From: Moon-Ryul Jung (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Apr 19 1999 - 10:41:04 EDT
thanks for the clear re-statement of your theory.
Another clarifying question about your new input.
> And it may very well be that a
> contributing factor to this ambivalence is the fact that Greek not
> uncommonly uses verbs from different roots to supply the "passive" of other
Do you mean:
Because there are clearly marked ways to provide for
the passives of certain verbs, i.e. those derived from different roots
the verbs in question, the usual "passive forms" of verbs are ambivalent
with respect to the passive meaning?
That makes sense to me.
> e.g. APOQHNiSKW serves as a passive for APOKTEINW; PIPTW and its
> compounds can be used as a passive for BALLW and its compounds (e.g.
> EKBALLW: "divorce," "send into exile"; EKPIPTW: "be divorced," "be sent
> into exile") and KEIMAI (lie) and its compounds may function as passives
> for TIQHMI (put down) and its compounds (e.g. DIATIQHMI: "put X acc. into Y
> pred.acc. condition" has as a passive counterpart DIAKEIMAI: "X nom. be put
> into Y pred. nom. condition." And I think there are probably several
> others that are similar.
Dept of Computer Science
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:24 EDT