Middle and Passive Aorist and Future forms

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Dec 12 00:01:28 EST 2002


> I certainly don't want to make complicated what is simple; what I
> object to
> is ignoring the complexity that is there--or put it more simply, and state
> what I really mean: I think that statements like that in BDF may
> seem valid
> insofar as one IGNORES the number of so-called "deponent" verb forms that
> have "middle" and "passive" morphoparadigms but are excluded from
> classification as having the meanings of middles and passives. I
> now have a
> preliminary count based on analysis of all GNT -QH- "future passives." I
> had to eliminate several forms of DUNHSOMAI which were erroneously tagged
> as passive in Accordance (is there anyone who thinks the verb DUNAMAI is
> passive?); that made my total of -QHSOMAI KTL. forms 287;

Just checking DUNAMAI in the Friberg tags, since this verb is never tagged
as passive, but as three different kinds of "deponents" (middle deponent,
passive deponent, middle or passive deponent.)

The 210 forms of this verb in the NT are distributed as follows:

Present tense 172 - MP1 (middle or passive deponent)
Imperfective   19 - MP1 (middle or passive deponent)
Aorist          9 - MP2 (passive deponent)
Future         10 - MP1 (middle deponent)

It is clear, then, that the NT writer has no choice. MP2 forms are used in
aorist and MP1 forms in all other cases. All forms are middle, and an
explanation for the use of MP2 forms in aorist can only be found in
historical linguistics.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list