Middle and Passive Aorist and Future forms

Dr. Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at multnomah.edu
Mon Dec 16 14:10:52 EST 2002


To All:

I think there has been a serious misunderstanding of what I was saying (or 
perhaps a mis-speaking on my part)....and the misunderstanding has rapidly 
spread...I got a note from Dan Wallace this morning from Germany indicating 
that he'd heard that I was planning on changing the GRAMCORD tags!  Let me 
say this clearly:  I'm not changing the GRAMCORD tags!

Here's what I said to Dan (in a slightly altered form):

>The only thing I've said is that I agree with Carl that the concept of 
>deponency is fine for Latin, but it really doesn't explain the M/P 
>phenomenon in Greek.  This conclusion has only been strengthened while 
>I've been fixing the tagging on the MorphLXX.
>
>However, having said that, I'm not really sure that such an observation 
>has any impact on the Gramcord TAGS, since the GRAMCORD tagging is based 
>on the form and not the function, and will continue to be that way...and 
>in fact we're trying to move the MorphLXX closer to that direction as 
>well.  Where this may have an impact will be (1) the lexemes chosen, ie., 
>whether an active form is displayed or a m/p form, and (2) whether we are 
>going to introduce a new tag to cover the ambiguous forms in the 
>Pres/Impf/Pf/Plpf...since up until now Gramcord has tagged those ambiguous 
>forms based on whether the predominant occurrences of the word in the Aor 
>and Fut were middle or passive forms, based on the information in BAGD.
>
>At any rate, I haven't yet decided to do anything specifically, since 
>BAGD/BDAG has always been Gramcord's tagging standard, and we attempt to 
>follow it as religiously as possible...unless we think they've just made a 
>mistake.  Moreover if I do end up introducing new tags, etc., they almost 
>certainly will go in as alternate tags, and not as the main tags, or the 
>current main tags will be retained as the alternates.

With respect to Carl, et.al.'s suggestion that we use the terms MP1 and 
MP2, I see some merit in such a suggestion, and some problems for parsed 
texts...and unfortunately/fortunately (depends on your perspective I 
guess), from my perspective right now, the problems outweigh the benefits 
of introducing new tag terms which are less descriptive, as these terms 
would be.  While I think the case for the use of such terms gets stronger 
when you move out into Hellenistic and LXX--and then Classical--Greek from 
the Koine of the GNT, such a system would be too much of a shock to the 
system of parsed texts and their users at this point.  We already do a 
similar thing in the MorphLXX, but I doubt that hardly any of you'all have 
ever seen these tags, since no one to my knowledge has displayed or used 
these tags in a commercial software program as of yet.  As I said above, if 
we ever adopt such a system, it would become a set of alternate/extended 
tags and would not replace the primary tags. However, any such system which 
would go beyond simply indicating that an ending either has -QH- or 
doesn't, ie., by positing reasons for the use of this form with a specific 
transitive, intransitive, ergative, etc., function, would certainly need to 
have a lot of proof and withstand peer review for a while.

The current GRAMCORD tagging system nevertheless does have the problem I 
mentioned above, and which I was responding to in this thread, namely, 
there are certain verbs, like DUNAMAI, which exhibit both Middle and 
Passive (-QH-) forms, either interchangeably or segregated like we see with 
DUNAMAI in the future vs the aorist. This is why I said that I'm 
considering adding a tag that would be as ambiguous as the forms are...but 
not one that indicates that forms are "deponent", since it seems clear to 
me that "deponent" is not the correct concept to explain the Greek verb 
system. GRAMCORD's philosophy has always been to follow BAGD/BDAG and BDF 
on whether such a verb is a "middle deponent" or "passive deponent", which 
determinations are based on the preponderance of uses of the verb in the 
Aor/Fut, and then to tag the ambiguous forms in the Pres/Impf/Pf/Plpf based 
on the pattern of the use of middle or passive forms in the Aor/Fut. In 
general verbs do follow certain formal patterns in the Aor/Fut, esp., in 
the GNT; but there are always exceptions. With respect to DUNAMAI, given my 
current perspective on Greek "voice", I'd probably say, with Carl, that the 
ambiguous forms should be tagged as middle, which I think is their 
overriding function (viz., middle = personal involvement at some level), 
and after some appropriate research and cogitation, I may change the 
Pres/Impf/Pf of DUNAMAI to middle from passive.  Such a change is NOT a 
change of tagging schemes...and that's all I was saying I was going to do 
at present.

One final thing; Carl asked the question, "Does anyone think that DUNAMAI 
is passive?", which is where this whole thing for me started. The problem 
with the question is that it blurs the distinction between form and 
function (ie., the Morph Code, "tag what is written and not what is 
meant.").  The Aor of DUNAMAI is tagged Passive because that's the standard 
terminology used to describe -QH- Aor/Fut forms.  So, on a purely formal 
level, I'd answer, yes, the Aorist is passive, in form, based on the 
currently accepted voice terminology.  DUNAMAI is for me a classic example 
as to why, at this point, I can only conclude that Greeks chose the -QH- or 
non-QH- forms based on how it sounded to them; I can't see any lexis, 
transitivy, ergativity, etc., issues at work in this case.  Clearly, if 
deponency is not at work in a verb like DUNAMAI, then its either middle or 
passive.  But since both forms appear, how do we decide which it is.  My 
conclusion is that its clearly middle/personal involvement, and that the 
speakers liked the sound of the -QH- in the Aor (the future evidently 
doesn't get the -QH- until Dio Cassius ii/iii AD, acc. to LSJ; and 
evidently only early and "never in good Attic" does the Aor occur without 
the -QH-).  Verbs like DUNAMAI nevertheless strengthen Carl's basic 
proposition that something is going on with Greek verbs, which is NOT 
explained by deponency and which goes beyond the traditional terms "middle" 
and "passive".  But parsed texts are not the place to adjudicate such 
discussions; parsed texts of necessity must follow standard 
convention--unless its just clearly and demonstrably to everyone 
wrong--otherwise users will be confused or worse (esp., for beginning 
students of Greek).



***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Prof., Biblical Languages          Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan St.                                  Portland, OR 97220
V: 503-2516416                                 E: dalemw at multnomah.edu
*********************************************************************** 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list