# Ancient greek: ὁ φύς



## Michael Zwingli

LSJ says that _ὁ φύς _= "the son", but I am having some trouble with that meaning as a result of the substantivization. It is clear how _ὁ φύσας_ may = "the father", since it is from the first aorist *active *masculine μετοχή of _φῠ́ω_, meaning that when substantivized, the resulting substantive naturally becomes the _agent of the verbal action_ in the active voice. The proposition that _ὁ φύς _= "the son", however, is difficult to conceive. _Φύς _is the second aorist *active* masculine μετοχή of _φῠ́ω_, so one would expect that the resulting substantive should naturally become the _agent of the verbal action_ in the active voice. A "son", however, is not the agent noun associated with the action of begetting/producing, but rather a _result noun_, the receiver of the verbal action, associated therewith. Since the noun "son" does represent in relation to the action of "begetting" a result noun, I cannot understand how it can arise as a result of the substantivization of a μετοχή in the active voice; it seems to me that only an aorist mediopassive μετοχή might be substantivized to represent a result noun. This is why I cannot understand how _ὁ φύς_ can mean "the son" rather than "the father" as with the first aorist substantivization. The only thing that I can think might result such a nominalization would be some essential difference in the way the *first aorist* and *second aorist* μετοχᾱ́ were interpreted in Ancient Greek. My question is, is there such a difference in interpretation/meaning between the first and second aorist μετοχᾱ́ as might account for this seeming anomaly? If not, then what might underlie the seemingly incongruous substantivization of 2nd aor *act *mas part _φύς _into a *result *noun? Thank you.


----------



## Perseas

Michael Zwingli said:


> _Φύς _is the second aorist *active* masculine μετοχή of _φῠ́ω_,


Φύς is passive.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

Perseas said:


> Φύς is passive.


Yes, Perseas, it is passive in meaning even though it seems to be an active participle, the second aorist of_ φῠ́ω_ seeming to lack passive participles as I understand it. I have just discovered that the second aorist often assumed special, paticular, and often divergent meanings which differ from the meanings of the active and first aorist tenses, and that in the case of _φῠ́ω_ that special meaning reflects more closely the meaning of the IE root *_bʰuh_₂-, which was somewhat more passive in nature than the meaning of _φῠ́ω. _As I understand the matter, it is from the particular, divergent meaning of the entire_ φῠ́ω_ second aorist that _Φύς_ derives it's meaning, rather than from its being a mediopassive participle. I had not been aware of this characteristic the second aorist before now. Apparently, the meanings attached to the second aorist, for verbs that have one, must be investigated independently on a case-by-case basis, as I understand the matter. I hope that I'm correct in so thinking.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Michael Zwingli said:


> in the case of _φῠ́ω_  special meaning reflects more closely the meaning of the IE root *_bʰuh_₂-, which was somewhat more passive in nature than the meaning of _φῠ́ω_.



It seems to me that _ἒφυν_ and_ φύς _have a passive meaning, because _ἒφυν _is intransitive. The aorists 2 ending in -ην ( βάινω/ἒϐην ), -υν (  δύομαι /ἒδυν ), -ων (  βιόω /ἐϐίων ) are mostly intransitive. So _ἒφυν _means _I grew, I sprang up,  I was born  ..._ and the nominalized participle ὁ _φύς = the son ( _at least, in Classical Greek_ ). _By transitiving the verb  other forms  ( _φύω, ἒφυσα and _the other active forms_ ) _change its meaning in expressing causation ( "to make to grow"... ).


Michael Zwingli said:


> . Apparently, the meanings attached to the second aorist, for verbs that have one, must be investigated independently on a case-by-case basis, as I understand the matter. I hope that I'm correct in so thinking.


Right.

