Anabasis 1.1.1 - Why γίγνονται with genitive?

[jaihare]

Anabasis 1.1.1
Δαρείου καὶ Παρυσάτιδος γίγνονται παῖδες δύο, πρεσβύτερος μὲν Ἀρταξέρξης, νεώτερος δὲ Κῦρος: ἐπεὶ δὲ ἠσθένει Δαρεῖος καὶ ὑπώπτευε τελευτὴν τοῦ βίου, ἐβούλετο τὼ παῖδε ἀμφοτέρω παρεῖναι.

Should I understand Δαρείου καὶ Παρυσάτιδος γίγνονται παῖδες δύο to be essentially the same as Δαρείῳ καὶ Παρυσάτιδι παῖδες δύο εἰσίν/ἦσαν?

Is there a difference between the use of the genitive and the dative in this situation?

Additionally, what reason is there for using γίγνονται instead of εἰσίν/ἦσαν? Is this significant?

χάριν ἔχω τοῖς ὠφελοῦσί μοι ὠφελίαν τινα.

ἔρρωσο,
Ἰάσων τοῦ Ἰωάννου

[modus.irrealis]

The simplest explanation here is that γίγνονται means "are born" and the genitives mean "from/of...". I don't think that in general the genitive of possession can be used in the same way as dative, so basically Δαρείου ἐστί means "it is Darius's" and Δαρείῳ ἐστί means "Darius has..." And in this construction, γίγνονται differs from εἰσί basically as "get" to "have".

[jaihare]

The simplest explanation here is that γίγνονται means "are born" and the genitives mean "from/of...". I don't think that in general the genitive of possession can be used in the same way as dative, so basically Δαρείου ἐστί means "it is Darius's" and Δαρείῳ ἐστί means "Darius has..." And in this construction, γίγνονται differs from εἰσί basically as "get" to "have".

I should have updated it here. In my translation, I wrote:

"Of Darius and Parysatis were born two sons, the older Artaxerxes and the younger Cyrus."

I eventually figured this one out, but I forgot to come back and post.

Is there a separate passive form of γεννάω, by the way?

Thanks for the comment!

Ἰάσων

[modus.irrealis]

Yes, γεννῶ also has the usual passive forms, γεννῶμαι, ἐγεννήθην, and so on.

[jaihare]

Yes, γεννῶ also has the usual passive forms, γεννῶμαι, ἐγεννήθην, and so on.

So would there be a difference if Xenophon had written Δαρείου καὶ Παρυσάτιδος γεννῶνται/ἐγεννήθησαν παῖδες δύο instead of γίγνονται? I mean, should γίγνομαι often be thought of as a passive of γεννάω as well as its own deponent form?

What would cause an author to choose one form over the other?

Thanks!

Jason

[modus.irrealis]

I'd say that strictly speaking γίγνομαι doesn't act as the passive of γεννῶ, since it can't mean "be begotten", but it depends on how you'd interpret "be born". But γεννῶμαι could mean γίγνομαι in the sense of "to be born", but it seems to be a question of period/dialect, with γεννῶμαι replacing γίγνομαι. I can't find γεννῶ (active or passive) used in Homer, and Herodotus has it once with γεννώμενον, but some editions (like the one on Perseus) have γενόμενον, and I believe in the New Testament only γεννῶμαι is used for "to be born" (although this was harder to check so I can't confirm). In terms of meaning, I don't think there would have been a difference.