γνωναι

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
cwconrad
Posts: 2109
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: γνωναι

Post by cwconrad » April 23rd, 2016, 12:08 pm

Paul-Nitz wrote:
cwconrad wrote:At any rate, γνῶναι, the intransitive aorist of γινώσκειν is itself a fascinating verb. It is a verb of perception, inherently subject-affected, but is marked for subject-affectedness only in the future γνώσεσθαι, where the intentionality of the process is deliberately marked.
Carl, I had been understanding -θῆναι -ηναι forms as subject affected (ἑαυτική). So, I saw επορεύθην as simply the past version of πορεύομαι. Help.
I'm not sure what your point is, Paul. I was talking about the verb γινώσκειν. What I said was that its future, γνώσεσθαι, is the only morphoparadigm in which this verb is marked for subject-affectedness; its active forms are not marked for subject-affectedness.

πορεύεσθαι is marked for subject-affectedness in all its forms -- all its forms are middle-passive (I would prefer to call the μαι/σαι/ται;μην/σο/το endings MP1 and the θη/η endings MP2).
Yes, ἐπορεύθην is the aorist of πορεύομαι, a middle verb of locomotion.
0 x


οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3485
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: γνωναι

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 23rd, 2016, 3:18 pm

mtrue wrote:Hi! I’m the one who posted the original question. The reason I wanted to ask for y’all’s thoughts on this is because I discussed this word for about 20 minutes with my professor and was still certain that he wasn’t forming this verb correctly. I have a great relationship with my professor, he is actually my favorite, it’s just that I didn’t feel satisfied with his solution to forming this word. This professor is very open to hearing what his students are thinking and there have been several times where his view has been changed and he tells us outright in class that he has learned from us, it was just this one time that he stood firm in his decision of how to form this word and I was very confused and had a very strong feeling that it wasn’t correct. Thank y’all for clearing things up for me.
Thanks for reporting back - I'm afraid I didn't see this to approve it earlier, your posts should now go through without approval.

I think you're doing the right thing. As you see, this wasn't an easy question for us either, but I think you have the right answer now.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Wes Wood
Posts: 690
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: γνωναι

Post by Wes Wood » April 23rd, 2016, 4:20 pm

mtrue wrote:Hi! I’m the one who posted the original question. The reason I wanted to ask for y’all’s thoughts on this is because I discussed this word for about 20 minutes with my professor and was still certain that he wasn’t forming this verb correctly. I have a great relationship with my professor, he is actually my favorite, it’s just that I didn’t feel satisfied with his solution to forming this word. This professor is very open to hearing what his students are thinking and there have been several times where his view has been changed and he tells us outright in class that he has learned from us, it was just this one time that he stood firm in his decision of how to form this word and I was very confused and had a very strong feeling that it wasn’t correct. Thank y’all for clearing things up for me.
Many times people reach the same solution along different paths--and sometimes the path that leads one to discovery or internalization isn't "technically" correct. I find that it is helpful for me to make use of any suitable explanation that leads me to a correct answer while being ready to accept another that makes better use of the data.
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Paul-Nitz
Posts: 435
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Lilongwe, Malawi

Re: γνωναι

Post by Paul-Nitz » April 28th, 2016, 5:30 am

cwconrad wrote: At any rate, γνῶναι, the intransitive aorist of γινώσκειν is itself a fascinating verb. It is a verb of perception, inherently subject-affected, but is marked for subject-affectedness only in the future γνώσεσθαι, where the intentionality of the process is deliberately marked.
Paul-Nitz wrote: Carl, I had been understanding -θῆναι -ηναι forms as subject affected (ἑαυτική). So, I saw επορεύθην as simply the past version of πορεύομαι. Help.
cwconrad wrote: I'm not sure what your point is, Paul. I was talking about the verb γινώσκειν. What I said was that its future, γνώσεσθαι, is the only morphoparadigm in which this verb is marked for subject-affectedness; its active forms are not marked for subject-affectedness.
Carl, Thanks. So, according to your view, are the -θῆναι -ῆναι forms marking subject-affectedness?

By "θῆναι, ῆναι forms" I mean the whole lot: Aorist Infιnitive, Aor, Indicative, Aor. Participle, Aor. Imperative, E.g.
  • πορευθηναι, στῆναι, γρωναι
    επορεύθην, ἔστην, ἔγνων
    πορευθείς, στάς, γνούς
    πορεύθητι, στῆθι, γνώθι
(not sure about στάς... doesn't look subject-affected)
0 x
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi

cwconrad
Posts: 2109
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: γνωναι

Post by cwconrad » April 28th, 2016, 7:25 am

Paul-Nitz wrote:
cwconrad wrote: At any rate, γνῶναι, the intransitive aorist of γινώσκειν is itself a fascinating verb. It is a verb of perception, inherently subject-affected, but is marked for subject-affectedness only in the future γνώσεσθαι, where the intentionality of the process is deliberately marked.
Paul-Nitz wrote: Carl, I had been understanding -θῆναι -ηναι forms as subject affected (ἑαυτική). So, I saw επορεύθην as simply the past version of πορεύομαι. Help.
cwconrad wrote: I'm not sure what your point is, Paul. I was talking about the verb γινώσκειν. What I said was that its future, γνώσεσθαι, is the only morphoparadigm in which this verb is marked for subject-affectedness; its active forms are not marked for subject-affectedness.
Carl, Thanks. So, according to your view, are the -θῆναι -ῆναι forms marking subject-affectedness?
Yes. And since (if we see verbs such as πορεύεσθαι/πορευθῆναι not as "oddball" (deponent) verbs but as regular middle verbs of locomotion, then we'll view both the -εσθαι and the -(θ)ῆναι as middle-passive, subject-affected forms. I've indicated my preference for designating these two paradigms as MP1 and MP2.
Paul-Nitz wrote:[By "θῆναι, ῆναι forms" I mean the whole lot: Aorist Infιnitive, Aor, Indicative, Aor. Participle, Aor. Imperative, E.g.
  • πορευθηναι, στῆναι, γρωναι
    επορεύθην, ἔστην, ἔγνων
    πορευθείς, στάς, γνούς
    πορεύθητι, στῆθι, γνώθι
(not sure about στάς... doesn't look subject-affected)
I believe you're thinking about the alpha in στάς is not derivative from the same paradigm or stem as στὴναι, but in fact it is: the root/stem of the aorist of this verb has a long-vowel and a short-vowel form that shows up historically as η/α, the eta being the Attic-Ionic long alpha phonetically flattened to eta.

There's a bit of a shocker involved in this: the "aorist passive" in (θ)η are identical with the athematic "aorist active" forms in -ῦναι, ῶναι, and ῆναι. I remember my surprise when I first saw the paradigm of ἔστην/ἔστης/ἔστη/κτλ. referred to as "quasi-passive". All these athematic second-aorist forms are intransitive; I think that they are in fact all naturally subject-affected verbs with present-tense forms in the middle voice -- EXCEPT for γινώσκειν. γινώσκειν is a verb of perception which one might expect to be inflected in the middle but its forms follow the pattern of transitive verbs, as if "know" were a transitive process of a subject acting upon a direct object and transforming it. These athematic aorist forms are "active" -- which is to say, they are "unmarked for subject-affectedness" -- but in fact, so far as I can see, all these verbs with athematic aorists in ῦναι, ῶναι, and ἠναι are naturally subject-affected verbs; their aorist forms all indicate entering into a state as a consequence of the process: "got to a stand", "came to birth", "became visible", etc.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Post Reply