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.