 I think  _φύω _can be compared with the verbs _βάινω _and _ ἳστημι _with two aorists and the same relation between their meaning as _ἒφυν/ἒφυσα :_
 Βάινω : aor 2 intr._ ἒϐην , I walked ;  _aor1 tr._ ἔϐησα , "I made to walk._
 Ἳστημι : aor2 intr. _ἔστην , I stood ; _aor.1 tr.  _ ἔστησα ,  "I made to stand"_ .

Instead , aor.1 _ἔφθασα_ and  _aor. 2_ ἔφθην, from φθάνω, seem to be used indifferently with the same meaning.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

J.F. de TROYES said:


> It seems to me that _ἒφυν_ and_ φύς _have a passive meaning, because _ἒφυν _is intransitive. The aorists 2 ending in -ην ( βάινω/ἒϐην ), -υν ( δύομαι /ἒδυν ), -ων ( βιόω /ἐϐίων ) are mostly intransitive.


Yes...why, yes! I had not even taken transitivity into account, and it is the key to understanding this, the missing piece of my puzzle. Thank you very much! Like Johanson and Taieb did in discovering "Lucy" in the Ethiopian desert, you have supplied the missing link!


----------



## ioanell

J.F. de TROYES said:


> It seems to me that _ἒφυν_ and_ φύς _have a passive meaning, because _ἒφυν _is intransitive.





Michael Zwingli said:


> I had not even taken transitivity into account, and it is the key to understanding this, the missing piece of my puzzle.


I think we should reverse it all and say *ἒφυν* is intransitive, because it has a passive meaning; that’s why it is intransitive; being sth intransitive doesn’t make it passive on its own.



Michael Zwingli said:


> Apparently, the meanings attached to the second aorist, for verbs that have one, must be investigated independently on a case-by-case basis, as I understand the matter. I hope that I'm correct in so thinking.


Correct.

Some of these second aorists belong not to the active but to the medium voice and this is the method they are quoted in the dictionaries, e.g. active φύω,…/ medium [and pass.]: φύομαι, …, active aorist β΄ with mediopassive sense *ἔφυν* (=έγεννήθην [γεννήθηκα]=I was born) > part. *φὺς* (=γεννηθείς [υἱὸς]=born [son]) . The same applies to (δύομαι>) *ἔδυν *(=βυθίστηκα=I sank), active aorist β΄ with a med. sense, and to (ἵσταμαι>) *ἔστην *(=στάθηκα=I stood / στήθηκα (από κάποιον άλλον)=I was made to stand), with a med. and pass. sense.

Others belong to the active voice, like *ἔβην *(=βάδισα, πορεύθηκα, πήγα=I walked / I went). This is intransitive (as intransitive is the present βαίνω), although there are cases (poet.) when it is used kind of transitive, e.g. χρέος ἔβα *με *(=debts came on me) or ὀδύνα *μ’* ὀδύνα βαίνει (=a pain, a pain is coming on me).



J.F. de TROYES said:


> Instead , aor.1 _ἔφθασα_ and _aor. 2_ ἔφθην, from φθάνω, seem to be used indifferently with the same meaning.


This is correct.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ioanell said:


> I think we should reverse it all and say *ἒφυν* is intransitive, because it has a passive meaning; that’s why it is intransitive; being sth intransitive doesn’t make it passive on its own.


This is a very curious circumstance to assess; the unique relationship between transitivity and voice in verbs is at the center of this. It is clear that _ἒφυν_ is able to have a _passive meaning_ in English translation but does this mean that it is passive as a verb tense...that it has essential passive meanings? I think not, since _ἒφυν_ seems able to represent the transitive meanings of _φῠ́ω_ in the passive voice, as well as the intransitive meanings of _φῠ́ω_ in the active voice, in contrast to aorist 1 _ἔφῡσᾰ_, where both the transitive and intransitive meanings of _φῠ́ω_ may be expressed in the active voice. I feel, as @J.F. de TROYES has indicated, that this is because _ἔφῡσᾰ_ expresses causation while _ἒφυν_ does not.

