[B-Greek] Accusative of retained object
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue May 22 04:22:35 EDT 2007
Carl Conrad said:
For what it's worth, there's an explanation for this construction which, though I firmly believe it
to be true, will be rejected out of hand by most who think in traditional terms about ancient Greek
voice:
Although these QH forms are called passive and can indeed be said to function semantically as
passive in several instances, yet they are really syntactically middle, and middle verbs can take an
accusative object. One might compare French usage in an expression like, "Ils ont eu les mains
liées." That will English as "they had their hands tied" or "Their hands were tied."
-----------------------------
Iver Larsen added:
Yes, that is also how Rom 3:2 has been rendered in Danish Bibles:
They got/had God's word(s) entrusted. (De fik Guds ord betroet)
If we look at at the basic case frame, we have
A(nom) entrusts B(acc) to C(dative)
A passive transformation would result in B(nom) is entrusted to C(dative)
A "middle transformation" would result in C(nom) gets B(acc) entrusted.
Traditional Greek grammar is in need of either a transformation or a reformation.
-------------------------------------
Iver Larsen now adds a second thought and more details about objects, indirect objects and passives.
Entrust is like "give" and a few other verbs semantically trivalent and grammatically ditransitive,
so let me use "give" as an example to illustrate:
Active: God gave the Scriptures to the Jews (= God gave the Jews the Scriptures)
This construction semantically has an agent, patient and beneficiary/receiver. Grammatically it has
a subject, an object and an indirect object.
Because it is ditransitive, it can be made into a passive in two ways:
1. Object-to-subject passivization: The Scriptures were given to the Jews (by God)
2. IndirectObject-to-subject passivization: The Jews were given the Scriptures (by God)
In both cases, the agent (God) has been moved out of focus. In the first one, which I might call
Passive Transformation 1 (PT1), the object is put in the focal subject (first) position. In the
second one, which I might call Passive Transformation 2 (PT2), it is the indirect object that is put
into focal position. (English is unclear in terms of focus, since that language can also have final
position focus. Therefore, stress is the deciding factor in English, not position.)
Greek PISTEUW in the sense of entrust something to somebody as found in Rom 3:2 and LOGIZOMAI in the
sense of credit something to somebody are both semantically trivalent verbs with an agent, a patient
and a beneficiary/receiver.
In Romans 3:2 we find a PT2 which gives us:
EPISTEUQHSAN TA LOGIA TOU QEOU
(the Jews) were entrusted (with) the word(s) of God (by God)
(If English requires a "with" here, that is a peculiarity that is of no consequence for the
analysis. TA LOGIA TOU QEOU is the object for EPISTEUQHSAN).
In Romans 4:6 we have:
TON MAKARISMON TOU ANQRWPOU hWi hO QEOS LOGIZETAI DIKAIOSUNHN
(the bessedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness).
God is subject/agent, righteouness is object and "to whom" refers to the beneficiary/indirect
object.
In Romans 4:3 we have:
ELOGISQH AUTWi EIS DIKAIOSUNHN
This is a PT1 with implied subject, since PISTIS from the previous sentence is implied subject
(semantic patient), QEOS is implied agent and only the indirect object AUTWi is explicit. The result
is indicated by an added preposition. Abraham's faith was credited to him by God resulting in him
being considered righteous.
Whether it is called PT2 or "middle transformation" as I did earlier, is not crucial. It is more
important to see the difference between PT1 - which is the only kind of passivization possible for
divalent (transitive) verbs - and PT2 - which only applies to trivalent (ditransitive) verbs. For
some verbs and in some languages it may be best to describe it as middle transformation, in others
as PT2. As Carl has said there is in many situations not much semantic difference between a middle
form and a passive form.
It is not correct that a passive verb cannot take an object. That only applies to PT1, not to PT2.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list