[B-Greek] Third-person commands

Dr. Don Wilkins drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net
Fri Nov 18 15:33:18 EST 2005


Thanks for the response, Yancy. We probably can't go much further than this,
if at all, but I've replied to your points below. I'd welcome any additional
comments from you.

>
I am with you, Don, on the subject of passive transformations of active
statements, but I don't think it is proper to see the third person active
imperative as a passive construction, because there are (even in my Matthew
list) some third person passive imperatives. Your example below would be
expressed as a third person passive imperative:

That is, the 2p command "Do this" is switched to "This is to be done [by
you]," where the agent (you) is implied but not expressed. I thought of
several everyday examples, such as "Do the dishes before I get back"
vis-a-vis "The dishes are to be done before I get back."

DW:
Fair enough, Yancy. I'll try to respond: I think it's easier to explain
these commands as grammatical or lexical passives with implied agents (the
person(s) addressed) than to try to convert them from 3p to 2p. In fact, if
the idea of switching to a passive concept is uncomfortable, then you could
probably think of it as the 3p command's focusing on the fulfillment of the
desired action while the 2p focuses on the imposition of the command. E.g.,
I could reword the example above as "The dishes are to be clean before I get
back." The implication of the 2p agent is still there. I don't think the
fact that the 3p command can be grammatically passive precludes this idea.
However, we might find that most 3p commands are grammatically active.
Perhaps the passive is used mostly where an active form would be difficult
or awkward. Matt. 27:22, 23 is an example; short of using the 2p, it would
seem that "Let them [who?] crucify Him" would be the only active option, and
the passive is simpler.

YS:
In the following case, I don't see how "inform," "is to know" are passive:

A 3p command like "No one is to know about this" may not seem to fit at
first, but what we really have is "Do not inform anyone" vs. "no one is to
know," where "know" is an equivalent to the passive of "inform".

DW:
"Know" is not *grammatically* passive, but my argument is that it can be
viewed as the equivalent of "be informed," which is grammatically passive.
Again, compare TIQHMI and KEIMAI.

YS:
However, I think that the use of 3rd person imperatives to address 2nd
persons is analogous to some passive transformations in that they are ways
of speaking indirectly to 2nd persons. I think it is very important not to
confuse INDIRECT communication with PASSIVE constructions, though they both
are ways of including 2nd persons in the performance of commands directed to
3rd persons not present. This is done to allow the 2nd persons to save face,
to allow speakers to express something unpleasant in a less offensive way,
and I believe it can be shown that passive constructions are capable of the
same thing. What remains to be seen is whether NT third person imperatives,
whether active or passive, are USUALLY addressing 2nd persons indirectly or
whether they normally address 3rd persons in absentia. I am inclined to
believe the former.

DW:
Remember, though, that what I've been looking for is a grammatical/logical
explanation for what you call "indirect" communication. I think the passive
concept works, but if you want to rule it out, then you need to establish
some other connection. Otherwise, it would seem that you end up taking the
implication of a 2p command from the context, and we're back to "He said
this, but he obviously meant that." This may be legitimate for the sphere of
interpretation, but I still think it's fallacious to work this kind of
interpretation into the grammar. In effect, it is parsing from context
instead of morphology.

YS:
In the case of ORATE MHDEIS GINWSKETW the action of the 2nd persons is
explicitly enjoined, so that we have a double imperative. I think this is a
good model upon which to build a theoretical way of seeing 3rd person
commands and their relation to 2nd persons. The author could just as well
have said MHDEIS GINWSKETW and meant the same thing. This tells me that 3rd
person commands can either express or not the implicit 2nd person command
associated with them, as your discussion implies.

DW:
I'd have to disagree about this verse being a good model. If I'm not
mistaken, it's the only NT example of imperative hWRA with a 3p command
(usually we see a subjunctive). In any case, the verse poses no problem that
I can see for the passive+agent idea. The idea could be, "See to it that no
one knows [by you; i.e. due to your telling them]." But it's problematic in
any case, since the literal Greek is "See no one is to know." The idea might
be "Watch out--no one is to know!"

    Don Wilkins



More information about the B-Greek mailing list