[B-Greek] TARASSW/TARASSOMAI subject-agent affected
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Feb 23 04:10:13 EST 2008
Comments interspersed below:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>
>
>> My own impression is that this reflexive usage of TARASSEIN hEAUTON is
>> exceptional, although perfectly intelligible: the middle is the normal
>> usage. Of 17 instances of the verb in John's gospel, 6 are active ,
>> the remaining 11 are middle-passive. Of the 6 active forms all but
>> that in John 11:33 have external objects.
>
> I would prefer to look at this from a semantic viewpoint.
>
> TARASSW is basically a divalent verb with an agent or cause as subject and a patient as object.
> Somebody or something stirs/upsets somebody or something. If the subject is a person, I would
> call
> it agent, but if it is an event, I would call it cause. In most cases in the NT the patient is a
> person (or the heart/spirit of a person), but in John 5:4 and 5:7 it is water.
I'm not surprised to see this view of the matter expressed by Iver; I
continue to believe that TARASSOMAI is the basic form and that it is
intransitive, not passive, and furthermore that TARASSW, the active
form, is a secondary transitive causative form of TARASSOMAI. I don't
understand why, when Jesus says, (John 12:27) Νῦν ἡ ψυχή
μου τετάρακται, ... (NUN hH YUCH MOU TETARAKTAI ... ), we
are supposed to imagine that Jesus in his reaction here is made to
react by some external agent. I suppose that FOBEOMAI would be treated
the same way; I certainly consider it a middle intransitive -- or
transitive when it takes an accusative object of the fear, while FOBEW
is the far less common causative active form meaning "frighten."
---------------------------------------------------
The difference in our approaches is that yours is syntactic only, while mine is both syntactive and
semantic.
FOBEOMAI is a diffrerent cup of tea, semantically speaking. It is again basically a divalent verb
but with a rather different semantic frame. The nucleus is a cognitive verb "be afraid of" with the
first semantic role an Experiencer and the second semantic role Source. The first role is
syntactically expressed as subject and the source as object or occasionally as a prepositional
phrase, e.g.
Mat 21:26: FOBOUMEQA TON OCLON (We are afraid of the crowd)
Mat 10:28a MH FOBEISQE APO TWN APOKTENNONTWN TO SOMA
(Do not be afraid of those who kill the body)
Mat 10:28b FOBEISQE DE MALLON TON DUNAMENON KAI YUCHN KAI SOMA APOLESAI
(but rather be afraid of him who can destroy both soul and body)
The way to find the basic semantic frame is to look at all actual occurrences in the corpus
(FOBEOMAI occurs 95 times in the NT, never in the active form.) The next step is to determine the
semantic roles of the subject, object and indirect object if they exist. When the first role is
Experiencer or Patient rather than Agent, the norm in Greek is that you have a middle verb as you do
with FOBEOMAI.
It is possible to derive from this verb a separate semantic verb by valence addition so that you get
A caused B to be afraid of C. This occurs for instance in 2 Ch 32:18 and corresponds to the
different verb "frighten". It just so happens that Greek can do this valence addition by using an
active form of a basic middle verb. FOBEW and FOBEOMAI ought to have two different entries in a
dictionary because of their different semantic frames, just like "fear" and "frighten" are separate
entries in an English dictionary.
I don't think it is particularly helpful to describe FOBEOMAI as either transitive or intransitive,
but if you insist, then it is transitive as Matt 21:26 indicates: somebody fears somebody. It is
much more helpful to know that the subject is the Experiencer and the source - if it is explicit -
is either in the accusative or a prepositional phrase. Very often the source is not explicitly
mentioned in the syntax, but that does not make the verb intransitive. An intransitive verb cannot
take an object, a transitive verb may occur without a syntactically explicit object.
The main reason that I prefer to analyze TARASSW as different from FOBEOMAI is their different
semantic case frames, and this is something which is not clear from a purely syntactical point of
view. TARASSW like FOBEOMAI is basically a divalent verb (transitive). The first semantic role in
TARASSW is Agent (or Cause when it refers to a concept like an event that has happened or may
happen). The second role is Patient. The normal passive transformation is when the Patient is
expressed in the syntax as subject. Compare for example John 5:3: AGGELOS ... ETARASSEN TO hUDWR (An
angel stirred the water) with John 5:7 hOTAN TARAXQHi TO hUDWR (When the water is stirred (by the
angel)). In the first instance AGGELOS is Agent and subject, while hUDWR is Patient and object. In
the second instance hUDWR is Patient and subject while the agent is suppressed/implicit as in most
passive transformations.
