B. Ward Powers bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Thu Oct 25 02:12:36 EDT 2001

This is a response to the important posting from Carl about voice in Greek.

I have the greatest respect for Carl personally and as a scholar, and we 
have had many interesting on-list discussions over the years. Sometimes we 
have found ourselves on the same side of the fence in a discussion, and 
sometimes on opposite sides. It will be plain to all who are following this 
thread that in regard to voice we are (in a number of respects - not all) 
on opposite sides.

I am aware that this question of voice is one to which Carl has given a 
great deal of attention, and I respect his work while differing from his 

Actually, the gap between our positions is not as great as may at first 
appear. But it is certainly there. It is a difference which to an extent 
lies in how we describe the observed phenomena of the language; but it does 
have some implications for meaning and interpretation.

I have snipped sections of Carl's email which are not germane to issues 
which need to be further discussed. At 07:46 AM 011024 -0400, Carl W. 
Conrad wrote:

>My thanks to Ward for setting forth, as clearly as it CAN be set forth,
>what is more or less the traditional understanding of the phenomena of
>Greek voice morphology and semantics.

It is important for me to make the points, in response, that

(a) I am not adopting my position BECAUSE it is traditional - I am NOT a 
died-in-the-wool traditionalist, and I have adopted my position after 
looking at the issues because I judge that it is the best-fit way of 
handling the observable data. I think Carl attributes to me more of what he 
regards as the "traditional" position than I espouse. But my own assessment 
of voice issues has led me towards a position which is considerably more 
traditional than Carl's. Which in itself, of course, says absolutely 
nothing in regard to which of us is more correct in those places we differ.

(b) As would (I hope) have been apparent from a consideration of what I 
said previously, I disagree with the "traditional" approach at a number of 
points, where I consider that questions of linguistics generally and 
morphology specifically affecting Greek need to be informed by insights 
gained from advances in linguistic science. Two issues in particular in 
this connection: (i) I objected in my last posting to the labelling of 
middle forms of the present/imperfect and perfect-pluperfect verb 
subsystems being simply designated, and taught, as "passives". They have 
the FORM of middles, not passives (as they take middle endings and lack the 
passive morph -QH/QE-), while they can have either middle or passive 
MEANING, depending upon context. From a linguistic perspective, I consider 
this to be an important distinction in how to describe the situation. (ii) 
The second issue is that of deponents; concerning which, more below.

Carl goes on:

>I'm going to comment only on a very few items in Ward's presentation
>because I honestly believe more of it concerns explanation of exceptions to
>the rule than clarification of the rules themselves. I don't mean to be
>unfair, but that is my perception.

I would NEVER consider Carl to be unfair. But let me clarify the issues. My 
approach homes in on relatively simple "rules" which cover the majority of 
cases. Because of their relative simplicity, and (I would believe) clarity, 
not much needs to be said about them. Especially as they are so closely 
linked to morphology, which is pretty obvious to everyone once attention is 
drawn to it and how it works. Exceptions, on the other hand, by their very 
nature need more to be said about them. What seems to be happening in 
Carl's approach (if I judge correctly) is that he focusses on certain verbs 
which do not follow the "rules" derived from morphology, and takes these 
verbs as normative, or at least typical. To the contrary, I would advocate 
that we gratefully accept the rules which cover most occurrences of most 
verbs, and then regard other situations as exceptions, and seek to work out 
how to describe them and handle them. One by one, if necessary.

Thus in my last posting I said, in relation to the fact that the rules 
don't cover everything:

> >But: how then does one deal with the undeniable fact that "it ain't
> >necessarily so"? Which leads us to:
> >
> >
> >Every known language has language rules - and exceptions to these rules.
> >The existence of the exceptions does not nullify the rules. The rules
> >provide the basic pattern for most forms in that language, and the
> >foundation on the basis of which you can identify, and handle, the 
> exceptions.

I still stick to that view.

After a section in which I set out forms of LUW as the verb to discuss, 
Carl says:

>I have done only a preliminary tally of the forms of LUW in the GNT and
>find that there are 42 hits; of these 15 are tagged as "passive" in
>Accordance, not one as middle. The seven forms in the aorist are all -QH-
>forms: 2 indicatives, 1 subjunctive, 3 infinitives, 1 participle. The three
>forms in the future are all -QH- forms and are all indicative. So we may
>well TEACH a paradigm including LUSOMAI and ELUSAMHN, but in fact these 
>forms don't appear in NT Koine Greek.

