Is δεικνύς a present participle? Has it basically got the same form of ὑπεκδύς which is an aorist participle.
Yes, the form δεικνύς is a present participle, but has the same form as δύς. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll see δύς, the aorist participle of δύω, subsumed under the same paradigm.
δύω has a thematic
present stem, but an athematic
second aorist stem.
δείκνυμι, in contrast, has an athematic
present stem, formed by adding the suffix -νυ- -- which often takes athematic endings -- to the root δεικ-, but has a sigmatic
first aorist, ἔδειξα. There are other verbs that follow this pattern: present stem in -νυμι and sigmatic aorist.
Many Greek verbs mix and match stems like this. You might look at Smyth
The athematic verbs [σ]ἵστημι, τίθημι and δίδωμι distinguish the present and aorist stems by reduplication (with the vowel -ι-, as opposed to reduplicated perfects with the vowel -ε-). Apart from the reduplication, the present and aorist participles and infinitives of these verbs are alike.
* * *
Some people feel this sort of information is useless, noting that native speakers of ancient Greek would not have been able to explain the underlying morphological patterns of these forms--they would have internalized the forms and would have been able to spit them out automatically in conversation and recognize them in speech or writing without thinking. Personally, however, I have to admit that I'm not a native speaker of ancient Greek, and I find this sort of information about the regularities underlying the irregularities very useful in reading ancient Greek texts. In addition to its intrinsic
interest for me as a student of the Greek language, this information helps me recognize strange forms when I encounter them in writing, and it's comforting to know that there are indeed patterns that can explain the apparent irregularities.
The print, hard-bound version of Smyth published by the Harvard University Press (2d ed., revised by Gordon M. Messing and published in 1956; my copy is dated 1959) has a very thorough discussion of the patterns of Greek verbs that makes some sense out of what seems like random irregularities. The on-line version of Smith (as well as some of the editions offered for sale on-line) is based on an earlier edition that is less helpful on these points. The sections on the verbs (106-224) are rough going, but if you can make it through--if only by skimming--you will have a much better grasp of Greek verbal morphology, and you won't find it so perplexing.
The Herodotus passage is from the story of Gyges, isn't it? Candaules got what he deserved--he should never have done that to his wife. This is one of the stories that makes Herodotus so entertaining!