can a passive deponent be passive in meaning?

Greek Learning Greek
1

Smyth (356c): “Deponent verbs have an active meaning but only middle (or middle and passive) forms. If its aorist has the middle form, a deponent is called a middle deponent (χαρίζομαι gratify, ἐχαρισάμην); if its aorist has the passive form, a deponent is called a passive deponent (ἐνθυμέομαι reflect on, ἐνεθυμήθην). Deponents usually prefer the passive to the middle forms of the aorist.” Hence my question. The one who was loving is ἐρασθείς (passive deponent). But should I call the one who was loved also ἐρασθείς, leaving the difference in meaning to be determined solely by the context?

2

No. If it’s passive in meaning it’s no longer a deponent. But yes, passive meanings of deponents in the aorist can be tricky, and context-dependent. The ερωμενος however, as you will know, is always passive, both in form and in meaning (not to mention sexual function), the opposite of the εραστης.

3

So ἐρασθείς is context-dependent in meaning (i.e., can be either passive or active)?

4

Deleted. I was wrong.

5

Thanks. I was misled by Ryan’s comment on Plato, Phdr. 243c:
ἐρῶν . . . ἐρασθείς … “this verb is deponent in Attic prose except in the present system; ὁ ἐρώμενος is the beloved, but ὁ ἐρασθείς the former lover.”
The text commented upon is as follows:
Καὶ γάρ, ὠγαθὲ Φαῖδρε, ἐννοεῖς ὡς ἀναιδῶς εἴρησθον τὼ λόγω, οὗτός τε καὶ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ βιβλίου ῥηθείς. εἰ γὰρ ἀκούων τις τύχοι ἡμῶν γεννάδας καὶ πρᾷος τὸ ἦθος, ἑτέρου τοιούτου ἐρῶν ἢ καὶ πρότερόν ποτε ἐρασθείς, λεγόντων ὡς διὰ σμικρὰ μεγάλας ἔχθρας οἱ ἐρασταὶ ἀναιροῦνται καὶ ἔχουσι πρὸς τὰ παιδικὰ φθονερῶς τε καὶ βλαβερῶς, πῶς οὐκ ἂν οἴει αὐτὸν ἡγεῖσθαι ἀκούειν ἐν ναύταις που τεθραμμένων
καὶ οὐδένα ἐλεύθερον ἔρωτα ἑωρακότων, πολλοῦ δ’ ἂν δεῖν ἡμῖν ὁμολογεῖν ἃ ψέγομεν τὸν Ἔρωτα;

6

p.s. The aorist participle of δύναμαι has passive form, δυνηθείς, which is not passive in meaning. So, I thought the case with ἔραμαι might be the same (i.e., this made Ryan’s statement plausible to me).

7

ἐρασθείς seems to usually take a genitive as an object. I wouldn’t have thought it was passive in meaning.

ἑτέρου τοιούτου ἐρῶν ἢ καὶ πρότερόν ποτε ἐρασθείς

But I don’t know the differentiation here. In love versus in lust?

8

Correction. There are two verbs, or rather two sets of endings, from the same stem:

(1) εραω, “to love”, which is active, whence present passive participle ερωμενος – according to LSJ, used only in the present and imperfect; and

(2) εραμαι, which is a passive deponent, whence aorist participle, passive in form but active in meaning, ερασθεις, “to love” “be enamored of” – used in poetry and in tenses other than present and imperfect in prose.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ra%2Fw1

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)%2Framai

So Ryan is right. And I was wrong.

9

Thanks. Hence the question from my original posting:
“The one who was loving is ἐρασθείς (passive deponent). But should I call the one who was loved also ἐρασθείς, leaving the difference in meaning to be determined solely by the context?”

10

I think it’s safe to say that ερασθεις is active and its voice/diathesis is not dependent on context. In the passage from Phaedrus ο ερων, the current (active) lover (more or less = ο εραστης) contrasts with ο ερασθεις, the former (active) lover.

Query: how would you say “the former beloved”? Neither of these verbs has an aorist passive participle with passive meaning. Maybe ο ουκετι ερωμενος?

11

But how, then, would one say “the one who was loved” in Greek?

12

Or maybe, depending on context, ο τοτε ερωμενος?

13

Is Ryan completely accurate? Does an aorist participle really signify “the former ”?

ο διδασκων και ο διδαξας, I would have thought, are “the one teaching and the one who taught <something, a single act>”. In this context (not having read the dialogue), does it refer to a more temporary encounter than the current present (tense) lover?

14

I thought the tense of the participle signifies not the the aspect but the time relative to the time of the action signified by main verb. But I might well be wrong.

15

Smyth 1872:

  1. Participle (not in indirect discourse).—The participle, as a verbal adjective, is timeless. The tenses of the participle express only continuance, simple occurrence, and completion with permanent result. Whether the action expressed by the participle is antecedent, coincident, or subsequent to that of the leading verb (in any tense) depends on the context. The future participle has a temporal force only because its voluntative force points to the future.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+1872&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007

Worth reading the entire section.

Is Ryan completely accurate? Does an aorist participle really signify “the former ”?

ἐρῶν ἢ καὶ πρότερόν ποτε ἐρασθείς, – pretty clear what Plato means.

16

Thanks! I guess, I was misled by Dickey. “The tenses of attributive and circumstantial participles usually express time, though sometimes, particularly in the aorist, a participle’s tense indicates aspect only. The time indicated by the participle is always time relative to the main verb;…” (p. 52, bold in the original)

17

The meaning of the passage from Phaedrus is pretty clear, and there’s no need to fit the participles to the Procrustean bed of grammatical rules about tense and aspect.