I am not in a position to comment on Carl's figures, but I have no basis 
for disagreeing with him. But this is not the point. The Greek verb is 
usually taught (certainly in my Grammar "Learn To Read the Greek New 
Testament" and in other Grammars with which I am familiar) using LUW as the 
pattern verb. This is because (being a long-vowel verb, and a very short 
word) it is ideally suited for this purpose, irrespective of its meaning, 
its NT frequency, or its occurrence pattern. I seem to recall reading an 
email from Carl in which he mentions that LUW was the pattern-verb used 
when he also learnt Greek. (Have I remembered this correctly, Carl?) The 
forms of LUW which Carl points out do not occur in the GNT actually DO 
exist in the language and DO occur for other verbs for which LUW has been 
our pattern to learn them.

So the morphological meanings which we derive from using LUW as a pattern 
are valid.

One of the issues on which Carl feels strongly is that of so-called 
"deponency". He says,

>The one point here on which I concur with Ward is that the examination of
>individual verb forms with MP or -QH- endings must be done cautiously and
>thoughtfully. Nevertheless, I think that the entire concept of "deponency"
>is worse than useless, particularly insofar as it is based upon an
>assumption that a verb originally had an active form that has been replaced
>by the middle or passive form. Neva Miller (ALGNT, p. 425) rightly says,
>"As a class, so-called deponent verbs probably never had an active form at
>all and so never laid it aside." Nor is "defective" really an adequate term
>for such verbs, unless it is understood clearly that these verbs are not
>crippled or somehow deficient members of the fraternity of Greek verbs. 
>Nor is it valid or helpful to define, a 'deponent' verb as one that has middle
>or passive form but 'active' meaning.
>We really do need a "paradigm shift with regard to voice."

I have quoted this whole section to give the complete context. Note in 
particular the comment,

>I think that the entire concept of "deponency" is worse than useless, 
>particularly insofar as it is based upon an assumption that a verb 
>originally had an active form that has been replaced by the middle or 
>passive form.

A casual reader could gain the impression, especially from the use of my 
name at the beginning of this paragraph, that I either said or advocated 
the primary reason why Carl rejects the concept of "deponency": the 
assumption that there was originally an active form which got somehow "laid 
aside". I do not present such an idea in my "Learn To Read the Greek New 
Testament", and I have never said it on b-greek. In my Grammar (p.77) I use 
the expressions "deponent middle verbs" and "deponent passive verbs" as 
convenient terms to refer to an observed phenomenon in the Greek language. 
In my b-greek posting to which Carl is responding I said,

 >So that we can describe and talk about them, these forms can be termed
 >"deponents" or "deponent middles". (The term is just a handle for a
 >phenomenon; nothing more.)

It will be noted that I have said, re this word "deponent", "The term is 
just a handle for a phenomenon; nothing more."

Carl questions "the entire concept of deponency", categorizing it as "worse 
than useless", adding, "Nor is it valid or helpful to define, a 'deponent' 
verb as one that has middle or passive form but 'active' meaning."

This pinpoints a place where we differ. Morphologically, certain morphs 
(especially the endings) are associated with the concept "middle", and 
other morphs (the presence of -QH/QE-) with the concept "passive". We 
should not lose this correlation, nor play it down: it is valuable.

But then we note that some verbs (e.g., DUNATAI) are middle in form, and 
others (e.g., APOKRIQEIS) are passive in form, while the meaning is active. 
We want to be able to discuss this language feature. I am happy to use the 
word "deponent" because it is an existing and quite widely-used term which 
can therefore be a useful starting point for discussing this language 
feature. But I am not irrevocably wedded to the use of this term, and if 
Carl has one which can win acceptance instead, I have no objection to it. 
But we need SOME term to use when we want to talk about the fact that 
certain verbs have a form which correlates with normal middle use and/or 
normal passive use, while not themselves having middle or passive 
signification in their context.

For those interested in voice and who have persevered this far, let me 
conclude thus:

Greek is a very morphologically-controlled language. If you can recognize 
and understand the morphs, you will almost always get a clear indication of 
meaning. The relatively rare exceptions occur where context and/or usage of 
a particular verb overrule the normal significance of the morphs; and we 
can note these when they occur without losing the benefit of the general 
rules. In my previous b-greek posting I said.

> >There is no "one right way" of describing what is found in a language - all
> >we can aim for is what you might call the "best fit" of a description. But
> >I definitely do not believe that Carl's approach to middle and passive is
> >the best way of approaching what we find in Greek, and teaching it.

With the greatest respect to Carl and the quality of his scholarship, I am 
of this opinion still.



Rev Dr B. Ward Powers        Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255
259A Trafalgar Street          Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255
PETERSHAM  NSW  2049      email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
AUSTRALIA.                         Director, Tyndale College

More information about the B-Greek mailing list