What I am not certain of, is whether English translations using the passive voice are mere equivalencies of an essentially active-intransitive verb form. I note that  _ἒφυν_ has no mediopassive infinitive or participles, but only active. What is the significance of this?  It leads me to believe that _ἒφυν_ wil reflect both the transitive and intransitive senses of _φῠ́ω_, but that the participles thereof reflect meanings that are essentially active-intransitive in nature. (With your much greater understanding of the semantics of the Greek, perhaps you will verify the foregoing?) Might it even be said that _ἒφυν_ is in essence an active-intransitive verb tense? I would like to know how Greek grammarians have always thought about this.

As I comprehend the matter, the intransitive aorist 2 of _φῠ́ω_ can be translated into English using either the active voice of intransitive verbs such as "to arise", "to become", "to grow"; or using the passive voice of transitive verbs such as "to be made", "to be produced", "to be caused to exist", and (in the human context) "to be begotten", "to be born". You seem to be saying that the second aorist of _φῠ́ω _essentially expresses the transitive meanings of the present tense, but in the passive voice, and that English translations using intransitive verbs in the active voice merely represent _equivalencies_. Would that be correct in your view? In other words, are the essentail meanings of _ἒφυν_ the active-intransitive ones ("to arise", "to become", "to grow"), or rather the passive-transitive ones ("to be made", "to be produced", "to be begotten", "to be born"), or indeed, both of those?


----------



## ioanell

Michael Zwingli said:


> This is a very curious circumstance to assess


I think you shouldn’t have got puzzled so much.



Michael Zwingli said:


> It is clear that _ἒφυν_ is able to have a _passive meaning_ in English translation but does this mean that it is passive as a verb tense...that it has essential passive meanings? I think not


Regarding its morphology and conjugation it belongs to the active voice, regarding its mood/disposition it is passive. Ιt only has a passive meaning, since it means “ἐγεννήθην”.



Michael Zwingli said:


> _ἔφῡσᾰ_ expresses causation while _ἒφυν_ does not.


That’s right. The medium and the passive voice have to do with the morphology of the verb when it ends in -ομαι. To be more precise we must talk about the passive mood/disposition which in most cases coincides with the voice. So, the medium voice of φύω is φύομαι. When referring to flora, it means "I grow, I develop, I become", when referring to people, it has a passive mood/disposition (in this case also called passive voice) meaning "I am born, I descend from", and as such is intransitive. Consequently, we can’t talk about “transitive meanings of _φῠ́ω_ in the passive voice”. In the same way, we can’t talk about “intransitive meanings of _φῠ́ω_ in the active voice” as φύω (active voice / active mood) is always transitive (the sense of causation included).



Michael Zwingli said:


> I note that _ἒφυν_ has no mediopassive infinitive or participles, but only active.


As long as ἔφυν is active in form, it goes without saying that its infinitive φῦναι and its participle φὺς are also in active form.



Michael Zwingli said:


> Might it even be said that _ἒφυν_ is in essence an active-intransitive verb tense? I would like to know how Greek grammarians have always thought about this.


But, I think we have already talked about this.

Note that this β’ aorist *ἔφυν* and present perfect *πέφυκα* (in the sense of “I am by nature”), both belonging to the passive voice φύομαι, are used as linking verbs, connecting the subject with a predicate noun or adjective, e.g. [_ἐγὼ_] …*ἔφυν ἀμήχανος* (Soph. Ant. 79) or [_οἱ βασανιζόμενοι_] …*πεφύκασι κακονούστατοι (*Lys. On the Olive Stump, 7 35).

Moreover, you can have a look                                                        

1. at the very interesting note in the R. Beekes' Dictionary: _The whole verbal system is built on the primary intransitive aorist φῦναι, ἔφυν. As an innovation, the factitive sigmatic aorist φῦσαι, ἔφυσα arose after ἔστην : ἔστησα, ἔβην : ἔβησα, ἔδυν : ἔδυσα, etc. Then, the presentic and future forms φύομαι, φύω, φύσομαι, φύσω followed._

2. LSJ, A Greek-English Lexicon: Pass. φύομαι , with intr. tenses of Act., aor. 2, pf. and plpf.

P.S.: I believe I have nothing more to offer to this thread.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ioanell said:


> I believe I have nothing more to offer to this thread.


