[B-Greek] TARASSW/TARASSOMAI: Concluding unscientific postscript

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Feb 27 15:16:02 EST 2008


On Feb 27, 2008, at 2:42 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> 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.

The active (causative: "make someone feel pain")  does take an  
accusative object; the MP forms ("grieve, feel pain") are  
intransitive. GNT: Active 6x, MP 20x; LXX: Active 16x, MP 38x.
>
>
>> 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


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list