I realise it might be a shocking thing. The situation here, however, is that we are in the beginning of a discussion about what is actually in Greek and what is being read into it. Callling for a proof in the first round will only earn you eveyone's buy in money. What I'm suggesting is another way of analysing Greek - its nominal usage and its case system. What is called "transitivity" in Greek seems to be an optional functionality in verbs that deal with their broader context. That is to say it is not a feature in itself, but is an extention / option that can be added to a certain type of verb (the -μι/-ω verbs). First, we need to discuss what is the difference between -μαι verbs and -μι/-ω verbs. Then to discuss whether there is a different relationship to the cases in either case - whether case relationships are determined by verbs or if they are what they are in themselves. What we have in Greek are verbs surrounded by elements that are in particular cases and or other function words.Stephen Carlson wrote:I think it is a rather strong claim to deny they exist in Greek, for which I'd like to see a theoretically informed argument and accompanying evidence.
"Transitivity" is a theoretical construct - various verbs and cases are not - they are in the language. There is not way of marking a verb in Greek as transitive, it is just a verb. Of course at a gut-level, "If it has an object it is transitive then it is transitive" is a fair enough argument, but in reading the language, there are seeming sometimes so-called "direct-objects" and sometimes there aren't, and often without apparent logic to it. There is no requirement to add an "it" in many places. It remedy that must be applied to Greek after asserting that there are transitives is to say that the context carries the object when a verb is transitive, but there is no explicit object with it. Arguments to correct a rule are often signs that the rule is not so great.
In the forms of the language, there is a distinction which we are distinction between -μαι verbs and -μι/-ω verbs which we are discussion in parallel to this thread. Here we seem to be discussing the relationship of the verb to the cases. The concepts of "transitivity" and "object" seem to be hand in glove with one another - to have transitivity you must have objects and when you have objects you have transitivity. I would say that both of those concepts don't seem to be in the language. Carl hasn't directly commented on transitivity, but he has questioned "objecthood".
This is not the thread tp discuss them, but we are questioning "deponents" (which I suggest are verbs that are viewed as not being able to function in the context of everything) and "passives" (which I see as a contained context - meaning that nothing gets out - where an input is put into the system from outside). I think it would be better to allow the discussion to mature a little before asking for a proof.
The misnomers "direct" and "object" in the heading of the thread more or less call for a proof, I realise, but if you read through what Carl and I are discussing is not the terminology, but the way we see the language working in itself. I think that is a first on the forum, people who learned Greek through grammar some long time ago, now discussing the language itself, without too much reference to the grammar, just drawing on the impressions and experience of reading many texts over many years. Terminology is a means to describe what is going on. In some cases we are rearranging the terminology and in other cases trying to find better terms. It is a process that will take time.
I think this will be a valuable discussion, there is no need to nip it in the bud.