# Ancient Greek:  φύτωρ



## Michael Zwingli

This appears to mean "father". Does the meaning differ from that of _πᾰτήρ_ (which has the etymological meaning of "protector")? If so, how? This seems to obviously derive from verb _φῠ́ω_, which primarily means "generate", "produce". Can _φύτωρ, _then, also mean "progenitor", "forefather", or even "patriarch"? How broad is the semantic field of _φύτωρ_? I ask this, because from an etymological perspective, _φύτωρ _seems to be a direct synonym of _γενέτωρ_*/*_γενέτης._ Finally, can _φύτορ_ be considered to be an "alternate form" of _φύτωρ_ (I saw _φύτορ_ online while searching for info about this)?


----------



## ianis

In the Greek school book -τωρ appears as an ending for substantives that are produced from verbs and express the person who acts, ex. πράκτωρ < πράττω.


----------



## ianis

Derived from φύω φύτωρ should mean the one that brings forth, produces, thus the father.
The μετοχή of the verb is also used to mean father, according to LSJ, ὁ φύσας, or parents, οἱ φύσαντες.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ianis said:


> In the Greek school book -τωρ appears as an ending for substantives that are produced from verbs and express the person who acts, ex. πράκτωρ < πράττω.


Yes, an "agent noun" producing suffix, this was "-_tor_" in Latin, as in "_victor_" (< _vinco_ "to win" + -_tor_, agent noun suffix, = "he that wins").


ianis said:


> Derived from φύω φύτωρ should mean the one that brings forth, produces, thus the father.


What is interesting to me in this is that it inherently defines "the father" as "begetter" ("he that begets"/"producer" (he that produces"), rather than as "protector", as in Greek _πᾰτήρ_ and Latin _pater_. I still wonder if the semantic field of _φύτωρ_ includes any meanings to reflect that nuance, as suggested above, or not.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ianis said:


> The μετοχή of the verb is also used to mean father, according to LSJ, ὁ φύσας, or parents, οἱ φύσαντες.


Not that I'm questioning this, but I really can't understand that grammatically. How can a present active partciple (or, would this represent a past active participle, being aorist?? I don't know) represent an _agent_ noun, as opposed to a _verbal_ noun?


----------



## ianis

Michael Zwingli said:


> Not that I'm questioning this, but I really can't understand that grammatically. How can a present active partciple (or, would this represent a past active participle, being aorist?? I don't know) represent an _agent_ noun, as opposed to a _verbal_ noun?


φύσας is metohí aorist, about the grammar issues don't know. I assume from the definition of aorist it is someone who performed or performs the action in a point in time. From a point of view of logic it makes sense.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ianis said:


> I assume from the definition of aorist it is someone who performed or performs the action in a point in time. From a point of view of logic it makes sense.


I agree...I think I agree...umm...(there are a lot of moving parts contributing to the semantics of that) 😉


----------



## ianis

I'm completely out of my league discussing grammar and usually try to stay away from it as much as possible and stick only to the indispensable for comprehension, but besides being a verb the μετοχή also works as an adjective, there are adjectives who work as nouns.


----------



## ianis

BTW, if that's what is confusing you, they are declined and have to agree in number, gender and case with the subject.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ianis said:


> ...besides being a verb the μετοχή also works as an adjective, there are adjectives who work as nouns.


Yes, é claro! All participles share duties as verbs, adjectives, and nouns, but _verbal nouns_ in particular...similar to gerunds. An agent noun, however has quite a different relationship to it's verb from a verbal noun, and I can't quite wrap my head around how the participle can be thusly used.

Must be getting late over there. Hope it hasn't been too hot there in Portugal. I understand England has been having unprecedented heat this summer. Good night to you.


----------



## ianis

Michael Zwingli said:


> Yes, é claro! All participles share duties as verbs, adjectives, and nouns, but _verbal nouns_ in particular...similar to gerunds. An agent noun, however has quite a different relationship to it's verb from a verbal noun, and I can't quite wrap my head around how the participle can be thusly used.
> 
> Must be getting late over there. Hope it hasn't been too hot there in Portugal. I understand England has been having unprecedented heat this summer. Good night to you.


First of all I must apologize for systematically using the Greek terms but I don't know how most of these things are called in English, nor in my own language.

To me it doesn't make a lot of confusion since both adjectives and verbs can be used as nouns. I don't think there is something quite exactly as the ancient μετοχή in English or Portuguese, not even in modern Greek, since it is a verb but also has gender and can be declined. Don't know how ancient Greek speakers were perceiving it though. There is a Greek teacher who posts lessons in Youtube and she often mentions the importance of an "experiential relation" with ancient Greek language. I imagine through it one may eventually come to understand better these things.

A bit, thanks for your concern.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ianis said:


> I don't think there is something quite exactly as the ancient μετοχή in English or Portuguese, not even in modern Greek, since it is a verb but also has gender and can be declined...


