Middle and Passive Aorist and Future forms

Peter Kirk prkirk at pmbx.net
Sun Dec 15 00:37:06 EST 2002


Thank you, Paul. No, for some reason I didn't get a reply from you
earlier.

In view of how the discussion is going, I think it is wise both to check
how others (Friberg and Accordance - are these taggings actually
independent?) have tagged passive forms and to do our own searches based
on surface forms. The next step should be a careful analysis of the
mismatches between these searches, as no doubt many of these mismatches
are debatable forms.

I think I suggested earlier that some future passives without theta
result from the loss of the theta for morphophonemic reasons, or to put
it more simply because it sounds better. For example, I tended to think
that EGRAFH was a contraction of EGRAFQH, even perhaps that ANAPAHSONTAI
is a contraction of ANAPAUQHSONTAI. I realise that these are not
standard contractions. But is there in fact any mileage in this
argument?

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk at ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul S Dixon [mailto:dixonps at juno.com]
> Sent: 14 December 2002 06:10
> To: prkirk at pmbx.net
> Cc: b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
> Subject: Re: [b-greek] Re: Middle and Passive Aorist and Future forms
> 
> 
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 22:36:19 +1100 "Peter Kirk" <prkirk at pmbx.net>
writes:
> > Paul, did you see my evidence (or did it not get posted to everyone
> > for
> > some reason?) that about 32, possibly a few more, of your 296 words
> > are
> > not in fact future passives? That implies something like 264 future
> > passives in the NT including the string -QHS-. The remaining 22 or
> > so of
> > Iver's 286 future passives tagged by Friberg (or more from the
> > larger
> > number reported by Logos, perhaps because it includes forms of
> > DUNAMAI?
> > - Carl's 287 from Accordance may include the one participle) do not
> > include -QHS-, in at least some cases because the theta has been
> > elided
> > according to regular morphophonemic rules - I'm not sure how that
> > ties
> > up with the 1st/2nd distinction.
> 
> Hi Peter:
> 
> Yes, I did get your post and thanks.  Thought I responded to you.
Didn't
> you get it?  Anyhow, I did run a morphological search, as you
suggested,
> and came up with 271 hits.
> 
> The 1st and 2nd future passive distinctions, which may still need to
be
> examined, may suggest that the 1st FPs are passive, after all, and
that
> the 2nd FPs tend to be middle.  In other words, the -QHS- futures are
> probably more passive.
> 
> For now I'll have to examine Carl's work, particularly his middle
section
> (Christmas time is hard on the middle).  Anyhow, if his results stand,
> then that cow becomes less sacred after all.
> 
> Paul Dixon
> 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list