(To Carl) The emergence of QH and QHSO forms

Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Fri Mar 15 02:21:43 EST 2002

> At 11:13 AM -0500 3/14/02, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
> >Let me ask some questions to Carl. He wrote:
> >
> >  [omitted material]
> >> >(b) With the growing adoption of the sigmatic or first aorist active
> >> >morpholoparadigm, the opposition of voice-forms in the aorist for verbs
> >> >such as FAINW/FAINOMAI and hISTHMI/hISTAMAI became neatly:
> >> >"active/causative" EFHNA (originally EFANSA) and ESTHSA,
> >> >"intransitive/quasi-passive" EFANHN and ESTHN.
> >> >
> >
> >Where does the middle form of hISTHMI, ESTAMHN, fit if ESTHN is
> >"intransitive/quasi-passive"?
> Moon, I have no idea what form you are referring to. It's not in the GNT;
> the only aorists of hISTHMI/hISTAMAI in the GNT are 1st aor. active ESTHSA,
> intr. aor. ESTHN, and the "passive" ESTAQHN which for the most part has the
> same sense as ESTHN.

Woops! I just looked over the paradigm table for hISTHMI in a book I have.
There ESTAMHN was listed! I did not know that it did not appear in GNT. 
Thanks for the correction.

Now, I can clearly understand what you are talking about.
The present and imperfect have one form of middle-passive (OMAI form),
while the aorist and future have two forms of middle-passive (MHN and QH
forms, SOMAI and QHSOMAI forms, respectively).

Hmm, at last the Greek morphoparadigm is clearly drawn in my mind.
I could not stand the unsymmetry that the present form of the "middle
ending" can has both middle and passive meaning, whereas the aorist form
of the "middle
ending" has only the middle meaning with the QH form assigned for the
passive meaning.

Moon R. Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

More information about the B-Greek mailing list