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

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sun Jul 5 09:33:11 EDT 2009


On Jul 4, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Mark Lightman wrote:

> 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.

WHO calls it that (other than you?) Is that roughly the same thing as  
a "plain brown wrapper" passive?

>  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.

Well, that's implicit from verse 8, at least. It isn't explicit in  
verse 9.

>  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.

Actually I am more inclined to thing that "get" as an auxiliary in  
English is really very useful and helpful in dealing with or  
Englishing Greek middle-passive forms. I think that the sense of  
"get" (when used as an auxiliary with a past participle( is much the  
same as GIGNOMAI in Greek: "to enter into a state or status." It does  
tend to imply a greater degree of participation of the subject in what  
the compounded verb form indicates as happening. But it's ambiguous,  
and that's what I like about it, because I honestly believe that the  
middle-passive morphoparadigms -- both MAI/SAI/TAI/MHN/SO/TO and -QH-  
forms -- bear the same ambiguity or ambivalence of semantic  
possibility. Often enough, context will pretty clearly tip the balance  
toward middle or passive: POREUQHSOMAI is always middle; APARNHQHSETAI  
in Lk 12:9 is passive (whether "vanilla" or "plain brown wrapper"  
type). On the other hand, there are those verbs which I prefer to call  
"middle" verbs, including not only those verbs which traditionalists  
continue to call "deponents" but also verbs that are fundamentally  
middle but have an active form that is rarer and only ussed in a  
causative sense. For instance, MEQUSKOMAI, "get drunk," has a rarely- 
used (nevr in the GNT) active form MEQUSKW which means "cause (some  
one) to get drunk."

There's an interesting paper this usage of "get" in English: T. Givón  
and Lynne Yang, "The Rise of the English GET-Passive," in Barbara A.  
Fox and Paul J. Hopper, _Voice: Form and Function_,  pp. 119-160.

>  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

Or, if I may be allowed to put it in my own language, -QH- forms of  
"middle" verbs must sometimes be understood as passive in meaning.

> --- 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)



More information about the B-Greek mailing list