What’s in the Middle?

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Keria Pub Date : 2020-12-28 DOI:10.4312/KERIA.22.2.7-23
G. Horrocks
{"title":"What’s in the Middle?","authors":"G. Horrocks","doi":"10.4312/KERIA.22.2.7-23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It has long been taken for granted in reference works, grammars and elementary introductions that Ancient Greek had three grammatical voices, active, passive and middle. Yet scholars have always had great difficulty in characterising the middle voice in a straightforward and convincing way, and language learners are often perplexed to find that most of the middles they find in texts fail to exemplify the function, usually involving some notion of self interest, that is typically ascribed to this voice. This article therefore re-examines the Ancient Greek middle, both through the lens of a general survey of “middle voice” functions across languages, and through the analysis of all the medio-passive verb forms attested in Book 1 of Plato’s Republic.  \nThe principal observations are that Ancient Greek middles do not represent a regular pattern of usage either from a typological point of view or as employed specifically in Republic 1 (the database is in fact partly extended to other works). Accordingly, the main conclusion is that the Ancient Greek middle is not a grammatical voice sensu stricto, i.e. a regular syntactic alternation applying to all verbs with a given set of properties and expressed by a regular morphological form with a predictable semantic function. Rather, it appears to be a convenient collective name for a large set of “autonomous” verb forms that are either clearly deponent (i.e., have no active counterparts) or that have been lexicalised in a specialised meaning vis-à-vis their supposed active counterparts (i.e., are also deponents in practice, despite appearances). In all probability, therefore, medio-passive morphology, whatever it once represented in terms of function, was recharacterised prehistorically as “passive” morphology, leaving a residue of verbs exhibiting forms with non-passive functions. Presumably, these survived as “middles” only because they had no active counterparts or had been assigned innovative meanings that distinguished them from any formally related actives.","PeriodicalId":36559,"journal":{"name":"Keria","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Keria","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4312/KERIA.22.2.7-23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It has long been taken for granted in reference works, grammars and elementary introductions that Ancient Greek had three grammatical voices, active, passive and middle. Yet scholars have always had great difficulty in characterising the middle voice in a straightforward and convincing way, and language learners are often perplexed to find that most of the middles they find in texts fail to exemplify the function, usually involving some notion of self interest, that is typically ascribed to this voice. This article therefore re-examines the Ancient Greek middle, both through the lens of a general survey of “middle voice” functions across languages, and through the analysis of all the medio-passive verb forms attested in Book 1 of Plato’s Republic.  The principal observations are that Ancient Greek middles do not represent a regular pattern of usage either from a typological point of view or as employed specifically in Republic 1 (the database is in fact partly extended to other works). Accordingly, the main conclusion is that the Ancient Greek middle is not a grammatical voice sensu stricto, i.e. a regular syntactic alternation applying to all verbs with a given set of properties and expressed by a regular morphological form with a predictable semantic function. Rather, it appears to be a convenient collective name for a large set of “autonomous” verb forms that are either clearly deponent (i.e., have no active counterparts) or that have been lexicalised in a specialised meaning vis-à-vis their supposed active counterparts (i.e., are also deponents in practice, despite appearances). In all probability, therefore, medio-passive morphology, whatever it once represented in terms of function, was recharacterised prehistorically as “passive” morphology, leaving a residue of verbs exhibiting forms with non-passive functions. Presumably, these survived as “middles” only because they had no active counterparts or had been assigned innovative meanings that distinguished them from any formally related actives.
中间是什么?
在工具书、语法和基础介绍中,人们一直认为古希腊语有三种语法语态:主动语态、被动语态和中间语态。然而,学者们一直很难以一种直截了当、令人信服的方式描述中音,语言学习者常常困惑地发现,他们在文本中发现的大多数中音都不能举例说明这种功能,通常涉及一些通常归因于这种声音的自我利益概念。因此,本文通过对各种语言中“中间语态”功能的总体调查,以及对柏拉图《理想国》第一卷中所证实的所有中被动动词形式的分析,重新审视了古希腊的中间语态。主要的观察结果是,无论是从类型学的角度来看,还是在《理想国》1中,古希腊的中间文字都没有代表一种常规的使用模式(事实上,该数据库部分扩展到了其他作品中)。因此,本文的主要结论是,古希腊中古词并不是一种严格的语法语感,即一种规则的句法交替,适用于所有具有给定属性的动词,并由具有可预测语义功能的规则形态表达。相反,它似乎是一大组“自主”动词形式的一个方便的统称,这些动词形式要么是明显的谓语形式(即,没有主动的对应物),要么是在特定的意义上被词汇化了,vis-à-vis它们假定的主动对应物(即,尽管表面上如此,实际上也是谓语形式)。因此,在所有的可能性中,中被动形态,无论它曾经在功能方面表现如何,在史前被重新描述为“被动”形态,留下了残余的动词表现出非被动功能的形式。据推测,这些词之所以作为“中间词”幸存下来,只是因为它们没有活跃的对应词,或者被赋予了创新的含义,使它们与任何正式相关的活跃词区别开来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Keria
Keria Arts and Humanities-Classics
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信