A couple points:
(1) This is one of those matters that I touched upon back in my rather
lengthy post on passives in May. One of the major points I tried to make
then and there was that all so-called aorist passives are *in form* "third
aorists"--i.e. non-thematic aorists conjugated with secondary active
endings (-N/-S/-0/-MEN/-TE/-SAN) attached directly to long-vowel stems.
Some of these came to use the -QH- infix and this became associated with
passive function, so much so in fact that most grammars actually teach the
conjugational paradigm of -QHN/-QHS/-QH KTL. as Aorist Passive, and since
there are several that DON'T have the -QH- infix, those that do have the
-QH- are termed "first passive" (as being the more common and standard
pattern for newly-developed verbs), while those older verbs that already
had the aorist in -HN/-HS/-H were termed "second passive." Similarly the
aorist stems in -QH- with added future infix -S- and conjugated with
thematic middle endings are termed "first future passive" while those
aorist stems in -H- with the same additional elements are termed "second
future passive" by the same logic.
(2) HOWEVER, while it is indeed true that most of these aorists in -QHN and
-HN and futures in -QHSOMAI and -HSOMAI are passive, MANY of them are not
and never were really passive--and this distinction in function has led to
what in several traditional grammars is a distinction of two categories of
verbs: "middle deponents" that have aorists in -(S)AMHN and futures in
(S)OMAI but are translated in the native language (at least in English) as
ACTIVE --and "passive deponents" that have aorists in -(Q)HN and futures in
(Q)HSOMAI but are likewise translated in the native language (at least in
English) as ACTIVE. I have argued, but to no particular avail (nor do I
anticipate any wide acceptance of my argument) that use of the term
"deponent" is misleading in that it is keyed to the way a form is
translated into the native language rather than to either the form or the
function of the Greek verb. My own view is that one simply needs to learn
these verbs as vocabulary items with a clear distinction of the voice
meanings they have in the different inflectional paradigms, e.g. that ESTHN
is intransitive aorist, STHSOMAI is middle/reflexive future, ESTAQHN is
passive aorist, while STAQHSOMAI is passive future. Some verbs are more
complex and one cannot be so very sure in a particular instance whether a
-QH- form is really intransitive aorist/future middle-reflexive, e.g.
HGERQHN ("I was raised" or "I rose"), EGERQHSOMAI ("I shall be raised" or
"I shall rise"). One can find some instances of these that are pretty
clearly passive while others appear to be intransitive in the aorist and
middle-reflexive in the future.
>Since nobody has responded yet, and since I just checked ATR and found
>something of interest, let me share it:
>
>"The so-called second future passive as seen in the case of CARHSOMAI
>above is really just the middle ending with S put to the aorist active
>stem ... The point is that fundamentally these so-called second future
>passives are really future middles corresponding to active aorists like
>the future middles and presents above (LHMYSOMAI, for instance) ...
>Homer, besides, only has one second future passive (MIGHSOMAI, really
>middle) and none in -QHS_." (p. 356).
>
>Interesting, but any other comments appreciated.
(3) I would agree with what Robertson says in general in explanation of the
forms--it is consistent, I think, with what I argued in May and again
above. However I think Robertson was wrong if he meant his statement above
to have general or universally descriptive force, i.e. that ALL "so-called
second future passives" are "really future middles corresponding to active
aorists." The problem is that some ARE "really future middles"--including
CARHSOMAI and MIGHSOMAI--but some ARE NOT AT ALL, rather some are truly
PASSIVE, as for example EBLABHN, BLABHSOMAI ("I was/shall be injured") and
ERRAGHN, RAGHSOMAI ("I was/shall be broken"). A quick check in Accordance
(what a SPLENDID, lightning-fast tool this is for Mac users researching the
NT!) shows that neither of these two verbs appears in the aorist or future
passive in NT texts, but I know that they appear in classical Attic and I
would be surprised if they aren't still used by some writers in the era of
the NT. However, another Accordance check for DIALLASSW discloses what I
expected to find, a "second passive" form: Mt 5:24 ... DIALLAGHQI TWi
ADELFWi SOU ... ; this is an imperative; I suppose it could be considered
middle/reflexive "reconcile yourself to/with your brother" but most of us
would render it as a passive: "get reconciled with your brother." There may
be others too; this would take a little longer and involve isolating all NT
aorist and future passives. I'll check it and see if we don't have some
other dandy little examples of this ambiguity of function of the so-called
"future passive." I'll report later.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/