Tagging (was Re: Middle & Passive Aorist & Future forms)
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Dec 17 08:34:28 EST 2002
This is not really the first or only time I have been in 100% agreement
with Iver, but it is a significant agreement, I think: Iver has said what I
was wanting to say about the tagging of "MP1" forms as either middle or
passive, and probably said it better than I could have said it. We should
tag the form with the least ambiguous term possible to designate it and
avoid attempting to determine function. AMEN (and that's not just a
first-plural alpha ending!)
At 8:11 AM +0300 12/17/02, Iver Larsen wrote:
>>[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
>
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
--
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