From: dalmatia@eburg.com
Date: Wed Apr 29 1998 - 15:15:47 EDT
Carlton ~
This double snippet from Robertson's Grammar supports Carl's
explanation... and his precautionary warning...
"The second aorist passive... [is a] ... substitution for the first
[aorist]. [p.349]"
"...the so-called second aorist passive (-HN), like EFANHN, ECARHN, is
merely the second aorist active..."
The differentiation of 'voice' from the concept of 'transitive vs
intransitive' is crucial here, and one that I struggle with.
George
Carlton Winbery wrote:
>
> Carl Conrad wrote;
> (snip)
> >Now the problem with these verbs, so far as VOICE is concerned, is that the
> >active clearly is used in the sense of "make go astray," whereas the middle
> >voice is used in what we call an INTRANSITIVE sense, "go astray"--and the
> >-QH- "passive" forms provide simply the aorist of this middle
> >"intransitive" sense of "go astray." That is to say, this is one of those
> >verbs for which it is hard to demonstrate any genuine passive sense UNLESS,
> >as Clay notes, one can show an external agent as the key factor in the
> >going-astray.
> >
> >I think the "lesson" of this is that it is dangerous to make an assumption
> >that a -QH- aorist conjugated with active endings is passive in
> >meaning--UNLESS one can see or reasonably surmise the implication of an
> >external cause or agent--or, to state the same thing in an alternative
> >fashion, although it may be easiest to IDENTIFY an aorist -QH- form as
> >"passive" in morphological terms, it is PERILOUS to assume for that reason
> >that its MEANING is really passive.
>
> Carl, this would also be the explanation of SWQHTE APO . . . in Acts 2:40
> which is most often translated "save yourselves from . . ."
>
> Carlton L. Winbery
> Fogleman Professor of Religion
> Louisiana College
> Pineville, LA 71359
> winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
> winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:36 EDT