LOGIZOMAI: passive or active?

Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at teleport.com
Tue Mar 12 10:24:25 EST 2002


Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
>Dear Dale,
>thanks for the good information.

BTW, as an addendum to my comments yesterday about whether ERXOMAI was just 
a "personal involvement" middle (I don't know what to call it 
technically...I'm sure there is some linguistic term for it...there seems 
to be one for everything) or whether it actually is deponent (ie., can't be 
made passive or transitive), one should consider examples of ERXOMAI like 
Mark 4:21, 22 where ERXOMAI apparently has the passive meaning "to be 
brought" (even though v 22 is the Aor Act?!).  Someone needs to sort this 
whole thing out....


>By the way, have you thought about why only the aorist and future
>have passive forms different from middle forms, whereas the present and
>imperfect have middle/passive forms?
>
>One hypothesis is that in the present/imperfect there is no need to
>distinguish the passive from the middle, whereas in the future/aorist,
>there is need to distinguish the passive from the middle for some
>reasons.

This is a question for Carl, methinks!!  Did he not at one time make a 
suggestion about this??  Carl, what sayest thou???


***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Prof., Biblical Languages          Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan St.                                  Portland, OR 97220
V: 503-2516416        F: 503-251-6478      E: dalemw at teleport.com
***********************************************************************




More information about the B-Greek mailing list