The Greek Verbal Network Viewed from a Probabilistic Standpoint 21 be distributionally more frequent, on the basis of distributional, mor- phological, implicational and semantic criteria 71. System 4: In the REMOTENESS system (see above), the ±remote opposition, realized in imperfect/pluperfect or present/perfect tense-forms, was predicted to be skewed, with the +remote term to be distributionally more frequent, on the basis of distributional, morphological, implicational and semantic criteria. System 5: In the CAUSALITY system, we were unable to decide whether the ±active opposition, realized in the active and non-active voice verb forms, would be equiprobable or skewed. We were aware of other distributional figures 72, but considering a variety of factors, such as origins of the forms and semantic relations, we were unsure whether what was clearly a larger number of active voice forms was large enough to indicate skewed probabilities 73. System 6: The +passive/+ergative opposition, realized in the passive and middle voice verb forms, was at first predicted to be skewed, but recent work on the concept of ergati- vity and voice for another project has caused us to believe that this system may be closer to equiprobable than we first thought 74. System 7: In the FINITENESS system, with the ±finite opposition, realized in ver- bal forms limited by person, it was not possible to predict whether the terms would be equiprobable or skewed 75. System 8: The ±factively pre- suppositional opposition, realized in the participle and infinitive verbal forms, was predicted to be skewed, on the basis of rudimentary distri- butional analysis 76. What we predicted for the skewed probabilities runs counter to the semantic markedness and labelling conventions. System 9: In the NUMBER system, the ±singular opposition, realized in 71 Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 89-90, 245-51. 72 See Reed, Discourse Analysis of Philippians, p. 115. 73 Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 10-11; idem, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, pp. 62-70. 74 See Reed, Discourse Analysis of Philippians, p. 115. As noted above, it is hoped that this work will result in a monograph on voice by Porter. On the concept of ergativity as it is being used here, see M.A.K. Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar (London: Edward Arnold, 2nd edn, 1994), pp. 161-75; K. Davidse, «Transitivity/Ergativity: The Janus-Headed Grammar of Actions and Events», in M. Davies and L. Ravelli (eds.), Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice (London: Pinter, 1992), pp. 105-35; M.B. O’Donnell, «Some New Testament Words for Resurrection and the Company They Keep», in S.E. Porter, M.A. Hayes and D. Tombs (eds.), Resurrection ( JSNTSup, 186; RILP, 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp. 136-63, esp. pp. 154-61; cf. P.J. Hopper and S.A. Thompson, «Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse», Language 56 (1980), pp. 251-99. 75 Porter, Verbal Aspect, p. 94. 76 See Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 390-91, with reference especially to D. Lightfoot, Natural Logic and the Greek Moods: The Nature of the Subjunctive and Optative in Classical Greek ( Janua Linguarum, Series Practica, 230; The Hague: Mouton, 1975); G. Horrocks, «Review of Lightfoot, Natural Logic», Linguistics 185 (1977), pp. 68-83; D.D. Schmidt, «The Study of Hellenistic Greek Grammar in the Light of Contemporary Linguistics», Perspectives on Religious Studies 11 (1984), pp. 27-38; G. de Boel, «Aspekt, Aktionsart und Transitivität», Indogermanische Forschungen 92 (1987), pp. 33-57.