πάσχειν and its semantics

Post Reply
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

πάσχειν and its semantics

Post by cwconrad »

My comment doesn't belong in the thread from which it originated, and others who know more about what I'm talking about may have useful things to say about it, so let's put it here and hope that the subject-header makes sense.
Andrew Chapman wrote:
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: Perhaps the late R. Decker ThD. was thinking about semantic roles agent/patient or experiencer rather than a grammatical direct object. ὑμᾶς with παθόντας would experience. The subject is affected placing it in a semantic role similar but not identical to the direct object of a transitive verb.
Just the other day, I came across Carl Conrad's comments on πάσχω, in his 'New observations on voice in the ancient Greek verb', p.3:
.. some verbs with "active" morphoparadigms may even bear an authentic passive sense; for example, ... the usage of πάσχω is almost uncanny in that it can take a direct object and an agent construction and bear passive sense so that δεινὰ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου ἔπαθον = "I was made to suffer terrible things by my enemies;”
Andrew
What Andrew was reading was a 2002 revision of an 1997 original formulation. I've since come to understand a lot more about verbs like πάσχειν than I did back then (I still find it a bit uncanny).

The root appears in the three grades (E-, O- and zero-): πενθ/πονθ/παθ. The present tense πάσχειν (παθ-σκ-ειν) is built on the zero-grade stem παθ with the -σκ- "inceptive" formative element that ordinarily indicates the inception of a process, e.g. γινώσκειν "become acquainted with', γηράσκειν "grow old", διδάσκειν "give instruction". The future tense πενθ-σ-ε-σθαι is built upon the E-grade πενθ, while the perfect πεπονθέναι is built upon the O-grade πονθ.

The verb πάσχειν works like several other Greek verbs of experience (e.g. βλέπειν, ἀκούειν, αἰσθάνεσθαι, θεᾶσθαι) the subject of which has the semantic role of experiencer while the complement, whether accusative or genitive, has the semantic role of source or stimulus. What's curious about this construction is that it's similar to the construction of a transitive verb with a subject that is an agent and an object that is a patient. Here the subject is not ordinarily an agent (although he or she may be aware and submissive to what's being done) but an experiencer -- or even, with this verb more than any other, a patient -- or an undergoer.

In essence this verb is a subject-affected verb, although only its future form πείσεσθαι displays middle-marking. It is thus like βλέπειν, ἀκούειν, and ὁρᾶν a verb found in everyday regular use in the "default" voice-form that we call "active" voice (probably for the reason that most verbs found in the "active" voice do function transitively to indicate an action performed by a subject-agent upon an object-patient producing some affect upon that object-patient. The curious thing about it is that it behaves like a transitive verb and at the same time takes an agent construction, indicating that the subject is being acted upon by an external agent.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: πάσχειν and its semantics

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Could you explain this verse's construction please.
Hebrews 5:8 wrote:καίπερ ὢν υἱός, ἔμαθεν ἀφ’ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν,
It is strange to me because the relative should agree with the needs of the second verb, but here seems to be with the first (to the left of the relative). I assume that ἀφ’ ὧν ἔπαθεν is parenthetical, and I take ἀπό like ὑπό as marking the agent by which the suffering is brought about. I understand - from what you have said - that the υἱός is in effect something like the object of the verb.

Is any of that understanding on target?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: πάσχειν and its semantics

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Could you explain this verse's construction please.
Hebrews 5:8 wrote:καίπερ ὢν υἱός, ἔμαθεν ἀφ’ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν,
It is strange to me because the relative should agree with the needs of the second verb, but here seems to be with the first (to the left of the relative). I assume that ἀφ’ ὧν ἔπαθεν is parenthetical, and I take ἀπό like ὑπό as marking the agent by which the suffering is brought about. I understand - from what you have said - that the υἱός is in effect something like the object of the verb.

Is any of that understanding on target?
In my judgment, ἀπό + gen. here is not an equivalent to the agent construction (ὑπό + gen.) but rather indicates the source of the learning. It's elliptical, of course, with the relative pronoun accusative assimilated to the case of the antecedent: ἔμαθεν ἀπ’ (ἐκείνων ἃ) ἔπαθεν: "he learned obedience from those things which he suffered/experienced."
That is: he learned obedience! From what source did he learn it? From all those things that he suffered or experienced.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: πάσχειν and its semantics

Post by Stephen Hughes »

ἔμαθεν ἀπ’ (ἐκείνων ἃ) ἔπαθεν
How does this work in the explanation of πάσχειν? The things which he underwent the suffering of?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: πάσχειν and its semantics

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
ἔμαθεν ἀπ’ (ἐκείνων ἃ) ἔπαθεν
How does this work in the explanation of πάσχειν? The things which he underwent the suffering of?
Does the standard English phrasing, "he learned from what he suffered" not make sense?

Perhaps the Aeschylean original may be simpler to understand:
Aeschylus, Agamemnon 176ff. wrote:[Ζῆνα] τὸν φρονεῖν βροτοὺς ὁδώ-
σαντα, τὸν πάθει μάθος
θέντα κυρίως ἔχειν.
στάζει δʼ ἔν θʼ ὕπνῳ πρὸ καρδίας
[180] μνησιπήμων πόνος· καὶ παρʼ ἄ-
κοντας ἦλθε σωφρονεῖν.
δαιμόνων δέ που χάρις βίαιος
σέλμα σεμνὸν ἡμένων.
Something like: "(Zeus) the one who set mortals on the road to intelligent behavior, the one who established the principle that "learning comes through suffering" reigns supreme. It keeps thudding down like raindrops on and on in sleep, before one's discerning heart -- the drumbeat of remembered pain, and into their ken, albeit against their will, comes good sense. There is, evidently, a violent grace of the gods who sit at the august helm of the ship."

My sense of what the author of Hebrews is saying is that Jesus suffered and all that he suffered was a lesson that he took to heart; those who believe in Jesus should emulate what he did in this regard.
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

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”