Semantic differences between Aorist/Future Middle & Passive?

MAubrey
Posts: 1095
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Semantic differences between Aorist/Future Middle & Pass

Post by MAubrey »

Stephen Carlson wrote:What can we say about the diachronic development of the distribution of forms? When one form is advancing and the other is retreating, would this imply, at least on the margin, that there isfree variation (if not synonymy)? Or should one be looking at register or regional variations? Could there be a change in markedness (e.g., the aorist passive used to be marked for change of state and the aorist middle, but then the aorist middle became marked for volition and the aorist passive unmarked)?
Free variation is incredibly rare in general. And even then

Allan & Rijksbaron's view for the sense of the -θη forms is that they mark a higher degree of subject affectedness, which is why you don't see them in direct reflexive constructions...and I generally agree, but reject subject affectedness as a semantic feature that can explain all usage. It's a very useful feature that explains very much and is generally sufficient for introducing concepts, but that's all. In any case, when grammatical forms involving degree undergo grammatical change, where one form replaces another, the pattern of language change is fairly clear. The -θη forms are undergoing analogical leveling by means of semantic bleaching.

The change is roughly the same that has taken place in English with the words "welm" and "overwelm." At this point in history, "welm" has essentially dropped out of the language except in a few very, very specific contexts. But historically, the situation is thus:

Originally, there was only the word "welm," but at some point in history, the form "overwelm" was introduced to express a higher degree of "welmedness." Rather slowly overtime, the sense of higher degree disappeared, such that today, for the most part, "overwelm" is the form that remains. But in the middle period, both forms existed together. One might say that that they're in free variation and to some extent that's true. A speaker might have rather arbitrarily choosen to use one and then the other in different contexts without any different at all. But during that period of "free variation" the moment someone put both forms beside enough in a sentence: I'm not just welmed by every that needs to get done, I'm completely overwhelmed, then free variation and synonymy is no longer a useful explanation. When a speaker *chooses* to make a contrast, The forms themselves become contrastive even though they normally aren't.

We can be skeptical all we want about the two aorist and future forms and their relationship between them. But skepticism doesn't explain tokens like Genesis 1:3.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Semantic differences between Aorist/Future Middle & Pass

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Yeah, I wonder about this. Suppose the second term becomes so semantically bleached that it covers the ground of the first. Does the first term acquire a distinction (even if being "old fashioned") as a result?

Of course, one problem is that the development may have taken place in speakers at different times, so that it could be the case that on an individual idiolect basis there is a specific distinction but when aggregated it looks like free variation and no unifying principle can be drawn.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Semantic differences between Aorist/Future Middle & Pass

Post by cwconrad »

MAubrey wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:What can we say about the diachronic development of the distribution of forms? When one form is advancing and the other is retreating, would this imply, at least on the margin, that there isfree variation (if not synonymy)? Or should one be looking at register or regional variations? Could there be a change in markedness (e.g., the aorist passive used to be marked for change of state and the aorist middle, but then the aorist middle became marked for volition and the aorist passive unmarked)?
Free variation is incredibly rare in general. And even then

Allan & Rijksbaron's view for the sense of the -θη forms is that they mark a higher degree of subject affectedness, which is why you don't see them in direct reflexive constructions...and I generally agree, but reject subject affectedness as a semantic feature that can explain all usage. It's a very useful feature that explains very much and is generally sufficient for introducing concepts, but that's all. In any case, when grammatical forms involving degree undergo grammatical change, where one form replaces another, the pattern of language change is fairly clear. The -θη forms are undergoing analogical leveling by means of semantic bleaching.

The change is roughly the same that has taken place in English with the words "welm" and "overwelm." At this point in history, "welm" has essentially dropped out of the language except in a few very, very specific contexts. But historically, the situation is thus:

Originally, there was only the word "welm," but at some point in history, the form "overwelm" was introduced to express a higher degree of "welmedness." Rather slowly overtime, the sense of higher degree disappeared, such that today, for the most part, "overwelm" is the form that remains. But in the middle period, both forms existed together. One might say that that they're in free variation and to some extent that's true. A speaker might have rather arbitrarily choosen to use one and then the other in different contexts without any different at all. But during that period of "free variation" the moment someone put both forms beside enough in a sentence: I'm not just welmed by every that needs to get done, I'm completely overwhelmed, then free variation and synonymy is no longer a useful explanation. When a speaker *chooses* to make a contrast, The forms themselves become contrastive even though they normally aren't.

