From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 10 2001 - 20:20:20 EST
At 2:31 PM +0200 1/10/01, Kimmo Huovila wrote:
>Mark Wilson wrote:
>>
>> >At 5:02 PM +0200 1/9/01, Kimmo Huovila wrote:
>> ----
>> >The passive voice does not say whether the subject is passive or not. It
>> >only describes what happens to the subject, whether from his own
>> >initiative or someone else's. Or am I just missing the obvious here?
>> -----
>>
>> Kimmo:
>>
>> With your above statement in mind, how do you define
>> the difference between a Middle and Passive voice.
>>
>> Your definition above for a Passive is how I understand a Middle.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Mark Wilson
>
>I think the middle makes the subject more salient. In the stronger form
>("direct middle") it is reflexive, but it does not have to be so
>emphatic ("indirect middle"). Originally the middle covered both passive
>and middle functions. The passive may be a more specific development to
>cover just the passive idea (which is not incompatible with the middle
>idea, but has less salience on the subject), leaving the middle voice
>without the passive function (thus bringing more salience for the
>subject). It is not completely clear to me to what degree the semantic
>differentiation was made, but presumably at least to some degree, since
>the language cared to have two sets of ending with many words - why if
>not for a functional purpose (different semantics)?
>
>To illustrate this with English, if I am washing myself (middle), then I
>am being washed (passive). The passive makes my own part in the washing
>unexpressed, whereas the middle version is explicit about it.
>
>I am no voice specialist (can't even sing ;-), and the above comment
>reflects a somewhat
>traditional view. I am interested in Carl's theory, and look at it
>openly, but still I fail to see how EZHMIWTHN would contradict the more
>traditional understanding (thanks, Carl, for your reply - I understand
>that you take the -QHN as a middle, but perhaps I misunderstood you when
>I thought that by the 'clear example' you meant a clear counter-example
>to the traditional view?).
What I meant is that in traditional terminology one would at the very least
have to call EZHMIWQHN here a "passive deponent." So far as I know there is
no aorist middle of ZHMIOOMAI and the agent inflicting the loss upon Paul,
the loss which he indicates with a direct object, TA PANTA, is none other
than Paul himself--and therefore I'd be inclined to translate it (into
English, at any rate) as "I allowed myself to suffer loss of everything."
And that seems to me fundamentally the middle notion.
I have, by the way, gotten a copy of the Kemmer book on the middle voice
which you recommended and am working on it.
--
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
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:46 EDT