γέγονα and γεγένημαι
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 pm
γέγονα and γεγένημαι
is there a clear difference and if so what?
- seneca2008
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2006
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
- Location: Londinium
Re: γέγονα and γεγένημαι
My Brill dictionary says that the perfect active is usually used in the sense "to be born" (to have been born) and cites passages from Homer to Aristophanes. It then gives the sense "to be created" (Clem.) which uses the perfect middle participle.
Does your question have a context?
Does your question have a context?
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4790
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: γέγονα and γεγένημαι
It's tricky. While they both function as the perfect of γίγνομαι, there are a number of variables controlling usage: chronological, dialectal, generic, stylistic, semantic.
γεγένημαι tends to be used absolutely, in the sense either “has come into being” or else “happened in the past and is now over” (e.g. “the past” is τα γεγενημένα).
γέγονα more likely with predicate, “I have become” (a god, depressed, whatever), or absolutely, “(something) has happened.”
Or that’s my off-the-cuff rough sense of it.
γεγένημαι tends to be used absolutely, in the sense either “has come into being” or else “happened in the past and is now over” (e.g. “the past” is τα γεγενημένα).
γέγονα more likely with predicate, “I have become” (a god, depressed, whatever), or absolutely, “(something) has happened.”
Or that’s my off-the-cuff rough sense of it.