[B-Greek] Lexicography and Deponency

Stephen Carlson stemmatic at gmail.com
Mon Nov 1 13:45:47 EDT 2010


I've been contemplating the role of Greek lexicography with teaching,
so here are some inchoate thoughts for discussion.

Currently, deponent verbs are lexicalized under the first person
present middle indicative.  This means that when a student sees a
middle voice verb in a text, the student has to figure out whether the
verb is deponent and has to be looked up under the first person
present middle, or, if there is an active counterpart, under a first
person present active form.  Thus, the student has to figure more out
about a verb than its morphology: the student also has to know its
usage *even to find the right lexical form*.

As many of you know, the concept of deponency has recently been
questioned in scholarship (there will be, in fact, an SBL session on
it even), but it seems to me that even if we move away from discussing
deponent verb but calling them middle verbs, say, the concept of
deponency is still ingrained in the lexicons.  Ironically, it is only
the non-deponent middles that have the problem, but the deponents are
already lexicalized under the middle form, which they should be.

As a result, I've been exploring how a lexicon should handle the new
perspective on voice.  One idea is to lexicalize all middle verbs
under a middle lexical form, regardless of whether the verb has an
active counterpart.  (And if the middle verb has an active
counterpart, which many do, then it should be lexicalized separately.)
 For example, in addition to the active LUW λύω ("I loose, release,
untie"), there would also be a middle LUOMAI λύομαι ("I ransom").

Another issue is whether to lexicalize verbs under the first person
singular.  One disadvantage with it is that all the contract verbs in
the first person singular all end with a circumflexed omega, so a
lexicon would need to supplement the lexical form with information to
indicate whether the verb is an alpha contract, an epsilon contract,
or an omicron contract.  The standard way of doing this has been to
use uncontracted lexical forms, e.g. AGAPAW ἀγαπάω, even though only
AGAPW= ἀγαπῶ is found in our literature.  The use of an artificial
form in a lexicon, however, should be avoided.

The present active infinitive, on the other hand, nicely distinguishes
the various contract verbs.  Non-contract present active infinitives
end in -EIN -ειν, A-contracts in -A=N -ᾶν, E-contracts in -EI=N -εῖν,
and O-contracts in -OU=N -οῦν.  The perispomenon present active
infinitives show clearly that a verb is a contract verb and which with
vowel.  Thus, the lexical form for AGAPW= ἀγαπῶ would be AGAPA=N
ἀγαπᾶν, and the user is immediately clued into the fact that it is an
alpha contract.

But if one is going to use an infinitive as the lexical form, there is
a strong temptation for the aorist infinitive.  After all, the aorist
forms often reflect the actual verbal root better than the present.
For example, the aorist BALEI=N βαλεῖν better reflects that that the
verbal root is BAL- βαλ- than the present BA/LLEIN βάλλειν, with the
double lambda.  Similarly, LABEI=N λαβεῖν shows that the verbal root
is LAB- λαβ-, while the present infinitive shows and infixed form,
LAMBA/NEIN λαμβάνειν.  Another benefit is that aorist infinitives
really can be nicely glossed by the English infinitive form "to X."
Also, aorist infinitives don't have the augment.

But I see a couple of drawbacks for using aorist infinitives:

1.  Some verbs, e.g., EINAI εἶναι (EIMI/ εἰμί) don't have an aorist
infinitive, so the present has to be used instead.

2.  Some verbs have multiple aorist infinitives, over time, whether
due to suppletion (e.g. for TREXW τρέχω, the epic aorist QRECAI θρέξαι
was later replaced by DRAMEIN δραμεῖν).

3. Yet the biggest issue that I'm having is that are two non-active
aorist infinitives, commonly termed the aorist middle infinitive and
the aorist passive infinitive.  Which one should be chosen for the
lexical form?  For example, in Gal 3:10, 13, 4:22, 47, Paul uses the
word GEGRAPTAI γέγραπται ("it is written").  Should the appropriate
aorist infinitive for lexicalization be the passive GRAFHNAI γραφῆναι
or the middle GRAYASQAI γράψασθαι?  The fact that Greek distinguishes
between them forces us to make a decision.  Do we lexicalize based on
the passive or middle aorist based on usage elsewhere?  But this loses
the advantage in being guided solely by morphology,

I'm inclined to believe, that no matter how tempting the aorist
infinitive is, it seems to me better to lexicalize both actives and
middles based on the present (whether an infinitive or the common
first person singular).  In this case, "passives" would go under the
middle, so the treatment is strictly morphological.  Go when the MP
(middle-passive) form GEGRAPTAI γέγραπται is seen, the student should
look up its meaning under either GRAFOMAI γράφομαι or GRAFESQAI
γράφεσθαι.

Thoughts?

Stephen
--
Stephen C. Carlson
Graduate Program in Religion
Duke University



More information about the B-Greek mailing list