sccarlson wrote:
cwconrad wrote:This is one verb of which the suggestion has been made that the active (ἐγείρω) and the middle (ἐγείρομαι) should be deemed two different verbs.
One of the ideas I've been playing with is whether to lemmatize all verbs in the active and middle separately. Of course, I'm not going to able to change how our Greek dictionaries are laid out. Nevertheless, in my own use, I find myself, if I have a middle form, looking first at the middle (and passive) subentries of a verb to see what its senses are. So separately lemmatizing me
Another benefit is that deponent verbs are no longer special. In current dictionaries, they are lemmatized under a middle form, while non-deponents are lemmatized under an active form. If deponents are middle verbs, like other middle verbs, they should not be treated differently in the lexica.
Thus, I for one would lemmatize ἐγείρειν and ἐγείρεσθαι separately even though the essential sense of arising is clearly present in both forms. But that's just me, and our lexica won't change any time soon.
One particular difficulty with this proposition with respect to ἐγείρω/ἐγείρομαι is that the pres. active sg. imperative appears 14x in the GNT in the intransitive sense, "rise, get up," once in the pres. active pl. in the sense "raise/resurrect", while the pres. middle imperative and the aor. "passive" imperative appears also in this sense, "rise."
Lexicography is so much a matter of convention, and, in my opinion, it often seems rather arbitrary. My own inclination for a verb like ἐγείρειν/ἐγείρεσθαι (I do agree that we would do better to use the infinitive than the 1 sg. indic.) is that it is indeed a single verb with ἑγείρεσθαι intransitive "rise" as the standard form, ἐγειρειν as the active causative form of the verb, and then note the distinct common usage of the present active imperative ἔγειρε in an intransitive sense. There are actually quite a few genuine middle verbs with less-frequent active causative forms that aren't distinct. I sometimes think that every verb has an identity of its own and tends to be a bit ornery.
even though I am a 'lumper', as viewed in another post, I find that I relate to most verbs that occur in both active and middle as two practical verbs. They certainly bleed into each other frequently, as mentioned above with ἐγείρειν/ἐγείρεσθαι, and there is a basic sound link in the root that never leaves. But functionally one needs to use them with different sets of arguments (like actor+/-patient+/-recipient/) so that I find practical benefit in treating each 'disposition' separately, as a separate item to learn.
I think that people learning English need to keep 'oversee' and 'overlook' far apart from each other, though those are technically two roots/verbs. (Yea, right. Like in the resultant nouns with flip-flopped meanings: 'oversight' and 'overlook'.)
Another common Greek example not too different from ἐγείρειν/ἐγείρεσθαι is ἑλεῖν 'take/capture' / ἑλέσθαι 'choose'.
as in εἱλόμην γράψαι ταὐτην τὴν ἐπιστολήν. It was fun playing with words like these in our fluency workshop two weeks ago.
People's tongue's would tie up with verbs like ἐκάθισα vs. ἐκαθήμην and even switching tenses/person like κεῖσαι ἔκεισο vs. κεῖμαι ἐκείμην.
the number of reps that it takes for such words to pop out naturally are dauntingly high.
and almost coming back to our 'verb' in the thread.
πότε διεγέρθης σήμερον; [οὕτως χωρὶς αὐξήσεως]
ὴ πότε διεγερθήσῃ αὔριον;
χαίρετε καὶ εύφραίνεσθε καὶ ἔρρωσθε
Randall