ἄνθρωπος ὑγιαίνων ἐστίν vs ἄνθρωπος ὑγιαίνει

Greek Learning Greek
1

There is a line in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (around 1017a30) about which I have a question:

οὐθὲν γὰρ διαφέρει τὸ ἄνθρωπος ὑγιαίνων ἐστὶν ἢ τὸ ἄνθρωπος ὑγιαίνει, οὐδὲ τὸ ἄνθρωπος βαδίζων ἐστὶν ἢ τέμνων τοῦ ἄνθρωπος βαδίζει ἢ τέμνει.

The translators render the distinction that Aristotle mentions by contrasting the present vs. the present continuous forms of the verbs, as in the following:

‘There is no difference between “the man is recovering” and “the man recovers”; or between “the man is walking” or “cutting” and “the man walks” or “cuts”.’

There are many commentaries on this passage from the Metaphysics, and just in case you may be interested, here is the Aquinas commentary:

But since there are some predications in which the verb is is clearly not used (for example, when it is said that a man walks), lest someone think that these predications do not involve the predication of being, for this reason Aristotle subsequently rejects this, saying that in all predications of this kind something is signified to be. For every verb is reduced to the verb is plus a participle. For there is no difference between the statements “the man is recovering” and “the man recovers”; and it is the same in other cases. (Quia vero quaedam praedicantur, in quibus manifeste non apponitur hoc verbum est, ne credatur quod illae praedicationes non pertineant ad praedicationem entis, ut cum dicitur, homo ambulat, ideo consequenter hoc removet, dicens quod in omnibus huiusmodi praedicationibus significatur aliquid esse. Verbum enim quodlibet resolvitur in hoc verbum est, et participium. Nihil enim differt dicere, homo convalescens est, et homo convalescit, et sic de aliis.)

My question, however, is not philosophical but rather philological: can somebody clarify this participle plus ἐστίν usage? Leaving the philosophical issues aside, I wonder whether and how verbs can be used in this way (participle plus ἐστίν), and I also wonder if, in fact, there is hardly any difference in meaning between the two uses?

2

I feel like the simplest and most basic use of a participle is when it works as an adjective. To me at least, ἄνθρωπος βαδίζων ἐστίν hardly seems any different from ἄνθρωπος παχύς ἐστιν. Maybe someone can think of an example, but I’m not aware of a case where an adjective couldn’t be switched out for a participle. So that’s the first answer to your question: all verbs can be used with εἶναι like this, just like all adjectives.

However, is there really no difference between ἄνθρωπος βαδίζων ἐστίν and ἄνθρωπος βαδίζει? I’d argue that βαδίζων is information about the ἄνθρωπος, while βαδίζει is information about the situation. That’s a shade of a difference, but important for conversation flow. And also, maybe it’s not really true. You could say that the participle has mostly situational uses, with the genitive absolute and all circumstantial participles being examples. But even here, I think that we sometimes read these too situationally, a flaw brought on by too much translation into modern languages.

3

I looked this up in the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Note 1 mentions why authors may have used a periphrastic construction. The conclusion is that “the considerations involved were probably not consistent over time, nor across tense systems or types of verb used for the participle.”:

4

ὑγιαίνων ἐστiν and βαδίζων ἐστίν, unlike ὑγιής εστιν and βαδίζει, are unusual Greek. You wouldn’t expect to find them outside of a philosophical-linguistic context. Similarly, note that it’s not ὁ ανθρωπος or ανθρωπός τις, both ordinary Greek, but simply ανθρωπος. The whole thing screams Aristotle.

5

I know of two common uses of the participle (correct me if any of this is misleading). In the one case, where the participle takes the attributive position, the participle functions like an adjective: ὁ βαδίζων ἄνθρωπος ἐστι καλός (the walking human being is beautiful). Where on the other hand the participle takes the predicate position, it connects a clause with another one (e.g., I am too lazy to type the Greek but the English could be something like: while walking, they saw the bus). The sentence above, however, seems different, where the participle becomes the predicate of the sentence, as in ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐστι βαδίζων, in which case the intended meaning would be the human being is a walker, or something like that. This is nevertheless different from the sentence above, but I wonder if I already got some of this wrong.

6

Thank you for the share from T_he Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek,_ which book I hope to get myself a copy of pretty soon.

7

It is only now that I realize that the sentence begins not with ὁ ἄνθρωπος with τὸ ἄνθρωπος, in which case the τό is probably the article not of ἄνθρωπος but of ἐστίν, which makes things even more confusing for me. Or if my reasoning is incorrect, what is τό the article of, and how must I interpret it?

8

The τό serves mark mark something that we’d put in quotation marks nowadays. τὸ “ἄνθρωπος ὑγιαίνει”

9

Joel is right about this. It’s standard usage; the τό nominalizes, and it declines, taking its case from the syntax of the embedding sentence. But I wouldn’t pay much heed to his “I feel like” pronouncements. The adjective in Καλλιας καλος, for example, an ordinary predicative adjective, cannot well be switched out for a participle.

10

As I understand it, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, in a complete utterance, you would expect Καλλίας καλὸς, as a predicate adjective, to appear in something like Καλλίας καλὸς γίγνεσθαι or Καλλίαν καλὸν νομίζειν and so on. Both of these verbs, at least, also accept a rarer participle construction here. See under the predicate sections in the LSJ for γίγνομαι and νομίζω. Certainly it occurs with εἶναι. So I think that at the very least, your statement about Καλλίας καλός needs to be heavily qualified. No doubt there are environments were a participle could never replace καλός, but what are they? (Verbs of saying/thinking are my first thought, but obviously there are exceptions.)

