Are there only active and passive voices in English?



If I throw a ball at someone; that is active. If someone throws a ball at me - and it hits me in the face; that is passive.


But if someone throws a ball at me, and I catch it; that is 'responsive'. Should there not be, then, a 'responsive' voice?


This is not theoretical. I am writing an article about 'deponent' Greek verbs which, it is argued, are passive in form, but active in meaning. I do not agree and I believe that they are 'responsive' in meaning.


But, if so, then it must be true in all languages, English included, that there is a voice which indicates a response to someone else's active-ness.


===============================================================


Edited after Answers


My problem, I think, is a matter of relativity.


In the example above (I throw, I am hit, I catch) I am looking at everything from my own point of view.


But language construction observes all the events objectively.


Nigel threw. John threw and hit Nigel. John threw and Nigel caught.



Answer



I think it would be best to avoid trying to talk about meaning in terms of voice at all. It's confusing, like talking about time reference in terms of "tense", because people often use terms like "voice" and "tense" to refer to purely morphological categories. I would advise only using the term "voice" to talk about the morphological form of verbs, since that seems easier to determine. There are so many different types of thematic relations that a complete classification of verbs according to their meanings would need much more than two or three categories.


English only distinguishes two forms that I am aware of for voice: active and passive. Some verbs have an intransitive construction that is sometimes called "middle voice" or "mediopassive" due to its meaning, although it takes the form of the active voice: things like "the water froze" (vs "the cold of the night froze the water") and "the water boiled". While these words are maybe valid as technical terminology with defined meanings as applied to English, I don't think it is particularly wise to use this terminology to associate the English expressions with Greek expressions, or with other English verbs with somewhat similar meanings like "catch". My impression is that the thing called "middle voice" in Greek is not really the same as the thing that some people call "middle voice" in English.


When people say that Greek deponent verbs are "active in meaning", I hope the main point they're trying to make is that they cannot be converted into an active-voice equivalent. I don't speak Greek of any kind, but that is what I gather from the Wikipedia article Ancient Greek verbs. The sources I have looked at also indicate that Greek distinguishes between a passive and middle voice in the inflection of the aorist (although not in the present, imperfect, or perfect), and some deponent verbs have passive-voice aorist forms while others have middle-voice aorist forms; so it seems like the description of deponent verbs as "passive in form" is a bit of a simplification (although passive-form deponents are apparently more common than middle-voice deponents).


A less charitable interpretation that I've seen in some of the sources referenced below is that "active in meaning" is simply based on the fact that Greek deponent verbs are often translated into English using English active-voice verbs—this would be an erroneous basis for a description of Greek grammar, since a description of a term used in Greek grammar should not be defined based on English categories of voice.


Anyway, I agree with you that this common definition of "deponent" seems like sloppy, unnecessary wording.


So, I would recommend saying something like



Although some describe Greek deponent verbs as 'active in meaning', I do not agree with this description. The distinction between deponent verbs and non-deponent verbs is simply that




  • deponent verbs have no active-voice forms. [optionally specify what time period or corpus you are talking about here e.g. a number of sources I found talking about Biblical Greek specify "no active-voice form found in the Greek New Testament"]




  • non-deponent verbs have active-voice forms.




The meaning of a deponent verb, like the meaning of any verb, depends on the specific word.



This description also seems in line with some resources I found online talking about Greek deponent verbs:



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

Years and years ago, I remember reading in a book on AmE usage that the phrasal turn a baby creeps before it walks was to some extent more common to AmE than to BrE, which preferred exclusively the "crawl" version. And so, I just recently checked on the accuracy of that information on NGram Viewer , and it actually was fact... more than a century ago! What I would like you to tell is if it would sound sort of weird to hear someone say today in the US that a child "creeps" before walking and running (see Synonyms ) rather than it crawls. Also, what's the story to those terms? How did "to crawl" come to prevail and supersede "to creep" to describe the way a baby moves around? As with a plant, so with a child. His mind grows by natural stages. A child creeps before he walks , sits before he stands, cries before he laughs, babbles before he talks, draws a circle before he draws a square, lies before he tells the truth, and is selfish before he
Read more

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

Does this sentence have too many subjunctives? If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries. I am stumped by this sentence construction. First, there is "Let it be," which is a common English idiomatic phrase, but then it follows another subjunctive. Is that to say you can actually have a subjunctive followed by another subjunctive? Also, why does the sentence use "please"? If that's the subjunctive tense there, then why is it followed by another subjunctive instead of a conditional, or maybe "Let it be" is the conditional? Lastly, I wish to know how the that is used in the sentence. Perhaps, the simplified sentence can be restated like so: Let it be decreed that they be destroyed and that they may put it into the king's treasuries. If not, maybe the simplified sent
Read more

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.
Read more

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

This is a phrase I’m particularly confused about, because it’s used often when something is manipulated or changed. For example, sometimes images surface online that are clearly Photoshopped, but people refer to them as “doctored” images. Why use the word “doctored” here? Answer The earliest Google Books match for an instance of doctored in a transitional (or perhaps post-transitional) sense between "amended" and "adulterated" appears in William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire; Including Its Dairy: Together with the Dairy Management of North Wiltshire, and the Management of Orchards and Fruit Liquor, in Herefordshire , volume 2 (1789): Men in general, however, whose palates are set to rough cider, consider the common sweet sort as an effeminate beverage; and rough cider, properly manufactured, is probably the most generous liquor; being deemed more wholesome, to habits in general, than sweet cider:—even when genuine. That which is drank, in the kingd
Read more

phrases - Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey

I heard this phrase when I was watching Battleship. An old man said, "Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey." I do not know what it means, I only heard it in a movie. What is this phrase mean? In Addition: I think it was Rihanna who said "Saddle Ridge will be in weapons range in five minutes," then the old man stated the phrase. Answer It is a confused attempt at a play on (for example) "kiss my ass," or, some similar phrase. It is quite common in English today that idioms get mangled.
Read more

typography - When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

The typographical symbol dagger (†) has several meanings. Possibly its most common use is as a footnote marker. According to You Have a Point There: A Guide to Punctuation and Its Allies ( Partridge , 1953), when it is used for this purpose, it must be used for second footnotes only; the first footnote should be indicated by an asterisk (*), the third a double dagger (‡) and further footnotes other symbols or numbers. Where does Patridge's rule fall on a scale of one to ten, where one is "this is just one guy's random opinion" and ten is "this is a widely accepted rule of English and any deviation from it is unarguably incorrect"? This question was inspired by this Meta Stack Overflow question about the use of daggers on Stack Exchange site FAQ pages . Answer The dagger (also known as an obelisk ) is properly used for the second footnote. The asterisk is for the first, and the double dagger is for the third. This is supported by several websites: And so
Read more

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

What is the origin of the phrase shit eating grin ? How did it come to mean showing smugness or self-satisfaction of an individual's actions? Answer From the Urban Dictionary: ...these uses are documented in the Oxford English Dictionary no earlier than 1957 There have been similar expressions used quite far back: In Book XXI of his History of Rome, Livy describes a Carthaginian sect of coprophages, the risus faecivorus, or shit-eating grin, being commonly displayed by its adherents. Although, its origin is undetermined, they may have been incidents which caused the invention of this phrase. Below is an excerpt: "1944 Jrnl. Nerv. & Mental Dis. XCIX. 959 Among demented patients in advanced stages of their illness,..it is not rare to see some of them grasp their own feces, chew them and eat them often with great pleasure and satisfaction (coprophagia).
Read more