We can be skeptical all we want about the two aorist and future forms and their relationship between them. But skepticism doesn't explain tokens like Genesis 1:3.
While I can't find "welm" and "overwelm" in my dictionary, I think the account of one kind of linguistic change Mike suggests is unquestionably valid. Superlative words and the like are certainly prone to "bleaching" and seem to require bolstering, which perhaps explains even the bard's "most unkindest cut of all" as well as the "Valley girl" expression of a couple decades ago, "grody to the max." I've been astounded at how rapidly nominative forms of the first-person pronoun have become standard in American English, especially in combination with a proper name: "This was a favorite to George and I" -- although I 't think that "to I" would grate upon anybody's ears.

Let me say that I agree with Mike that the LXX Gen 1:3 juxtaposition of γενηθήτω and ἐγένετο (repeated in subsequent verses, too) is not only interesting but does call for an accounting. I'm just not sure that the accounting offered by Mike a couple days ago answers the questions adequately. I also wonder about the passage in Plato's Parmenides
ειʼ ἄρα τὸ ἓν μηδαμῇ μηδενὸς μετέχει χρόνου, οὔτε ποτὲ γέγονεν οὔτʼ ἐγίγνετο οὔτʼ ἦν ποτέ, οὔτε νῦν γέγονεν οὔτε γίγνεται οὔτε ἔστιν, οὔτʼ ἔπειτα γενήσεται οὔτε γενηθήσεται οὔτε ἔσται.
where γενήσεται and γενηθήσεται are added to an accumulation of verb-forms suggestive of temporality of any kind.

One would like to know when the text of the LXX version of Genesis was produced; it was probably the earliest OT text to be put into Greek, although I doubt that we can pinpoint it very accurately to the 3d c. BCE. One of the thoughts about Gen 1:3 that has come to me is the question whether perhaps the θη form of the imperative γενηθήτω might not be the preferred variant for the imperative and that the indicative form ἐγενετο may be "archaizing." It may be that the encroachment of θη forms over the older middle aorist forms has proceeded at a different pace in different inflections -- as seems to be the case with the encroachment of alpha-endings in 2nd aorists in the Hellenistic era (cf. BDF §§80-81). BDF§78 on aorist and future middle and passive forms seems to suggest that the θη forms may have become "standard" in some inflected forms sooner than in others. Probably a thorough study of the encroachment of θη forms of γίνομαι over the older middle aorist forms is worth doing -- if it hasn't already been done.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Semantic differences between Aorist/Future Middle & Pass

Post by RandallButh »

karl egrapsen

One would like to know when the text of the LXX version of Genesis was produced; it was probably the earliest OT text to be put into Greek, although I doubt that we can pinpoint it very accurately to the 3d c. BCE. One of the thoughts about Gen 1:3 that has come to me is the question whether perhaps the θη form of the imperative γενηθήτω might not be the preferred variant for the imperative and that the indicative form ἐγενετο may be "archaizing." It may be that the encroachment of θη forms over the older middle aorist forms has proceeded at a different pace in different inflections -- as seems to be the case with the encroachment of alpha-endings in 2nd aorists in the Hellenistic era (cf. BDF §§80-81). BDF§78 on aorist and future middle and passive forms seems to suggest that the θη forms may have become "standard" in some inflected forms sooner than in others. Probably a thorough study of the encroachment of θη forms of γίνομαι over the older middle aorist forms is worth doing -- if it hasn't already been done.
This is an interesting weak spot in the language, a place where we can expect diachronic turbulence.

The aorist passive γενηθῆναι was also homonymic, pronounced the same, as γεννηθῆναι 'be born'. This sometimes produces interesting texts, like Gen 24:7
ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἧς ἐγενήθην
where the intended word is more probably ἐγεννήθην since the Hebrew is מולדת 'place of birth'.

For different speakers there will be two pressures: one to assimulate 'become' to 'be born', since they sound alike in aorist passive environments, and the opposite: to avoid the ambiguity, perhaps causing a preservation of the aorist middle forms of γενέσθαι.
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”