scholarly journals The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek

Author(s):  
Rutger Allan
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-23
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Horrocks

It has long been taken for granted in reference works, grammars and elementary introductions that Ancient Greek had three grammatical voices, active, passive and middle. Yet scholars have always had great difficulty in characterising the middle voice in a straightforward and convincing way, and language learners are often perplexed to find that most of the middles they find in texts fail to exemplify the function, usually involving some notion of self interest, that is typically ascribed to this voice. This article therefore re-examines the Ancient Greek middle, both through the lens of a general survey of “middle voice” functions across languages, and through the analysis of all the medio-passive verb forms attested in Book 1 of Plato’s Republic.  The principal observations are that Ancient Greek middles do not represent a regular pattern of usage either from a typological point of view or as employed specifically in Republic 1 (the database is in fact partly extended to other works). Accordingly, the main conclusion is that the Ancient Greek middle is not a grammatical voice sensu stricto, i.e. a regular syntactic alternation applying to all verbs with a given set of properties and expressed by a regular morphological form with a predictable semantic function. Rather, it appears to be a convenient collective name for a large set of “autonomous” verb forms that are either clearly deponent (i.e., have no active counterparts) or that have been lexicalised in a specialised meaning vis-à-vis their supposed active counterparts (i.e., are also deponents in practice, despite appearances). In all probability, therefore, medio-passive morphology, whatever it once represented in terms of function, was recharacterised prehistorically as “passive” morphology, leaving a residue of verbs exhibiting forms with non-passive functions. Presumably, these survived as “middles” only because they had no active counterparts or had been assigned innovative meanings that distinguished them from any formally related actives.


2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (s41) ◽  
pp. 117-170
Author(s):  
Guglielmo Inglese ◽  
Chiara Zanchi

Abstract Ancient Greek features a wide array of means to encode reciprocity. Even though reference grammars do mention most of these strategies, they have not been brought together and compared in a systematic way so far. In this paper, we provide a thorough corpus-based description of the three most widespread reciprocal markers in Homeric Greek: the pronoun allḗlōn, the middle voice, and the use of preverbs. Our analysis is couched within current descriptive models of reciprocal constructions developed in linguistic typology. As we argue, Homeric Greek offers a remarkably complex picture, whereby these strategies synchronically cover different semantic and syntactic sub-domains of reciprocity, and thus partly stand in complementary distribution. Already in Homer, the pronoun allḗlōn is the most productive marker of reciprocal situations, with the middle voice and preverbs playing a more limited role. By adopting a diachronic perspective, we also show that this distribution can partly be explained as the result of the different historical sources of each construction. Moreover, once properly scrutinized, the facts of Homeric Greek provide interesting cues as to the developments of reciprocal constructions in later stages of Greek.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document