o(ra/w or ei)/dw

[Bert]

The aorist active for [face=SPIonic]o(ra/w[/face] and for [face=SPIonic]ei)/dw [/face]is listed as [face=SPIonic]ei)=don[/face].
Looking at the stems I would think that [face=SPIonic]ei)=don[/face] belongs to [face=SPIonic]ei)/dw[/face].

I don't think [face=SPIonic]ei)/dw [/face]occurs in NT Greek so it makes sence that the Koine grammars list this form under [face=SPIonic]o(ra/w[/face] but why is it listed for [face=SPIonic]o(ra/w[/face] in Classical Greek also, instead of just leaving a blank?

[chad]

hi bert, that's interesting, looking through lsj it looks like there isn't a present active [face=SPIonic]ei1dw[/face] (it's an assumed form, based on other tenses of the verb).

the aorist 2 of that "assumed" verb serves as aorist to [face=SPIonic]o(ra&w[/face].

so the verbs are locked together. if they left it blank that might not be obvious, and in particular it'd make greek composition harder, if you were trying to track down the aorist of [face=SPIonic]o(ra&w[/face].

this lsj link explains more:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... 3D%2330876

cheers, chad.

[Emma_85]

so the verbs are locked together. if they left it blank that might not be obvious, and in particular it'd make greek composition harder, if you were trying to track down the aorist of o(ra&w

How that? If you had forgotten the aorist of horaw you would look it up in an aorist table wouldn't you?

Anyway... I've often wondered at horaw's forms too. Thanks for this link... I love reading the etymology bits, because my dictionary doesn't have anything about the etymology of words in it at all...

[Bert]

Thanks.