Middle and Passive Aorist and Future forms

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Dec 17 00:11:25 EST 2002


>[Dale:] Here's what I said to Dan (in a slightly altered form):
<snip>
> >
> >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

When we are talking about the MP paradigm of the -MAI etc. pronominal
suffixes - which I called set II, we are talking about the form. If the
tagging system sometimes tags a verb with set II endings as middle and
sometimes as passive, the tagging indicates the perceived function, not the
form alone.

<snip>
> (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.

If a form is "ambiguous", it means that the same form is considered to have
more than one function. If the tags indicated the form, that is the set II
endings which is equivalent to MP1, then the problem is solved. The primary
tag for all these forms which may function as middle or passive ought to be
the same for all forms. If the "taggers" want to indicate the most likely
function (middle or passive) that should be in a secondary tag, since the
primary tag ought to indicate form rather than function. The system as it
is, is inconsistent with its own standards.
>
> 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.

Yes, they are less descriptive in terms of the function, but they obey the
principle of marking form rather than function, which the present system
clearly violates.
>
> 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.

This is good test case for tagging. Only the aorist uses the MP2 form
with -QH-, and this form is conventionally called "passive" although the
function very often is not passive as with this verb. So, one of the
problems is that the term "passive" is used to describe a form, whereas most
people would take it to describe a function.
If the aorist was tagged with something that indicated the -QH- paradigm
rather than the function, then the tagging would be simple enough. Only the
aorist forms of DUNAMAI would have this tag, and all other forms would have
the tag indicating the MP1 paradigm. The tags would still mark the tense
which is important.

As far as I see it, the main problem may not be form versus function, since
a tag ought in some way to indicate the function of the form for pedagogical
reasons. A tag like "present" does indicate that these forms show the
meaning of "present" including "historical presents" which are actually past
in terms of their function. The problem is more that there are so many forms
tagged "passive" that are not passive in function. This is the disputed
concept, and the time may not be ripe yet for a change in tags, even though
I think it would be beneficial.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list