[B-Greek] Voice matters again

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Mar 27 09:15:59 EDT 2009


On Mar 27, 2009, at 4:54 AM, John Sanders wrote:

> I would like to offer my own views as to the concept of “voice”  
> in Greek.  Since I am studying on my own and do not have access to  
> much that is written, I do offer my thoughts for feedback more than  
> anything else.  Also, I offer my thoughts not in regards to any  
> organized theoretical linguistic approach, although I am not sure  
> that is an handicap.

I understand well what you meaning in that last concessive clause;  
I've felt that way too often enough, but since I started engaging  
questions about ancient Greek voice, I've come to appreciate how the  
academic linguists can clarify how one states one's newly-formulated  
notions about voice.

>  I would like to describe ενεργεια (ENERGEIA) , the active  
> voice and μεση (MESH)  middle voice first and introduce  
> παθος (PAQOS), the passive voice later.

First, could we be consistent in usage of nouns and adjectives here  
and speak of ENERGHTIKH and PAQHTIKH along with MESH? It's the  
adjectives, I think, that are thus used by Dionysius Thrax and others  
ancient grammarians.

>  If we define the “active voice” as one in which the subject  
> generates the activity of the verb away from itself and the  
> “passive voice” as transferring the action of the verb toward the  
> subject, then ENERGEIA and MESH are “active voice”.   The  
> difference between them is that ENERGEIA can be thought as the  
> subject is expressed plainly and MESH the subject is emphasized.

To avoid potential confusion, I suggest we distinguish the terms we're  
using here with regard to whether we're talking about morphology or  
semantics; there are the verb-forms of the "active" morphoparadigms  
and those of the "middle" (MAI/SAI/TAI, MHN/SO/TO) and the  
"passive" (QHN/QHS/QH) morphoparadigms; then there are semantic  
categories that do not necessarily conform to the verb-form (e.g.  
APEQANEN hO SWKRATHS hUPO TWN AQHNAIWN, "Socrates was executed by the  
Athenians": here APEQANEN is aorist active in terms of morphology, but  
semantically it carries passive force. I've found the use of the term  
"active" to refer to middle verb-forms that are transitive and take  
objects as confusing. I think it was Albert Rijksbaron who first used  
the term "agentive" to refer to verb-forms indicating a deliberate  
performance of the verb process by the subject; I would prefer to say  
that transitive middle verb-forms (e.g. PORIZOMAI) as well as some  
intransitive middle verb forms (e.g. POREUOMAI) involving what is  
clearly intentional performance of the act by the subject are  
"agentive" rather than "active" semantically.

>  We often express ourselves with the view that language is a thing  
> in and of itself, but it is not.  Language is how individuals  
> express themselves with one another collectively.  What may be the  
> case in one collection may not be the case in another collection.   
> So words such as απτομαι (hAPTOMAI) do not emphasize the  
> subject vis-à-vis απτω (hAPTW).  I believe that Dr. Buth is  
> quite correct in introducing these words as separate vocabulary  
> items.  But where MESH does emphasize the subject, I would introduce  
> the two forms together.

This is a question of lexicography; I do think that a lexical entry  
should show clearly that an active causative form such as hISTHMI  
belongs to the same verbal complex as the more primary middle-voice  
form hISTAMAI. That's a separate question; I'd suggest an entry such as:
STHNAI "stand, halt"; STHSAI "cause to stand, cause to halt" and then  
go out to spell out the details.

>   I think what I have written so far is straightforward and not  
> controversial.  What I am about to write may not be so.  In thinking  
> on how best to convey the “middle voice” I propose that ENERGEIA  
> can be thought of as the “simple present tense” in English and  
> MESH the “continuous present tense”.  I do not wish to propose  
> that the “continuous present tense” in English is the English  
> “middle voice”, rather what I would suggest is that the effect of  
> the two forms in English are similar to the effect of ENERGEIA and  
> MESH.  To my mind “I am going” emphasizes the subject vis-à-vis  
> “I go”.  Although given that ερχω (ERXW) is not proper Attic,  
> I suspect that ερχομαι (ERXOMAI) would have an equivalent  
> emphasis on the subject vis-à-vis ερχω (ERXW).

I frankly think this confounds the issues involved. What are  
traditionally distinguished as "simple" (I go), "progressive" (I am  
going), and "emphatic" (I do go) forms of the English present tense  
have more to do with verbal aspect than with verbal voice. As for  
ερχω (ERXW), the form not only is not proper Attic, but so far as I  
know it isn't proper Greek in any era ancient or modern. ERCOMAI is  
traditionally called a "deponent" verb; I would prefer to call it a  
"middle verb" -- meaning a verb that is primarily or exclusively  
middle in form.

>
> PAQOS does not have a separate form, but uses the forms as presently  
> given, which is the same as English.  In general, though, PAQOS will  
> tend to use the MESH form since be its very nature the subject is  
> emphasized in some fashion.  I know that Iver Larson is very  
> passionate about a specific means of analyzing PAQOS, and I also  
> think it is a good method.  But I do not see that method as in  
> opposition or superior to the traditional method of looking at PAQOS  
> from the verbal aspect.  From an engineering viewpoint, I would call  
> one a dynamic analysis and other a static analysis, both  
> complementary to one another and both helpful in understanding PAQOS.

I'm not sure that I understand at all what is being asserted here. The  
problem is partly a matter of not distinguishing morphology from  
semantic force in the terms employed.
>
> PAQOS is introduced into the structure by a simple introduction of  
> an “agent” into the sentence.  This in and of itself creates no  
> problem.  But there is a problem when the “agent” is understood.   
> And this is a problem because in Greek (as is the case with English,  
> and I suspect all or most other Indo-European languages) there is no  
> difference between “transitive” and “intransitive” verbs,  
> both use the same form.  PAQOS, by its very nature requires a  
> “transitive” verb, but if PAQOS uses an implied agent and the  
> verb has both a “transitive” and an “intransitive” sense;  
> then there is ambiguity as to whether it really is PAQOS or is just  
> MESH “intransitive”.

If I understand what is intended by this paragraph, I disagree. I  
think that there are clearly enough verbs that are passive  
semantically whether or not an agent is indicated. Egbert Bakker has  
pretty clearly demonstrated that this is a function of the degree to  
which a verb is transitive, and in particular depends upon the  
parameters of "volitionality, agency, and causation." The form  
APEKTANQH "got killed" can only be passive semantically and happens to  
be passive morphologically as well.

>
> And one last item, deponent verbs.  Dr. Conrad has expressed some  
> anguish over this term and his complaint is legitimate.  But alas, I  
> do not believe that the term will go away.  So I take it as a  
> technical term meaning that a class of words in MESH has only an  
> “intransitive” sense (and therefore cannot be PAQOS) and that  
> there is no corresponding ENERGEIA form.  Most grammars that I have  
> seen inform one to translate this as an “active voice” verb  
> (which really goes without saying).

I quite agree that the notion of "deponency" and its regular usage in  
the classroom and reference works will not cease.  That's human  
orneriness, like the failure of the U.S. to adopt the metric system,  
despite its clear and obvious advantage. But wonders do happen.  
Encouraging signs are determination by editors of the textual  
commentary series published by Baylor to avoid the term and notion of  
"deponency," an indication from Timothy Friberg that it will be  
dropped in any new edition of AGNT. I don't thiink there's any more  
inert realm of human activity than ancient Greek pedagogy. Of course,  
we talk about voice matters (occasionally) in this forum, but outside  
of this forum, who cares?

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






More information about the B-Greek mailing list