I think that the simplicity of how Greek 101 explains the middle voice is a good starting point for getting a grip on what that part of grammar, but the Greek verb is treated as overly regimental in its use of the middle voice (especially as a reflexive).  Aristotle weighed in on the matter, and we all know how reverently the literate ancient and medieval world treated his pronouncements.  Middle voice in other languages can be treated and translated in a variety of ways.  The very nature of a verb can dictate how it might be used in the middle voice for different effect than in an active form; and that goes further to say that context will sometimes have to be your guide.




On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Brian M. Scott <BMScott@...> wrote:
 

At 7:41:30 PM on Monday, January 25, 2010,


wyrdplace@... wrote:

> This is taken from an online ancient Greek tutorial, but
> it sums up the difference between active, passive and
> middle verbs, and I believe it applies to Old Norse:

Not really, because the <-sk> form in ON isn't actually a
voice at all in the sense that active and passive are
voices. It's a verbal inflection that has a variety of
functions. Sometimes it's reflexive: <hann nefndisk> 'he
named himself' is equivalent to <hann nefndi sik>, with the
reflexive pronoun. (Indeed, this may be the origin of the
form.) Sometimes it's passive: <þeir fœðizk> 'they are
brought up'. Sometimes it's reciprocal: <bítask> 'bite each
other'. Sometimes it significantly changes the meaning of
the verb: <gera> 'to make, to do', but <gerask> 'to become'.
(This may have developed from a reflexive sense, 'to make
oneself (into)' or the like, but the meaning is much more
general than that.) There are even some verbs that have
*only* an <-sk> form, like <óttask> 'to fear'. As Michael
Barnes says, it's probably best to treat <-sk> forms as
separate verbs, at least when you're starting.

Brian