writing when you simply refer to the μαι μην or the θη η patterns. And, I came to the same conclusion as (I think) you are encouraging, to only have two dispositions. εαυτικη covering a variety of meanings, but all emphasizing the affectedness of the subject. I thought the infinitive (ενεστως) endings would work for the category "names." Of course, these are typical endings and don't cover the variations or mi verbs.

    κατηγορίαι:
      “ειν, σαι” κατηγορία
      “εσθαι, ασθαι” κατηγορία
      “θηναι” κατηγορία
    διάθεσεις:
      κοινή, ἑαυτική
I've written up a draft handout for my class according to this understanding. I found that writing it up clarified my thinking and I believe I can successfully get this sort of presentation of διαθεσις and forms across to my students. But, I really would like to vet the thing before presenting it. I'd very much appreciate feedback from anyone here. Corrections, or additions would be very welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/988 ... -PNitz.pdf
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Paul-Nitz
 
Posts: 207
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am

Re: Meaning of "voice"

Postby cwconrad » April 30th, 2013, 4:42 pm

Paul-Nitz wrote:[size=120]Thanks Carl. Could you explain more on this...
cwconrad wrote:In sum, I think that there are three levels for which we need appropriate terminology.


I think I was coming to the same conclusions. As I thought about it more, I wondered if the three morphological patterns or categories would best be described to my students simply by reminding them of the actual forms we see. I found that very helpful in some of your (Carl) writing when you simply refer to the μαι μην or the θη η patterns. And, I came to the same conclusion as (I think) you are encouraging, to only have two dispositions. εαυτικη covering a variety of meanings, but all emphasizing the affectedness of the subject. I thought the infinitive (ενεστως) endings would work for the category "names." Of course, these are typical endings and don't cover the variations or mi verbs.

[b]
    κατηγορίαι:
      “ειν, σαι” κατηγορία
      “εσθαι, ασθαι” κατηγορία
      “θηναι” κατηγορία
    διάθεσεις:
      κοινή, ἑαυτική


I'm not at all sure about this, but if we use τὸ παράδειγμα for "form/morphoparadigm" and διάθεσις for "voice", then I would conceive of this sort of revision of Dionysius:

διαθέσεις ῥηματικαί εἰσιν δύο· διάθεσις κοινή, διάθεσις ἑαυτική
διαθέσεως κοινῆς τὰ παραδείγματα· λύειν, τιθέναι; λῦσαι, θεῖναι, στῆσαι

διαθέσεως ἑαυτικῆς τὰ παραδείγματα δισσά εστιν·
πρῶτα μέν· λύεσθαι, τίθεσθαι; λύσασθαι, θέσθαι, στῆναι
ἔπειτα δέ· λυθῆναι, τεθῆναι, σταθῆναι
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: Meaning of "voice"

Postby Paul-Nitz » May 6th, 2013, 8:56 am

Well, my opinion is not worth much, Carl.... but I like it and I'm going to go with it. I need a way to explain διαθεσις, and I don't see any better way than this out there. You have recommended (καγω φιλῶ) Michael Palmer's lessons on it, but unfortunately they won't work well for me. They are written with the presupposition that the reader already understands the traditional view of voice. I would like to present a new understanding, fresh and unmingled with the old. I will eventually need to tell my students how others have thought of voices (so they can talk about the language), but I want that to be a rather lengthy time after they have been using and understanding διαθεσις in this simpler way.

Should στηναι be on the next line? If not, could you explain that to me. The ηναι variation is a bit confusing to me.
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Paul-Nitz
 
Posts: 207
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am

Re: Meaning of "voice"

Postby cwconrad » May 6th, 2013, 10:28 am

Well, in a situation where you don't depend on textbooks, you can do what you like. Rod Decker's forthcoming primer of NT Greek presents "voice" in a manner consistent with the more recent perspective that others and I have espoused. I have myself given a lot of thought to how best to present διάθεσις in the classroom, and I'm not quite satisfied yet that I have settled upon a workable strategy for doing it without reference either to the traditional presentation of "active, middle, and passive" forms and usage or to comparable verbal expressions in the language used by students in the classroom. You're not, I guess, using English as your classroom language. In any case, I would begin with illustrations from Greek usage in context -- with pictures or gestures to illustrate simple propositions such as λούομαι τὰς χεῖρας or λύεται ὁ ἵππος and ἐλύθη ὁ ἵππος ὑπὸ τοῦ παιδός. τήκεται ἡ χιών or οὐκέτι καθεύδει ὁ νεανίας, ἀλλ’ ἐγείρεται. You get the idea. The class needs to hear and read and understand lots of exemplary instances of ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις before you start offering an intelligible account of their forms and usage. If I were doing this in a classroom here in the U.S. today, I'd probably start out with a bunch of examples of English clauses like "You can't use this nail again -- it has rusted" or "This is a soup that eats like a meal." Then I think I'd try talking about reflexive verbs as a common way of giving expression to the "idea" of ἐαυτικὴ διάθεσις. This all needs to be fleshed out, but I do think that the classroom strategy has to involve the priority of understanding the usage in practice before discussing a rationale for the usage.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: Meaning of "voice"

Postby Louis L Sorenson » May 6th, 2013, 9:26 pm

Funk in his Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek talks about the term 'subject'. I think this plays into this discussion.

Here is the section:
The “Subject”
530. The term “subject” has regularly been enclosed in quotation marks since a grammatical definition of the “subject” has not yet been offered. Traditionally
the “subject” is defined as “the performer of the action.” Such a definition indicates the relation of the “subject” to the verb (or whole predicate), and it fits a
good many cases, e.g.
(1) τιμῶ τὸν πατέρα μου Jn 8:48 I honor my father
It does not, however, fit such a sentence as
(2) ἐκαϑερίσϑη Mk 1:42 He was cleansed in which the “subject” undergoes the action.

The grammatical “subject” of the sentence thus sustains more than one relation to the verb (and predicate). In fact, the “subject” sustains a wide variety of relationships to the verb (and predicate), so that the traditional definition is scarcely adequate as a general definition.
Louis L Sorenson
 
Posts: 588
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA

Re: Meaning of "voice"

Postby Paul-Nitz » May 7th, 2013, 9:49 am

I regret distracting the discussion from Louis's questions. Let's get back to them. See his post above for fuller information - here is a summary...

Louis L Sorenson (excerpted) wrote:(1) How should I gloss the term παθητική?

(2) Perhaps we should say each verb has several 'dispositions' or 'presentations.' What is the correct Greek term for this?

3) I think we really need to look at individual verbs and how each verb relates to its subject.

(4) The study of ancient Greek voice needs to look at modern studies of voice. Is the medio-passive voice still a part of the Greek language? Is it the same now as 2000 years ago? Can I argue from Modern Greek that an ancient text means the same as the modern?

I have more questions than answers. Again, this thread has really made me think/rethink my understanding of Greek 'diathesis.'
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Paul-Nitz
 
Posts: 207
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Syntax and Grammar

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron