Textkit Logo

plup. of φέρω

Here's where you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

plup. of φέρω

Postby NateD26 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:14 am

What was the accepted form for pluperfect of φέρω?
We have 2nd perfect ἐνήνοχα. But I cannot find anywhere ἐνηνόχη or ἠνηνόχη for plup.
I was able to find the later personal endings: ἐνηνόχεις, ἐνηνόχει but ἠνηνόχειν.

Thanks.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: plup. of φέρω

Postby modus.irrealis » Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:12 pm

I searched as well and couldn't find any forms, so the answer to your question is that nobody can know for sure. That's the problem with rarer forms -- in fact I've read that there's not a single Greek verb that's attested in all its forms and I searched for pluperfect forms of λύω, one of the usual textbooks verbs and only found ἐλελύκει.

About the augment I believe it would be ἐνηνόχη. You can check out Smyth 444 - 446 and see if you understand it better than I do, but that's the impression I get.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: plup. of φέρω

Postby NateD26 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:21 pm

Many thanks, modus. From those sections and section 529, it seems you were right and that it should be ἐνηνόχη, by "Attic" reduplication
plus vowel gradation in the second perfect to ο (and in the aorist syncope). Can you please explain why is it χ and not κ? if the stem already
ends in kappa, what prompted a morphological change to xi?
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: plup. of φέρω

Postby modus.irrealis » Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:07 pm

NateD26 wrote:Can you please explain why is it χ and not κ? if the stem already ends in kappa, what prompted a morphological change to xi?

These "aspirated perfects" are of the unresolved issues in the history of Greek and as far as I know there's no widely accepted explanation for where they came from.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: plup. of φέρω

Postby Markos » Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:57 pm

Modus wrote:

These "aspirated perfects" are of the unresolved issues in the history of Greek and as far as I know there's no widely accepted explanation for where they came from.


χαιρετε φιλοι.

How about, "formed on analogy with the aorist passive?" :D
I am writing in Ancient Greek not because I know Greek well, but because I hope that it will improve my fluency in reading. I got the idea for this from Adrianus over on the Latin forum here at Textkit.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: plup. of φέρω

Postby NateD26 » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:28 am

Markos wrote:χαιρετε φιλοι.

How about, "formed on analogy with the aorist passive?" :D

χαῖρε, ὦ Μᾶρκε. That may very well be a possibility.
I was wondering if there was any difference in meaning between the 1st Aor. ἤνεγκα and the 2nd Aor. ἤνεγκον.
Smyth doesn't say much other than listing these two forms. LSJ, however, has a long morphology section
listing the different roots used in Attic, Ionic, etc. and he referenced the forms that were commonly used for the aorist.
2sg. always “ἤνεγκας” [but theoretically, when I create a table, if I chose to use 2nd aor., it's ok to put ἤνεγκες, right?]
pl. always ἠνέγκαμεν, -ατε, -αν [same as above?]

2 sets of Aorist conjugations mean throughout incl. inf./part./subj./opt./imp., correct?
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: plup. of φέρω

Postby modus.irrealis » Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:22 am

NateD26 wrote:I was wondering if there was any difference in meaning between the 1st Aor. ἤνεγκα and the 2nd Aor. ἤνεγκον.

I'm very confident in saying no. In those cases where alternate forms have a difference in meaning (e.g. πέποιθα vs. πέπεικα) it's always explicitly mentioned in the entry.

[but theoretically, when I create a table, if I chose to use 2nd aor., it's ok to put ἤνεγκες, right?]

I searched the TLG and there are two (late) attestations of ἤνεγκες so I don't think it can be considered wrong.

2 sets of Aorist conjugations mean throughout incl. inf./part./subj./opt./imp., correct?

In theory, yes. But Ancient Greek wouldn't be different from modern languages, so I'd assume that some forms would be preferred -- and probably in a way that's hard to predict.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto


Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests