Voice Terminology
-
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am
Re: Voice Terminology
that is a nice document Paul.
On the passive -θηναι list I'm not sure that even they are so clear cut. βαπτισθηναι seems like λουεσθαι in a first century Jewish context. ευρεθηναι may have idiomatic uses like להמצא eg. Phil 2.7 like 'become'.
On the passive -θηναι list I'm not sure that even they are so clear cut. βαπτισθηναι seems like λουεσθαι in a first century Jewish context. ευρεθηναι may have idiomatic uses like להמצא eg. Phil 2.7 like 'become'.
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Voice Terminology
Is ἑαυτική your own coinage? To make an adjective from a personal pronoun, you might like to consider the route taken by ἐγώ - ἐγωιστικός... Perhaps the usual route to adjective is by first nominalising? Perhaps the adjective derived from a feminine -της ending word (ἑαυτότης) might be ἑαυτότητος, ον, but if I was speaking the language, I would avoid it. You might like to use the currently available adjective "self-referential" αὐτοαναφορική.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Re: Voice Terminology
Stephen, I will have to shoulder the credit or blame for ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις. I knew it was not an existing word, but it seemed to me to bear the sense "reflexive" pretty transparently. If αὐτοαναφορική is a standard Greek word bearing that sense, I'm pretty happy with that. I just don't think we should be using ἐνεργητική (διάθεσις) and μέση (διάθεσις) when we might have terms that are better descriptive of the "unmarked (for self-affected)" and "marked for self-affected." It would be nice to have a consensus on the terminology, but that seems to be a very difficult thing to attain: quot homines, tot sententiae.Stephen Hughes wrote:Is ἑαυτική your own coinage? To make an adjective from a personal pronoun, you might like to consider the route taken by ἐγώ - ἐγωιστικός... Perhaps the usual route to adjective is by first nominalising? Perhaps the adjective derived from a feminine -της ending word (ἑαυτότης) might be ἑαυτότητος, ον, but if I was speaking the language, I would avoid it. You might like to use the currently available adjective "self-referential" αὐτοαναφορική.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Voice Terminology
Did you have a model for deriving an adjective from a pronoun?cwconrad wrote:I will have to shoulder the credit or blame for ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις. I knew it was not an existing word, but it seemed to me to bear the sense "reflexive" pretty transparently. If αὐτοαναφορική is a standard Greek word bearing that sense, I'm pretty happy with that. I just don't think we should be using ἐνεργητική (διάθεσις) and μέση (διάθεσις) when we might have terms that are better descriptive of the "unmarked (for self-affected)" and "marked for self-affected."
The word αὐτοαναφορικός is a description "self-referential" not a technical term. Adoption of it will depend on whether your understanding of the distinction is adequately. My understanding is one of (self)contained-ness (with the possibility of external input) v. extention. The adjective αὐτοαναφορικός suits my simplistic understanding, but may not suit yours.
To allow you to better judge if αὐτοαναφορικός suits your system, let me tell you that my own personal ƒ(x), maps onto the points something like this:
self-referential (αὐτοαναφορική - to be something without context) --> self-referential with outside input (to have input into the little context)
|
stative / intransitive (to be something oneself in a wider context) --> transitive (ἐνεργητική - to make something else in the broader context be something)
A primary distinction between self-contained (in its own context with a possibility of input) v. contextualised (in a broader context with the possibility of affecting other things in the context).
I don't see any rocket science in that, but I do think that the term ἐνεργητική (active) is misleading because it makes it sound as though a derived / extended form is the basic form.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Re: Voice Terminology
ἑαυτική or αὐτο-αναφορικος would serve well, but since I've already taught using ἑαυτική, I'll stick with it. In the end, it is a term with a learned meaning that goes far beyond anything either term says, in and of itself.
That document (linked above) helped our class to understand the διαθέσεις, but I think it might have helped even more in providing a organization for recognizing morphology. I certainly feel that it simplifies recognition to keep in mind the three patterns (παραδείγματα):
That document (linked above) helped our class to understand the διαθέσεις, but I think it might have helped even more in providing a organization for recognizing morphology. I certainly feel that it simplifies recognition to keep in mind the three patterns (παραδείγματα):
- 1. σαι, ειν παράδειγμα
2. ασθαι, εσθαι παράδειγμα
3. θῆναι παράδειγμα
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Re: Voice Terminology
No, I didn't. As I said, I thought that the sense of "reflexive" would be self-evident for ἑαυτικός. The formative element -κο/-ικο- does seem to be used that way (cf. Smyth, §858.6).What is wanted is a term indicating a relationship to the subject of the finite verb-form.Stephen Hughes wrote:Did you have a model for deriving an adjective from a pronoun?.cwconrad wrote:I will have to shoulder the credit or blame for ἑαυτικὴ διάθεσις. I knew it was not an existing word, but it seemed to me to bear the sense "reflexive" pretty transparently. If αὐτοαναφορική is a standard Greek word bearing that sense, I'm pretty happy with that. I just don't think we should be using ἐνεργητική (διάθεσις) and μέση (διάθεσις) when we might have terms that are better descriptive of the "unmarked (for self-affected)" and "marked for self-affected."
The more I think about it, the less satisfactory αὐτοαναφορικός seems to me, even apart from its sesquipedalian character. What's wanted is is not really the sense "self-referential" but "subject-referential." I could more readily understand an adjective αὐτοαναφορικός as properly applicable to a pronoun such as αὐτός. But here we're not talking about the pronoun ἑαυτοῦ, but about the category of verbs that show subject-affectedness.Stephen Hughes wrote:The word αὐτοαναφορικός is a description "self-referential" not a technical term. Adoption of it will depend on whether your understanding of the distinction is adequately. My understanding is one of (self)contained-ness (with the possibility of external input) v. extention. The adjective αὐτοαναφορικός suits my simplistic understanding, but may not suit yours..
Yes, I see -- and that doesn't really seem to be the notion I have in mind. These middle-voice verbs aren't self-referential; rather they are subject-referential -- and that's still not right; rather, the form taken by these middle-voice verbs indicates that their subject is somehow affected: λούομαι τὰς χεῖρας, "I wash my hands" or just λούομαι, "I bathe (myself)."Stephen Hughes wrote:To allow you to better judge if αὐτοαναφορικός suits your system, let me tell you that my own personal ƒ(x), maps onto the points something like this:
self-referential (αὐτοαναφορική - to be something without context) --> self-referential with outside input (to have input into the little context)
I'm sorry, but it seems to me that these distinctions go beyond or are tangential to terminology descriptive of the marking of middle-voice verbs in differentiation from the "unmarked" category that I've suggested should be called the κοινὴ διάθεσις.Stephen Hughes wrote:stative / intransitive (to be something oneself in a wider context) --> transitive (ἐνεργητική - to make something else in the broader context be something)
A primary distinction between self-contained (in its own context with a possibility of input) v. contextualised (in a broader context with the possibility of affecting other things in the context).
I don't see any rocket science in that, but I do think that the term ἐνεργητική (active) is misleading because it makes it sound as though a derived / extended form is the basic form.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
-
- Posts: 437
- Joined: June 4th, 2011, 6:19 pm
- Location: New Mexico
- Contact:
Re: Voice Terminology
To raise a "Yes, but . . . " type of thread :
If we throw out the Middle, Passive, and Deponent terms, somehow we're going to have to explain to our students that when they use e.g. Smith's Grammar, or Grosvernor and Zerwick - they are going to meet those terms, and they will have to have some awareness of what the writers meant when they used them.
If we throw out the Middle, Passive, and Deponent terms, somehow we're going to have to explain to our students that when they use e.g. Smith's Grammar, or Grosvernor and Zerwick - they are going to meet those terms, and they will have to have some awareness of what the writers meant when they used them.
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Voice Terminology
For most other languages, there are multiple ways of describing the language. But in NT/Ancient Greek there is only one grammatical system (the one used in Smyth's grammar or the textual analysis). I think that that is both a good and a bad thing.Shirley Rollinson wrote:If we throw out the Middle, Passive, and Deponent terms, somehow we're going to have to explain to our students that when they use e.g. Smith's Grammar, or Grosvernor and Zerwick - they are going to meet those terms, and they will have to have some awareness of what the writers meant when they used them.
The upside is standardisation of reference material. You could also consider that there is a whole publication industry geared up for sharing scholarship that in its time was the best that faithful scholars with the best of intentions could offer the people of God, but is now - to put it mildly - able to be augmented by more recent material.
The downsides are that in some cases terminology is perfectly misleading, or speakers of non-latin influenced languages are not helped by the terminology much at all. The logical result of one grammatical system analysis is that students make the equation, "learning the grammar = learning the language". (Cf. Blind men describing an elephant.)
Teachers of other languages have struggled for a long time to break free from the classical heritage, and now we are discovering the inadequacies of the classical heritage for one of the languages that others have said they want to break free from.


Inevitably, initially, individuals will put forward their own ideas in idiosyncratic ways in ways that they will feel most comfortable with. But after a while, the reception of ideas or their rejection will go a long way to determining which ones will last.
I think new developments and directions in grammar are great, and I'm sure that to a lesser or greater degree New Testament Greek will break free from the classical heritage as other languages have done. I'm utilitarian in my thinking about Greek grammars, so while many ideas are being proposed and debated, the safe course for passage is what helps the faithful read the Book in Greek, and what helps preachers and teachers understand various texts for their ministry.
Practically speaking - teacher to teacher - it is very difficult to use standard reference materials in a non-standard way. It requires a greater-than-normal level of confidence of the students in their teacher's ability. In the case of the grammatical analysis, apart from translating it into the native language of the students, any other non-traditional things that I have mentioned with them have to be incorporated into the reference materials that I give them to facilitate their reading and to let the language itself confuse them rather than both the grammatical system and the inconsistancies between what I have presented together with the Greek, and what they read in other books around the Greek. Re-skewing reference material and deconstructing the classical grammar out of them is a lot of work.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Voice Terminology
You will have to stick with what your students are used to. Chopping and changing in the early stages may lose some of them. Consistency is better than perfection.Paul-Nitz wrote:since I've already taught using ἑαυτική, I'll stick with it. In the end, it is a term with a learned meaning that goes far beyond anything either term says, in and of itself.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Re: Voice Terminology
Stephen Hughes has already submited a helpful response to this question. I want to add that I have no intention of throwing away my copies of Smyth and ATR (actually, I've already given them away; I have digital copies of both readily accessible on my computer). Having read carefully through just about everything Smyth has to say -- in several different locations -- about voice-forms and voice-usage, I dare say that there's an accurate accounting in Smyth of every matter bearing upon voice-forms and voice-usage; what is wanted, in my opinion, is (1) a more useful framework into which all those accounts can be structured, and (2) a better set of descriptive terms.Shirley Rollinson wrote:To raise a "Yes, but . . . " type of thread :
If we throw out the Middle, Passive, and Deponent terms, somehow we're going to have to explain to our students that when they use e.g. Smith's Grammar, or Grosvernor and Zerwick - they are going to meet those terms, and they will have to have some awareness of what the writers meant when they used them.
The restructuring should involve either a clear understanding or a terminological reformulation that acknowledges that what characterizes the "active" verb-forms is not transitivity or intransitivity or agency or causality but most simply that they are unmarked for subject-affectedness. Keep the term "active" for the name of what I'd call the κοινὴ διάθεσις, if you like, and understand what Smyth's reference to "active" verb forms points to and actually means. Needing to be developed is a new section bringing together what is said about direct and indirect reflexive usages of the middle forms and what is said of "middle deponents" and of "passive deponents." The "middle" inflections should be understood as marked for subject-affectedness, and the common categories of middle verbs as set forth in Rutger Allan's or Suzanne Kemmer's analysis should be set forth with a list of the more common verbs falling into those categories.
I believe that I could write up a brief document that would make it not too difficult to continue to use Smyth grammar with the understanding that Smyth's framework for understanding Greek voice and Smyth's terminology (i.e. "active"/"middle"/"deponent") needs to be understood in a new sense.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)