Aorist
DOWNLOAD ->->->-> https://fancli.com/2tl3J5
1580s, the tense of Greek verbs that most closely corresponds to the simple past in English, from Greek aoristos (khronos) \"indefinite (tense),\" from aoristos \"without boundaries, undefined, indefinite,\" from assimilated form of a- \"not\" (see a- (3)) + horistos \"limited, defined,\" verbal adjective from horizein \"to limit, define,\" from horos \"boundary, limit, border\" (see horizon). Related: Aoristic.
366. Some ω- and μι- verbs, all of them having vowel stems, make an active aorist in which the endings are added directly to the root as tense stem (root-aorist). In so far it is like the μι- present and imperfect. In meaning it is like other aorists; but if the verb has also a σα- aorist, that is causative and the root-aorist intransitive. (Paradigms, 367, below)
This paper deals with the aorist voice system in NT Greek and focuses on middle-passive markers, namely middle inflection, e.g. in the middle sigmatic aorist, and affixes -η-/-θη-, in the so-called passive aorist. The research is corpus-based and investigates the occurrences of ca. 1800 verbal items. According to the grammarians, in the NT both middle and passive aorists spread. The present study confirms this observation by providing a comprehensive account of the distribution of these forms, but also shows how they have functionally reorganised. Passive aorists spread at the expense of middle aorists in all kinds of intransitive constructions, namely passive, unaccusative, and reflexive, whereas middle aorists are either found in transitive middles, e.g. possessive, benefactive etc., or occur as deponent verbs in both transitive and intransitive clauses. The parameter transitive vs intransitive appears to be relevant for this functional reorganisation.
As far as the synchrony vs diachrony dichotomy is concerned, this study provides both a synchronic analysis of the aorist voice system in the NT and a diachronic comparison with both Homeric and Classical Greek.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 a brief survey of the literature is provided. Section 3 is devoted to the analysis of data, by focusing on middle-inflected aorists in 3.1, passive aorists in 3.2 and some problematic cases in 3.3. In Section 4 the diachronic aspects of the aorist voice system are addressed, by comparing data from the NT with Homeric Greek (4.1) and Classical Greek (4.2). Finally some conclusions are drawn in Section 5.
In the following sections, I show the semantic and syntactic values of the three aorist voices in both their oppositive and non-oppositive uses. More emphasis is given to middle and passive voices, because in Hellenistic Greek they increased as types and entered into competition as strategies for marking middle meanings such as reflexive (e.g. I washed myself), unaccusative (I grew), benefactive (I bought the book for myself), possessive (I touched my eyes), etc.2 The middle voice tended to correlate with middle and deponent transitives, whereas the passive voice spread as a marker of intransitive structures, namely passive and unaccusative. The productivity of middle and passive aorists is not comparable. The aorist middle became a non-oppositive marker, whereas the aorist passive extended as an oppositive marker with respect to the active voice, by also replacing the intransitive middles, especially the unaccusative and the reflexive.
The distribution of passive aorists within the database is as follows: 121 verbs are exclusively inflected as passive aorists, 167 are coupled with active aorists, 13 with middle aorists, and 9 with both of them. This picture allows us to have a clearer idea concerning the functions of passive aorists in the NT. The main function is to express the passive, e.g. (8a), and the unaccusative, e.g. (9a), by means of opposition to active morphology, e.g. (8b) and (9b):
The syntactic and semantic distribution of the passive aorist is more restricted than that of the middle aorist. Even though some uses of the two forms overlap, they do not appear to be free variants in the NT.
The seemingly chaotic outcome of the competition between passive and middle aorists is evidence of some instability. However, there is some evidence that the system was being reorganised in binary terms: on the one hand, the diathesis expressed by both active and middle aorists, which increasingly correlated with transitive structures; on the other hand, the diathesis expressed by passive aorists, which embraced the core intransitive values of middle, namely the passive and the unaccusative, and extended into intransitive deponents. The reassessment shows the emergence of the syntactic feature transitive vs intransitive within the middle diathesis (cf. Section 5).
In Homeric poems two different systems of voice are attested for the aorist (cf. Benedetti 2017 for more details). In the first system, inflection (active vs middle) marks the opposition between active and middle/passive voice, as in the voice system of the present. This system is presumably inherited and is not productive. It is only found with root and thematic aorists, see (24) and (25) respectively, and occurs with a few verbal items. What is peculiar is that middle inflection also marks the passive, e.g. (24b) and (25b), compared with the active transitive in (24a) and (25a):
The expansion of passive aorists at the expense of middle aorists is not only a matter of forms that replace other forms; it also concerns the level of functions. In other words, the productivity of passive aorists in Hellenistic Greek is the effect, at the level of form, of the syntactic feature associated with them, namely intransitivity. As an oppositive term, transitivity is expressed by both active and middle aorists, middle inflection being completely de-functionalised as a voice marker, with some rare exceptions; see examples (5) and (6a) above. 59ce067264
https://www.drjuvehernandez.com/forum/foro-de-belleza/tranny-cum-tranny