1st versus 2nd Future Passives
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 12 17:39:25 EST 2002
At 3:38 PM -0600 12/12/02, Paul S Dixon wrote:
>At this point it might be good to review the question under discussion.
>
>It appears the total number of future passives is 295 (according to the
>morphological search on Logos). But, this includes both 1st and 2nd
>future passives. Apparently, the total of 1st future passives is
>somewhat less, maybe even 271, as suggested by my earlier search with the
>rather complex search parameters set (apparently no other way to
>determine 1st future passives on Logos).
>
>I thought the question related to the first future passives indicated by
>the -QH* ending. It dealt particularly with whether the first future
>passive forms could be either middle or passive in meaning. Perhaps
>others were thinking that the 2nd future passive forms tended to be more
>middle than passive. If so, this helps clarify the discussion
>considerably. I really haven't studied the 2nd perfect passives and it
>may be that they are more middle than passive, after all.
I've made no distinction between 1st and 2nd "aorist passive nor between
1st and 2nd "future passive"--all of these will qualify in my
categorizations as MP2 forms. I'm still not sure about the total number
because it's possible that sometimes a variant may be added to the total: I
think that's the case at least with EULOGEW and ENEULOGEW. I'm about to
post separately my analysis of all the MP2 "future passive" forms.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list