One can only see this if one looks at many actual occurrences in the data corpus. It is on the basis
of such empirical study that I come to the conclusion that there must have been some event or
situation that has deeply upset Jesus in John 12:27. I think it is his upcoming suffering and death
or rather the question of whether he must go through with it or whether there is a way out. In this
case we don't have a person as Agent, but a concept as Cause. And this is where the results of our
two approaches are not so different after all. You prefer to take the MP form as basic and the
active as a causative derivation. I take the active for this verb as basic and the passive form as a
passive derivation.
-------------------------------------
Carl:
Greek uses the middle voice in numerous instances of events indicated
in English by simple intransitive verbs, e.g. "fly" (Greek
πέτομαι PETOMAI), "roll" κυλίνδομαι KULINDOMAI, NT
κυλίομαι KULIOMAI). As we look forward to the baseball season
ahead, we envision the smack of the bat on the ball; the ball
"flies" (PETETAI) through the air; it may land in the mitt of an alert
outfielder, or it may quickly fall to the ground and
"roll" (KULIESQAI). The flight of the ball and its rolling on the
ground, even if set in motion by the hitter, are not passive. Even if
the scientific linguist knows very well that a baseball does not fly
or roll of its own volition, Greek envisions it as self-affected. And
when Jesus says (John 14:1) Μὴ ταρασσέσθω ὑμῶν ἡ
καρδία (MH TARASSESQW hUMWN hH KARDIA), he seems to expect the
disciples to be able to exercise some control over their heart(s). But
I would guess that we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this matter.
-------------------------------------
We are not that opposed, but we look at the same thing from different angles. To me, the description
"self-affected" is inadequate and too vague.
In all the examples you mention above, the subject expresses the role of Patient, since it is
inanimate (except for the bird.) If it was animate it could be called Experiencer. IF these verbs
normally or exclusively occur with one role only, that is Patient as subject, they are mono-valent
middle verbs. As you have said, some such verbs may have a derived and related, divalent, causative
semantic verb, which in Greek is often expressed by an active.
A divalent verb like throw will have both an agent and a patient. If such a verb is used in the
passive, the Patient is expressed as subject.
This explains why in many cases it is difficult to distinguish the passive from the middle, since
the subject in both cases may express the role Patient.
In John 14:1 there is a passive imperative: Your hearts should not be troubled (by anything or
anyone). The disciples are supposed to block out thoughts that might upset them. The passive agrees
with their hearts as subject and the Cause (if an event) or Agent (if a person) being implicit and
different from the subject. It would be possible to use an active: MH TARASSETE THN KARDIAN hUMWN,
but I would call that self-affected, since then they are told not to upset themselves/their hearts.
This is what Jesus did in John 11:33: ETARAXEN hEAUTON.
I think what you mean by "self-affected" is that in many middle verbs both the Agent and Experiencer
are simultaneously expressed in the subject (PET(A)OMAI when used of a bird, EGEIROMAI in the sense
of "rise".). But in other middle verbs, there is no agent, only a Patient or Experiencer as subject
(PET(A)OMAI when used of a ball.) The passive EGEIROMAI in the sense "be raised" is not
"self-affected" since it has an Agent different from the Experiencer.
> As Carl meant to say, of the 17 instances in the NT, 6 are active (7 if you count John 5:4 in the
> Byzantine texts). The remaining 11 are IMO passive rather than middle, because in each case, it
> is
> the patient that is placed in the subject slot and the agent or cause is implicit.
I did say what I meant to say, that those 11 forms are middle-passive,
meaning that the forms all express the same semantic force; Iver sees
that force as passive, I see it as middle.
------------------------
You said "of the 17 instances in John", but meant to say "of the 17 instances in the NT".
That was a minor point, and I readily accept that you miswrote without noticing it.
The Friberg tags have all the MP forms of TARASSW as "passive", but that carries no weight, because
he also tags all the middle forms of FOBEOMAI as passives.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list