Paul-Nitz wrote:I'm still hoping for some comments on terms for Voice (see post immediately above) and don't want to bury it, but I have a quick side question.\
I'm going to ignore the side-question and try to give an honest response to your earlier question about terminology.
Paul-Nitz wrote:I imagine your revised paper will influence many (πείσει γε ἐμέ). So, deciding on terms is important.
I am not so sanguine. Why? (a) The facts of Greek voice morphology and usage will not resolve into a simple framework and a few descriptive statements that apply to all the facts with perfect consistency; (b) Consensus regarding how best to state the descriptions and even more regarding the terminology best suited to the elements of the framework cannot expect any quick resolution.
cwconrad wrote:2. Terminology and assumptions about the categories:
διάθεσις ἡ κοινή, διάθεσις ἡ ἑαυτική as Greek names for what have traditionally been called “Active” and Middle-Passive” voice-categories.
English equivalents: “Standard diathesis” and “Reflexive diathesis.”
Paul-Nitz wrote:Whatever you settle on, I will try to use in the future, but I wonder if you would consider these recommendations from a guy in the trenches.
Instead of διάθεσις ἡ κοινή, διάθεσις ἡ ἑαυτική, how about:
κοινὴ διὰθεσις, ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις ?
Simpler. Short is better in terminology.
That suits me.
Paul-Nitz wrote:Instead of English equivalents, “Standard diathesis” and “Reflexive diathesis,” how about:
Common Voice and Self-Affected Voice ?
I think “common” and “self-affected” match nicely with the Greek terms. I think “self-affected” is more accurate than “reflexive.”
If I remember right, you dislike the term “voice.” The term “voice” is so universally used, I don’t think it [can] be changed or avoided. Besides, because it is so universally used and virtually devoid of meaning, I don't find it misleading. Plus, practically speaking, I don’t think many would willingly give up the familiar term “voice” for “diathesis.”
Regarding what I’ve chosen to give the Greek term ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις; I like the Greek term. I do indeed despise the term “voice” but like you, I think it’s stuck in concrete in linguistic termonology; I think that “diathesis” is a better term, especially insofar as it is actually used by some linguists and has a pedigree going back to Dionysius Thrax.
I’m content with simplification of κοινὴ διάθεσις and ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις. Although “common” is one gloss for κοινή, “vulgar” would be about as good or bad and equally archaic. “Standard” works for me because this is the inflectional pattern for most verbs (including the so-called Aorist “passive”); the other “diathesis” is marked for self-affectedness as the “standard” diathesis is not.
As things stand now, that is to say, as long as “the new perspective on Greek Voice” remains a minority perspective, I’m hesitant to suggest radical changes in terminology. For the Greek terms I’m happy with κοινὴ διάθεσις and ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις; for English designations, I’d prefer to retain echoes of traditional designation by referring to the three inflectional patterns that we have traditional termed “Active”, “Middle-Passive” and “Passive” respectively by the Roman-letter designations “A”, “MP1” and “MP2.” This clearly has roots in traditional terminology but points to the θη/η inflectional pattern as ambivalent in the same manner as the μαι/σαι/ται;μην/σο/το inflectional pattern.
Paul-Nitz wrote: I don’t feel the same way about some other terms. I can live with “voice,” but “present” when used for subjunctive, infinitive, imperative, participle” should be struck from a teachers vocabulary and blotted out in any student grammar.
My two cents, anyway. ἆρα πέποιθας, διδάσκαλε;
I hear you, my friend; we’re straining toward common ground. I think we’ve come a long way toward understanding the problems but I think we have a ways to go before we reach an agreement on what to call the principal movers and shakers in this arena.