[b-greek] Re: Phil. 3:8 - two questions

From: Kimmo Huovila (kimmo@kaamas.kielikone.fi)
Date: Tue Jan 09 2001 - 10:02:52 EST


Why would EZHMIWQHN be a clear example of a middle -QHN ending? I fail
to see anything discrepant here with a true semantic passive (unless it
is considered that if a passive is used, the subject needs to be a
passive recipient, which I think is confusing linguistic terminology
(passive voice) with a non-technical term (a passive person)). The
passive voice does not say whether the subject is passive or not. It
only describes what happens to the subject, whether from his own
initiative or someone else's. Or am I just missing the obvious here?

Kimmo

"Carl W. Conrad" wrote:
>
> At 2:57 AM +0000 1/4/01, Mark Wilson wrote:
> >Phil. 3:8
> >
> >ALLA MENOUNGE KAI hHGOUMAI PANTA ZHMIAN EINAI DIA TO hUPERECON THS GNWSEWS
> >CRISTOU IHSOU TOU KURIOU MOU DI hON TA PANTA EZHMIWQHN KAI hHGOUMAI SKUBALA
> >hINA CRISTON KERDHSW
> >
> >Would it be acceptable to consider hHGOUMAI, being in the Present Tense, as
> >indicating that Paul still considers all things (not just his pre-conversion
> >assets) as loss? This would include various "attainments" in his Christian
> >experience.
>
> Yes, I think it reflects his ongoing attitude, but to a certain extent this
> has to be recognized as a rhetorical ploy: I don't think he is calculating
> exactly what it is that he values as worthless and what it is that he
> values as worthy; it's a comparative judgment: everything else over against
> the worth of the one thing. He's stating an ATTITUDE, I'd think.
>
> >Also, can we understand EZHMIWQHN as middle, not passive? A commentary I am
> >reading suggests this but only cites that others have recently come to see
> >this as a middle (maybe they have been reading Carl's posts on the -QH
> >endings). [Carl, I seem to recall you affirming that practically any -QH
> >verbs, although passive in form, are candidates for middles.]
>
> Yes, I'd think this is a pretty clear instance of a -QHN middle, however
> much we might want to say that ZHMIOW is a fully transitive verb and has
> all three voices distinct. I'd prefer to say that EZHMIWQHN here MUST be
> understood of an action in which Paul personally played a primary role of
> initiation: "I have allowed myself to suffer loss of everything ..."--and
> it's a good instance of what I have argued is the
> nigh-unto-indistinguishable association of "middle" and "passive"
> functions; unless there is some clear indication of an instrument or agent
> initiating the action referred to, the verb functions as a sort of
> reflexive.
>
> >The idea then would be that Paul did not receive loss in some passive sense,
> >but chose to experience loss of his own doing. Any ideas as to why the
> >switch to an Aorist, sandwiched between two Presents?
>
> I'd say he's referring with the aorist to a conscious, deliberate adoption
> of an attitude which, in the presents, he affirms that he still now holds.
>
>

---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:46 EDT