Thank you for your help, Ioanell. Your contributions have been a great help. I feel that I am getting close to being able to enunciate how _ἔφυν_ accrues the meanings that it does (half of my problem arises from a deficit in understanding English and Indo-European grammar in general...should have paid more attention to that in school).


----------



## berndf

J.F. de TROYES said:


> It seems to me that _ἒφυν_ and_ φύς _have a passive meaning, because _ἒφυν _is intransitive.


Looking at the cognates in other languages, I'd look at it differently: The intransitive meaning is active ("active" is probably a  misnomer for intransitive verbs but for the purpose of conjugation patterns, they can be called so) and the original meaning, while the transitive verb is a causative derivation. Incidentally, the same happened to the English verb _grow_:
_The plant grows_ (base verb)
_The gardener grows the plant_ (causative derivation).

Based on this _the son < the offspring < the one who grew [in his mother's womb] _seems a logical development to me.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

berndf said:


> The intransitive meaning is active ("active" is probably a misnomer for intransitive verbs but for the purpose of conjugation patterns, they can be called so) and the original meaning, while the transitive verb is a causative derivation.


I suspect that the aorist 2 in this case preserves...no, not "preserves" as much as "resurrects"...the meanings associated with the presumed IE root *_bʰuh_₂-, which were essentially intransitive ("to appear/arise", "to become", etc.), after _φῠ́ω_ developed a rather more transitive set of meanings. What might instigate such a development is beyond my power to imagine.


----------



## berndf

Michael Zwingli said:


> What might instigate such a development is beyond my power to imagine.


Well, I find it so strange. English has quite a few spontaneous causative derivations, like_ run - run something_,_ grow - grow something_. And then there are inherited verb pairs from Proto-Germanic, which had a regular causative derivation pattern, which has decayed in the meantime, and modern speakers don't realise any more they originally were distinct verbs, like _hang-hung-hung _and _hang-hanged-hanged_, where the latter form, originally a causative derivation, has assumed a special meaning (_to kill by hanging_) while the former, originally intransitive, form is now used with transitive (causative) and intransitive meanings.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

berndf said:


> Well, I find it so strange. English has quite a few spontaneous causative derivations...


Yes, of course. I guess what is perplexing me now, is why a first (_ἔφῡσᾰ_) and a second (_ἒφυν_) aorist would be effected for an allotment of transitive and intransitive meanings of _φῠ́ω,_ respectively. Other than in the substantivization of participles, it would not seem to matter if all the meanings of _φῠ́ω,_ were lumped into one aorist tense...or, would it? I am obviously missing something.


----------



## berndf

Michael Zwingli said:


> Yes, of course. I guess what is perplexing me now, is why a first (_ἔφῡσᾰ_) and a second (_ἒφυν_) aorist would be effected for an allotment of transitive and intransitive meanings of _φῠ́ω,_ respectively. Other than in the substantivization of participles, it would not seem to matter if all the meanings of _φῠ́ω,_ were lumped into one aorist tense...or, would it? I am obviously missing something.


If a verb has both forms, the first aorist usually applies to transitive and the second to intransitive meanings.

It might be something similar to what we find in with Germanic languages, where causative forms follow weak conjugation patterns, while the base forms are strong, like the aforementioned verb pair _hang-hung-hung* _and _hang-hanged-hanged** _(ignoring the modern shift in meaning), a reflex of two different verbs that later merged in the present stem. Usually, strong verbs are more ancient (inherited for PIE) than weak verbs (usually derived verbs) and that is why causative verbs are weak.
____________________
* from the Old English intransitive verb _hon_
** from Old English transitive verb _hangian_


----------