I think that both of your posts concentrate on expected usage, “ordinary Greek”, but Aristotle does not seem to be concerned with that. The universe of intelligible and correct statements for a language is far larger than the universe of “likely” statements, affected as it is by euphony, regularity, order, usage, and so on. Aristotle’s precise statements, even if they don’t help someone with usage, are a clear observation about how a particular language element was perceived by a native speaker of more than average perceptiveness. They might tell us something about participles that doesn’t normally come through in the standard glosses.

11

No Joel, it’s simply Καλλιας καλος (εστιν), as a complete utterance.

My first post addressed the OP’s question.
My second addressed your peculiar take on participles, where you were “not aware of a case where an adjective couldn’t be switched out for a participle.”
And this one answers your last post on what you would expect in a complete utterance.
I think that’s enough.

12

I was trying to interpret what you had said as a serious objection, as I couldn’t believe that you simply meant it bare. If that’s all you meant, then you can have the exception. As far as a “peculiar” view, I see Smyth describing the participle as a “verbal adjective”, and the periphrasis with ειναι as adjectivizing it, and representing a quality displayed in action.

I am on the same page as Barry about the enoughing.

13

So the CGG indicates that there are classical usages, and periphrastic combinations are seen throughout the NT, e.g.,

ὅτι ἡ διακονία τῆς λειτουργίας ταύτης οὐ μόνον ἐστὶν προσαναπληροῦσα τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν ἁγίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ περισσεύουσα διὰ πολλῶν εὐχαριστιῶν τῷ θεῷ. (2 Cor 9:12).

This combined with Aristotle’s comments suggests to me that these periphrases may not have been favored in literary texts, but may have existed in the vernacular, at least to the point where Aristotle could use it to make his point.

I was browsing the Colloquia this morning to see if I could find some examples there, but so far nothing. Michael, what say the papyri? Do we have examples of this?

14

For the record, I have no idea what this means.

15

Joel, I am not going to get sucked into a debate with you. I’ve learnt how futile and frustrating that is. But you will get nowhere by quoting Smyth at me. Sure, participles can be classified as verbal adjectives, but you must acknowledge that they’re different from adjectives such as καλός. And you altogether fail to take the point about Καλλιας καλος.

Barry, Yes such locutions do occur in the papyri, but not very often (just as with the NT), and I think it’s wrong to suggest that υγιαινων εστιν or βαδιζων εστιν or τεμνων εστιν were ever vernacular expressions—as Aristotle was well aware. In NT times the process is still only just beginning.

16

I noticed in Dickey while I was replying to the other thread, her statement about “adjectives but not other modifies, become predicates when they stand outside the article-noun unit”. Is that the sort of thing that you were referring to? I’m not sure it stands up.

(The first 3 from Zuntz, and I haven’t look them up.)

Aëtius: ὁ κόσμος καλός (ἐστι)
Eusebius: ὁ κόσμος θέος (ἐστί)
Sextus Empiricus: Λογικὸς ὁ κόσμος (ἐστί)

With participles:

Diogenes Laertius: ὁ κόσμος πεπερασμένος ἐστί
(ὁ μὲν οὖν κόσμος πεπερασμένος ἐστί, τὸ δὲ κενὸν ἄπειρον.)

Aëtius: ὁ κόσμος πεπερασμένος (ἐστί)
(εἰ γὰρ ὁ κόσμος πεπερασμένος, τὰ δ’ αἴτια πάντα ἄπειρα ἐξ ὧν ὅδε ὁ κόσμος γέγονεν, ἀνάγκη ἀπείρους εἶναι)

But maybe you meant to suggest a different rule with Καλλιας καλος. I have difficulty guessing. No doubt my ἄπειρον κενόν.

One argument for the intelligibility and at least rare usage of the periphrasis (thought it would usually have been superfluous and no doubt periphrastical), is that it seems to be used without any difficulty whenever there isn’t a finite form, as with the 3rd person plural perfect passive.

17

Joel, I really don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish here. First you quote Smyth at me, and now Zuntz, both irrelevantly, and you seem to be wanting to make something of the fact that the perfect passive is frequently periphrastic. Unlike the present active, note, which despite Aristotle’s examples being so very unusual is (of course) intelligible—I’ve never suggested otherwise.
We know how participles are used, both with and without the article—at least, I hope we do. Nothing I’ve said "needs to be heavily qualified.” You on the other hand have been saying some very strange things, easily controverted (e.g. “in a complete utterance, you would expect Καλλίας καλὸς, as a predicate adjective, to appear in something like Καλλίας καλὸς γίγνεσθαι or Καλλίαν καλὸν νομίζειν and so on”).
It’s actually all quite simple, and I don’t know why you have such difficulty understanding. We seem to be talking past each other.

18

I think I already received an answer to the original post, but here then is a follow up question: if Aristotle’s unusual remarks are nevertheless intelligible, what do you understand to be Aristotle’s point? That two grammatical forms are interchangeable? That ἐστίν is not confined to nominal predicates but that there is a hidden ἐστίν even in verb predicates, for even verb predicates can be reworded to reveal the ἐστίν that otherwise remains concealed?

19

Well, he says there’s no difference between them—no semantic difference, I suppose he means, for there’s certainly a difference in both language and usage. It definitely looks like he’s talking about predication, but I haven’t read the context, and anyhow I know next to nothing about the Metaphysics, which always makes my head ache. I once joined a seminar on Metaphysics Gamma and found myself having to mediate between a English-speaking German scholar and an American one, both trained philosophers and Aristotelian specialists, who quite failed to understand one another, so different were their approaches and presuppositions.

So I’m afraid I really can’t help you. You need an Aristotelian.

20

Well, thanks anyway.