Stratton L. Ladewig, «Ancient Witnesses on Deponency in Greek.» filologia-neotestamentaria, Vol. 25 (2012) 3-20 page 10

Vol 25 (2012)

Stratton L. Ladewig, «Ancient Witnesses on Deponency in Greek.», Vol. 25 (2012) 3-20

Deponency has been the focus of investigation in the last decade. Some grammarians have questioned and/or denied the validity of deponency in Greek. One of the arguments used to support such a conclusion is based in ancient history. I investigate the writings of three ancient grammarians (Dionysius Thrax, Apollonius Dyscolus, and Macrobius) to determine the grammatical Sitz im Leben of voice in the ancient Greek. This inquiry establishes that deponency in Greek is a concept with roots that run deep into the ancient period, thereby refuting the challenge to Greek deponency.

TAGS

deponency

Page 10/20
‹
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
›

10 Stratton L. Ladewig are extant: pronoun, conjunction, adverb, and syntax. His publications raised the study of Greek grammar to a scientific endeavor26 and “formed the most complete treatment of Greek grammar in the world of ancient Greek scholarship”27. There are two passages in the writings of Apollo- nius Dyscolus that provide us with information on the voice of the verb in the ancient period. Let us examine each individually. De constructione 30. Ἔστι καὶ ἐπὶ διαθέσεως τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐπιδεῖξαι. τὰ γὰρ καλούμενα μέσα σχήματα συνέμπτωσιν ἀνεδέξατο ἐνεργητικῆς καὶ παθητικῆς διαθέσεως, ὥν γε ἀκριβέστερον ἐπιδείξομεν ἐν τῇ δεούσῃ συντάξει τῶν ῥημάτων, καὶ ἔνθεν οὐ παρὰ τὰς διαθέσεις ἁμαρτάνεται. τὸ γὰρ ἐλουσάμην καὶ ἐποιησάμην καὶ ἐτριψάμην καὶ τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια ἔχει ἐκδηλοτάτην τὴν σύνταξιν ὁτὲ μὲν ἐνεργητικήν, ὁτὲ δὲ παθητικήν, ἔιγε τὸ ἔτριψα τοῦ ἐτριψάμην διαφέρει καὶ τὸ ἔλουσα τοῦ ἐλουσάμην, παράκειται δὲ τῷ ἐποίησα τὸ ἐποιησάμην καὶ ἔτι τῷ προῆκα τὸ προηκάμην. οἵ γε μὴν ἀπειρότερον περὶ τὰς τούτων διαφορὰς καταγινόμενοι οἴονται ἔσθ’ ὅτε παθητικὰς διαθέσεις ἐντὶ ἐνεργητικῶν παραλαμβάνεσθαι, οὐ μικρὸν ἁμάρτημα προσάπτοντες τοῖς λόγοις. τὸ γὰρ ἀντὶ ἐνεργητικοῦ παθητικῷ χρῆσθαι λόγου ἐστὶν τοῦ ἀκαταλλήλου· οὐκ ἂν γοῦν τις τὸ φύσει ἐνεργητικὸν ἢ τὸ φύσει παθητικὸν εὕροι ἂν ἐν ὑπαλλαγῇ τῶν διαθέσεων, λέγω τὸ ἐποίησα ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐποιήθην ἢ τὸ ἐποιήθην ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐποίησα. ὁμόλογον οὖν τὸ ἀμφοτέρω κεκοπώς {Ν 60} ἢ πεπληγὼς ἀγορῆθεν {Β 264} ἢ ῥάβδῳ πεπληγυῖα {κ 238} <ἢ> ὅτι ῥα θνῄσκοντας ὁρᾶτο {Α 56}, τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια, ὡς διὰ τὸν προειρημένον λόγον τῆς μεσότητος οὐκ ἀνθυπήλλακται κατὰ τὴν διάθεσιν, κατὰ δὲ τὸν δέοντα λόγον τῆς συντάξεως ἐπ’ ἀμφοτέρας τὰς διαθέσεις ἔφθασαν28. 26 M.C. Howatson (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, 2nd ed. (Ox- ford 1989), 44. 27 R.H. Robins, Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory in Europe with Particular Reference to Modern Linguistic Doctrine (London 1951) 42. 28 Apollonii Dyscoli, “De constructione”, in G. Uhlig (ed.), Grammatici Graeci, vol. 2.2 (Leipzig 1883; repr., Hildesheim 1965) 296-97 (§30).