[B-Greek] TARASSW/TARASSOMAI: Concluding unscientific postscript
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Feb 27 14:42:49 EST 2008
Dear Carl,
We are in basic agreement, and I just want to make a few concluding remarks from my side:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
Cc: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 27. februar 2008 16:39
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] TARASSW/TARASSOMAI: Concluding unscientific postscript
> Unscientific? Certainly. Concluding? Unless ...
> But I do want to offer another comment on Elizabeth's quest as well as
> to thank both her and Iver for what has been an illuminating exchange
> over the verb(s?) TARASSW/TARASSOMAI and to reiterate a couple of my
> conclusions/convictions about the matter under consideration.
>
>> On Feb 22, 2008, at 3:30 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:
>>
>>> My own impression is that this reflexive usage of TARASSEIN hEAUTON
>>> is exceptional, although perfectly intelligible: the middle is the
>>> normal usage.
>
> 1. I continue to believe this is right. In general verbs of (strong)
> emotion tend to be middle verbs; active forms of such verbs, when we
> do encounter them, seem to be fundamentally causatives indicating the
> endeavor to rouse the emotion in another.
I agree. Many of these verbs are best analysed as basically middle with the active forms having a
causative sense. In semantic terms a verb may have a basic valency of 1, 2 or 3 based on the
predominant pattern, and it is often possible to add or subtract a valency. This is indicated by
various means in the syntax. An emotion verb is often monovalent with an Experiencer role as
subject. By adding an Agent it becomes divalent and the Agent normally takes up the subject slot
while the Experiencer is relegated to the object slot.
> AISCUNOMAI (+ dat.) 'be ashamed about'-- AISCUNW 'dishonor'; ELPOMAI
> 'hope, expect, fear' (Hom.) -- ELPW 'cause to hope'; hHEDOMAI (+
> dat.) 'enjoy oneself' -- hHDW/hANDANW 'please, delight'; KHDOMAI (+
> gen.) 'care about, care for' -- KHDW 'trouble, distress' (Hom.);
> LUPEOMAI (+ acc.) 'to be grieved about' -- LUPEW 'grieve, vex';
> ORGIZOMAI (+ dat.) 'be angry with' -- ORGIZW 'make angry'; TERPOMAI (+
> dat.) 'enjoy' (Hom.) -- TERPW 'please' (Hom.); FOBEOMAI (+ acc.) 'flee
> in panic' (Hom.) 'fear' -- FOBEW 'make flee in panic (Hom.); alarm'.
> These are from Allan's listing. He also notes "a significant number of
> media tantum": AGAMAI (+ acc.) 'admire'; AIDOMAI/AIDEOMAI (+ acc.)
> 'respect'; ACQOMAI (+ dat.) 'be grieved with'; ACNUMAI (+ gen.)
> 'grieve for" (Hom); MAINOMAI 'rage'; MEMFOMAI 'be angry,
> discontent'; SEBOMAI (+ acc.) 'respect, revere (typically a god);
> CWOMAI (+ dat.) 'be angry with' (Hom., poetry).
Does LUPEOMAI take an accusative object? I haven't checked all of these.
> I am not surprised that Elizabeth has had difficulty finding instances
> of reflexive usage with verbs of emotion. What she's found (in what
> must have been a difficult search) have been instances of KATECW and
> EPECW, generally with noun objects of an emotional state to be
> repressed or held in check, once with a reflexive pronoun (EPESCON
> EMAUTON). But it seems to me that verbs of restraint are indeed more
> likely to be active -- even when the object/patient is coreferential
> with the subject. I think that the verbs of emotion more commonly
> describe spontaneously arising feelings or states of feeling, perhaps
> triggered by something external, but not necessarily. With the verbs
> of restraint such as KATECW and EPECW when used with an object, it
> seems to me that the object is conceived as an unruly force or beast
> that one is attempting to bring under control. Plato in the Republic
> and elsewhere describes the struggle within the self between a
> governing aspect and an appetitive or emotive aspect -- in the
> Phaedrus he speaks of a charioteer trying to control a black horse and
> a white horse that are both aspects of one's selfhood. In general, it
> seems to me that unless one is a very good actor or perhaps a good
> politician (perhaps one is a subspecies of the other?), it's not easy
> to turn one's emotions on -- but we commonly endeavor to get control
> over our feelings.
>
> Iver says that ETARAXEN hEAUTON used of Jesus in John 11:33 expresses
> a particular nuance that translators might do well to do justice to.
> But the effort to imagine a way of expressing this makes the
> difficulty clear: "He stirred himself up"? "He distressed himself"?
> "He brought himself into turmoil"? "He worked himself up into a
> lather"? The last comes closest, perhaps, to what Iver has in mind,
> particularly as this follows upon ENEBRIMHSATO TWi PNEUMATI. But
> EMBRIMAOMAI is itself an intransitive verb or perhaps a "direct
> reflexive" middle similar perhaps to SPLAGCNIZOMAI, a verb, the
> coarseness of which reminds me of the vulgar admoniton to someone
> flying into a rage: "Don't get your balls in an uproar!"
Since you accepted that verbs of restraint are more likely to be active, I think that TARASSW - as
least in John's writings - is somewhat similar. It is almost the opposite of restraint. If we think
of KATECW as "cool down", we could think of TARASSW as "heat up". In most cases there seems to be an
external cause for being troubled or an external trouble-maker, but I think what John was intending
to communicate in 11:33 was that there was no such external cause in view, but rather his spirit
troubled him. I have no problem accepting that this particular usage in 11:33 is exceptional, but I
think it is deliberately rather than accidentally exceptional. It think it was not the weeping of
the people that troubled Jesus as much as his spirit upsetting him, occasioned by their lack of
faith.
>
> 2. I am grateful to Iver for responding graciously to my rather huffy
> message of February 25, 2008 9:44:06 AM EST. I suspect that we shall
> continue to have differences of opinion about whether middle-passive
> forms (MAI/MHN as well as QHN) of one or another verb should be
> interpreted as middle or passive. But one point I was attempting to
> make there is that the combination of syntactic and semantic analysis
> of the Greek verb doesn't consistently work with ancient Greek middle-
> passive verb-forms.
Again I agree. We can attempt to make some general descriptions, but there are many exceptions that
are not easy to explain. There is often a mismatch between semantics and syntax, so that
semantically middle verbs usually have middle forms, but may have active forms, semantically active
verbs usually have active forms, but may have middle or passive forms, and semantically passive
verbs usually have MP forms, but may have active forms (like PASCW). In addition, the borderline
between middle and passive forms is fuzzy in aorist and future. A few verbs do have active, middle
and passive forms, but many have only the two paradigms: active and MP, and some have only one
paradigm, either active or MP.
Some of these exceptions to a simple description may be results of historical changes.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list