What is the opposite of a deponent?
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 6 10:04:11 EST 1999
On 12/06/99, "Steven Craig Miller <scmiller at www.plantnet.com>" wrote:
> To: Carl W. Conrad,
> Thank you for your very learned reply, I greatly appreciate it. And yes,
> "reponent" was more tongue-in-cheek than serious. When I'm reading the
> Greek text these issues don't stick out like they do when I'm reading a
> I have a follow up question. For NT uses of AGALLIAW, we have the aorist
> HGALLIASA and aorist passive HGALLIAQHN (and I think I've seen somewhere
> also the form HGALLIASQHN, but off hand I'm not for sure). But my question
> is this. In the LXX we also have the (deponent) future: AGALLIASOMAI. If
> someone was preparing a chart of the principal parts of irregular or
> important verbs covering both the NT and the LXX, should the future be
> listed as AGALLIASW or AGALLIASOMAI? After all, some active verbs have only
> middle futures, yes? Does anyone know if AGALLIASW was used in Byzantine
> Greek and whether or not it ever developed an active future?
Sophocles' Byzantine lexicon says: "AGALLIAW,AGALLIASW, commonly
AGALLIAOMAI,AGALLIASOMAI--but all the texts it cites are LXX and GNT, so
it's not really much help.
I think that if I were preparing a chart I'd list the future as
AGALLIASOMAI with AGALLIASW as a rare variant; moreover, I'd understand
that HGALLIASQHN (if it does exist) as simply the aorist of AGALLIAOMAI
(i.e. most -QH verb forms are simply aorist and future forms of the MAI/MHN
ending-set; very few of them are really passive in meaning).
More information about the B-Greek