Hello, good morning.
Though it differs a bit by the inclusion of grammatical gender, the "μετοχή" seems simply to be the "participle" in English, "o participio" in Portuguese, and "participium" in Latin. Indeed, all these terms mean the same... "that which takes a part"; _μετοχή_ derives from the verb _μετέχω_ which means "to take a part (in), to participate (in)". I started a new thread (here: φῡ́σᾱς) to gain a better idea of the meaning of these _μετοχαί_, and have had a very telling answer already, which seems to indicate that the aorist active _μετοχή_ is the grammatical equivalent of the Latin perfect active _participium_, and the aorist middle/mediopassive _μετοχή_ the equivalent of the Latin perfect passive _participium_. Don't know if you've studied Latin at all, but for myself, establishing these equivalencies seems to make understanding the different types of _μετοχαί_ much easier.


----------



## ianis

Michael Zwingli said:


> Hello, good morning.
> Though it differs a bit by the inclusion of grammatical gender, the "μετοχή" seems simply to be the "participle" in English, "o participio" in Portuguese, and "participium" in Latin. I started a new thread to gain a better idea of the meaning of these _μετοχαί_, and have had a very telling answer already, which seems to indicate that the aorist active _μετοχή_ is the grammatical equivalent of the Latin perfect active _participium_, and the aorist middle/mediopassive _μετοχή_ the equivalent of the Latin perfect passive _participium_. Don't know if you've studied Latin at all, but for myself, establishing these equivalencies seems to make understanding the different types of _μετοχαί_ much easier.


Thank you, then what I wrote above is wrong since the Portuguese particípio also has gender and number, it is not declined but there are no declined cases in Portuguese. I also understand now your difficulty in drawing a correspondence, ignorance can be a blessing sometimes.

Never learned Latin.


----------



## ianis

Looking better at the Portuguese particípio passado, and assuming I'm understanding things right, I very easily confuse these things, it doesn't look that strange after all. We often say of a man who sells himself that he is a "vendido", or as a noun o vendido, the same for o desejado, the desired one, and there was a famous soap opera called "O Bem-amado", "the well-loved".


----------



## ianis

One thing I'm noticing is that, unlike  ὁ φύσας, in Portuguese it seems the past participles commonly used as nouns only describe the person suffering the action, that is the one that was loved, desired, disgraced, etc.
Also in modern Greek, as far as I know, unlike ancient Greek, only the passive form can be declined and has gender.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ianis said:


> One thing I'm noticing is that, unlike  ὁ φύσας, in Portuguese it seems the past participles commonly used as nouns only describe the person suffering the action, that is the one that was loved, desired, disgraced, etc.
> Also in modern Greek, as far as I know, unlike ancient Greek, only the passive form can be declined and has gender.


Yes, with a clear reason to one who has studied Latin. That grammatical ancestor of Portuguese did not use _past_ active participles (that I can think of)...only _present_ active ones in -_ns_ (e.g. _vincens_, "conquering", "winning"). The only "past tense" participles in Latin are the perfect passive ones in -_tus_ _(victus_, "conquered", "beaten"), which is why, as you say, "...in Portuguese it seems the past participles commonly used as nouns only describe the person _(the passive object)_ suffering the action..." In fact, the present active and perfect passive participles account for about 90+% of participlar derivation in Latin. I first studied Latin, so when I encountered _past *active*_ participles in Ancient Greek, I first found them a bit hard to grasp. They definitely appear somehow more nominal (and somehow less adjectival) in nature to me than other participles; I think that this appears so because of the addition of grammatical gender to their conjugation. At least, that's how they appear to me at present.


----------



## Αγγελος

Forget about Latin or Portuguese. The ancient Greek participial system is completely symmetric.
Active present: ὁ γράφων = he who writes, the writer
Active future: ὁ γράψων = he who will write
Active past (aorist): ὁ γράψας = he who wrote
Active perfect: ὁ γεγραφώς = he who has written
Passive present: ὁ γραφόμενος = he who is being written
Passive future: ὁ γραφησόμενος = he who will be written
Passive past (aorist): ὁ γραφείς = he who was written
Passive perfect: ὁ γεγραμμένος = he who has been written
(Let us ignore for the moment the complication of 'middle' future and aorist.)
In modern English (and most modern European languages), there is only a present participle, which is active, and a "past participle', which is passive in meaning. Latin was like that, too, except that it also had a future active participle. Russian, I think, has an active past participle, mostly used in the written language.
In modern Greek, too, only the present active _adverbial _participle (γράφοντας = in/by/while writing) and the past passive participle (γραμμένος) are really alive, but the present passive participle is also in common use (sometimes even with verbs that don't have a passive voice, such as τρεχούμενο νερό = running water), and the adjectival present active as well as the active and passive aorist participles are also used, mostly in set expressions, such as:

ο γράφων = the present writer
ο υπογράφων = the undersigned
o πρώτος διδάξας = the initiator (of a doctrine)
η διδαχθείσα ύλη = the material actually taught (as opposed to 
η διδακτέα ύλη, the material supposed to be taught)
οι επιζώντες or οι επιζήσαντες = the survivors
το ανακοινωθέν = the communiqué
ο εις μίαν μόνην ώραν την γην παίξας, την γην χάσας
εις του Βατερλώ την χώραν (=Napoleon)
etc.


----------

