[B-Greek] Causative MP? (was...APARNHQHSETAI in Lk 12.9 (archive post by Dr. Conrad))

Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 4 10:58:05 EDT 2009


Mitch,
 
I have to say that I have not really grasped all the fine
nuances on the subject of passivity/deponency that I've
read on the list over the years, but I have developed this
procedure.  When I see a passive I do three things to make
sure it is a pure passive, what you call a "vanilla passive,"
a term I like, by the way.
 
1.  I check to see if there is a clear agent separate from
the subject involved.  Here there clearly is.  Jesus is doing
the denying.
 
2.  I check to see if even though there be an agent, maybe the
subject is still contributing to the verbal action somehow.  In this
case I don't see it.  Jesus and only Jesus will be doing the denying.
 
3.  I check to see if maybe the "get" construction will be helpful
in understanding the verse.  Very, very often it is.  But not in this
case.  "They will get denied before the angels" adds nothing to
"They will be denied."  Compare 1 Tim 2:4 hOS PANTAS 
ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI.  "God wants all men to
be saved" is very different from "God wants all men to get
saved."  Very often the "get" construction introduces positive
ambiguity as to who is really doing the action.  Recently we
discussed Gal 1:6 METATIQESQE APO TOU KALESANTOS
hUMAS "You are turned aside from the one who calls you."
I sort of wanted to take this as a middle, but Iver convinced me
it is a vanilla passive.  But here the "get" construction still 
helps in introducing a both/and element.  "You are getting
(yourself) bent out of shape."  
 
This use of "get" is one of the most helpful things I've learned
from the listers, if in fact I am "getting" it right.  (I often don't.)  
The first person to use this construction was not Simon Peter but
Simon, Paul " I get slandered, (DIABALLOMAI) libeled,
I hear words I never heard in the Bible." This is sort of
like Lk 12:9 but here, even though Paul Simon is not doing
the slandering, the "get" brings out that he has somehow
gotten himself into this situation.  Cf.  "I'm in trouble
all the time" and "I get in trouble all the time."  It sounds
like you want to argue that the deniers get themselves into
a positιon to be denied, but I don't really see that here.
 
The irony of your post is that I THINK what Carl and others
have been saying is that often what appear to be vanilla
passives are sort of middles, but in this case Carl, I think, is
making the point that deponents sometimes are pure passives.
Sometimes a banana is just a banana, and sometimes ( but not 
often) a passive is just a passive


Mark L
Φωσφορος

FWSFOROS MARKOS

--- On Sat, 7/4/09, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:


From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Causative MP? (was...APARNHQHSETAI in Lk 12.9 (archive post by Dr. Conrad))
To: "Mitch Larramore" <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>
Cc: "B Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Saturday, July 4, 2009, 5:33 AM



On Jul 4, 2009, at 6:04 AM, Mitch Larramore wrote:

>
> Dr. Conrad:
>
> Dr. Wallace in GGBB (p. 423...) distinguishes the Causative Middle  
> from the Permissive Middle, although he says they are almost  
> interchangeable.

Well, I am one who has repeatedly warned against blurring important  
distinctions. On the other hand, I have had some difficulties  
discerning some of the distinctions (especially between subcategories  
of the adnominal genitive) that Dr. Wallace has delineated (there are  
two rather neat ones, however: the "plenary" genitive, which has a  
nice "push yourself back from the dinner table" feel to it -- after  
discovering an adnominal genitive that is BOTH subjective AND  
objective; and then my favorite of all, the "aporetic" genitive --  
what I have called the "Abbot & Costello I don't know's on third"  
subcategory). I really should turn this whole countdown of reasons why  
I don't like the subcategories of the adnominal genitive in GGBB" to  
Mark Lightman, who has a flair for this sort of thing. But with my  
impoverished imagination, I can only say about the distinction between  
Causative Middle and Permissive Middle, "If it looks like a duck,  
walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... "

> His examples tend to revolve around grooming, other than Judas  
> EKTHSATO CWRION.

meaning that a real estate agent actually carried out the purchase, I  
guess. I think I mentioned BAPTIZOMAI in my original response. Iver  
(and others too, I'm sure) believe that this verb has only two  
arguments, subject and patient. But consider the mysterious verse in 1  
Cor 15:29 Ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ  
βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν; εἰ  
ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, τί καὶ  
βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν; [EPEI TI POIHSOUSIN  
hOI BAPTIZOMENOI hUPER TWN NEKRON? EI hOLWS NEKROI OUK EGEIRONTAI, TI  
KAI BAPTIZONTAI hUPER AUTWN?] Or there's the even stranger Acts 22:16  
καὶ νῦν τί μέλλεις; ἀναστὰς  
βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς  
ἁμαρτίας σου ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ  
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.  [KAI NUN TI MELLEIS? ANASTAS BAPTISAI KAI  
APOLOUSAI TAS hAMARTIAS SOU EPIKALOUMENOS TO ONOMA AUTOU.] Two bits  
says that BAPTISAI here is causative middle; a quarter says it's  
permissive middle (does it mean the same thing as BAPTISQHTI?).

> I think we could add several more usages or categories of the MP  
> than Wallace gives. And I like the idea of the subject CAUSING the  
> subsequent action by the subject's previous actions/decision. And, I  
> would translate the Lk 12.9 passage with the idea that... those who  
> deny Jesus... DIRECTLY (not indirectly, although that would be an  
> option as well) cause the denial that ensues at a subsequent time.  
> The subject causes a delayed reaction, as it were (giving it the  
> appearance of being two separate actions).

"hoist by one's own petard," as the bard says (from Hamlet (iii. iv.  
207).

> Could this usage of (inherent in) the Middle be one reason why its  
> morphoparadigm is the same as the Passive's? This Causative Middle  
> has the 'appearance' of being a Passive, but the Middle answers a  
> question the Passive doesn't: Who is responsible for this action?  
> Why this action?  The Causative Middle answers that, whereas the  
> Passive has no interest in any (causal) agent.

I think you have hit the nail on the head, Mitch. Some languages  
(quite a few, in fact) use reflexive constructions to express passive  
ideas, as "Aqui se habla español": literally, "Spanish speaks itself  
here" --  but meaning, 'Spanish is spoken here." Suzanne Kemmer  
discusses these reflexives as middle or passive at length in _The  
Middle Voice_.

> I guess one would have to know/guess the author's motive or  
> intention in order to distinguish the Causative Middle from a plain,  
> vanilla Passive. Perhaps then I'm arguing that a Causative "Passive"  
> would not exist (it would actually be a Causative Middle, since  
> Passive's suppress the agent to the degree that motive and intent  
> are intentionally absent.

Or you might say that the passive simply indicates that something is  
getting done or got done; the agent isn't expressed unless by intention.

> As you can see, I'm doing nothing more than thinking/speculating "in  
> English" what might be in the Greek. Sorry for this. Please advise  
> me on how to go about thinking/speculating about a Greek construct.

Ah, but that's what I've been doing, off and on, for the past dozen  
years or so. Traditional grammarians who concentrate on ancient Greek  
haven't bothered to think very creatively or helpfully about these  
matters.

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



---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek



      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list