From: Kimmo Huovila (kimmo@kaamas.kielikone.fi)
Date: Tue Jan 16 2001 - 02:02:31 EST
Mark Wilson wrote:
>
> Kimmo:
>
> You wrote
>
> ------
> >The passive deponent seems to work fine with KOINH, but in Classical
> >Greek the verb occurs in all three voices. Active meaning is to inflict
> >loss (or to fine). The passive voice seems to me more suitable for Phil.
> >3:8 than the middle, because Paul is not inflicting any loss on himself,
> >but rather expressing willingness to receive any (passive) for a greater
> >purpose. If there is something anomalous with this use of passive, it
> >seems to have more to do with the volitional element, not why the middle
> >is not used.
> -----
Let me first correct myself. The very point how some (rather
traditional)
grammars distinguish between middle and passive relates to
volitionality. Therefore my last sentence in the above quote actually
missed the point. After your quote I continued as follows:
Kimmo Huovila wrote:
> I am not sure that your translation has the agentive sense either.
> Allowing oneself suffer loss if very different than causing oneself loss
> or damage.
>
> This is not to say that the middle could not be used here. The middle
> voice is semantically quite flexible. But it is understandable that for
> Paul's sense, it was the passive and not the middle that came to be
> used.
>
> Kimmo
First, while the argument 'allowing' takes is not a very typical Agent,
perhaps we should still classify it as such. I checked a few versions
(later developments) of Fillmore's cases, all agreed that volitionality
is crucial for Agent, but none had anything specifically more suitable
for the 'allower'. We could either make a new case for it or classify it
as an Agent.
Second, in some traditional grammars, one of the ways to
separate (a use of) the middle from (another use of) the passive is
volitionality. In light of this Carl does have a good point. If we want
to insist on the traditional distinction between the middle and the
passive, I guess it would be that the passive would mean that Paul lost
everything, and the middle would mean that Paul chose to lose
everything. So, my comment that "it is understandable that for Paul's
sense, it was the passive and not the middle that came to be
used" is a non-sequitur.
>
> I wonder if this "out of the box" thought is suitable for helping me
> distinguish the Middle and Passive senses.
>
> Could we understand the Middle as we understand a "purpose clause" and
> understand the Passive as a "result clause." That way, the Middle reflects
> the subject's "volitional choice" while the Passive reflects a "completely
> passive" concept. Hence,
>
> As Middle (purpose), Paul chose or purposed to suffer loss
>
> As Passive (result), (as a result of his decision) Paul received loss
>
I guess this would be in line with the traditional interpretation of the
voices. Yet, I am not convinced that passives cannot have a volitional
element. There are even passive imperatives.
> This would also include "awareness." As a Middle (purpose), Paul was
> cognizant of the implications of his decision. As a Passive (result), the
> results would befall Paul, even to the extent that he would be unaware of
> the implications of his past choice.
>
> Any thoughts...in or out of the box :o )
By the way, I found that Cooper's treatment of voice in Attic Greek
Prose Syntax has remarkable
similarities to Carl's view of voice in that he argues that the
distinction is not always semantic voice.
I hope this makes more sense than my previous e-mail :-)
Kimmo Huovila
---
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 - 15:36:47 EDT