Scribo wrote:You're missing something sure but I'd hardly say it ought to be obvious. Yes it is a participle and it's exactly the same as some other aorist participles e.g φύω > ἔ-φυν > φύς, φῦσα, φύν. You should recognise say, erm, στάς < ἵστημι or βάς from βαίνω as common examples of a similar phenomenon.
Basically, its because its formed from a different type of aorist. I tend to refer to it as "strong" but some textbooks and grammars use the term "second". Its basically the ending smacked onto the stem. No thematic vowels or anything just right up in there.
Does that help?
Qimmik wrote:Confirming Scribo's explanation, here's a link to Smyth sec. 418:
Qimmik wrote:The root of δύω/δύομαι is of course δυ-. The second aorist of this verb and its compounds generally behaves like an athematic verb, adding the inflectional endings directly to the root--although, as with all too many Greek verbs, LSJ reports a bewildering proliferation of forms.
Is δεικνύς a present participle? Has it basically got the same form of ὑπεκδύς which is an aorist participle.
Qimmik wrote: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.
Qimmik wrote: 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.
I am sure that Classical Athens children did not learn to speak by having Sophocles read to them. . . . The catch 22 is that though these forms are individually rare there are so many of them that you encounter one or other quite often so reading gets slowed down.
I do think that trying to absorb this kind of information raw is going to fail. Unless you encounter them in the form of actual language anything read in a grammar book gets quickly forgotten.
Qimmik wrote:I am sure that Classical Athens children did not learn to speak by having Sophocles read to them. . . . The catch 22 is that though these forms are individually rare there are so many of them that you encounter one or other quite often so reading gets slowed down.
Actually, the most common verbs tend to be the most anomalous. The vestigial -μι conjugation, for example, complete with its oxytone participles, includes ἵστημι, τίθημι and δίδωμι. And there are many compounds of these verbs, and many of the compounds are very common, too. You couldn't talk about getting dressed in the morning or undressing at night without knowing the athematic ("root") aorist forms of δύω/δύομαι. You couldn't report what someone said without knowing the forms of φημί. So kids would have been hearing these forms, and internalizing them, from earliest infancy--that's why they were so resistant to the process of analogical levelling--i.e., being assimilated to more regular conjugations. (The same is true in English: strong verbs like go/went/gone, come/came/come, run/ran/run, and irregular weak verbs like buy/bought/bought, think/thought/thought, are typically very common verbs, and they've resisted being assimilated to the regular weak verb pattern--go/goed/goed, etc.--because kids learn them in infancy.)
Qimmik wrote:I do think that trying to absorb this kind of information raw is going to fail. Unless you encounter them in the form of actual language anything read in a grammar book gets quickly forgotten.
The idea is not to learn all the forms of every Greek verb--you'd go insane trying to do that--but rather to get the big picture--an overview of the various types and patterns of verb form, and the regularities lurking behind the irregularities, in more depth than the basic first-year texts provide (as well as the phonological and spelling rules that come into play when the various morphemes are linked together). This will help you sort out the weird forms you encounter in reading--you won't be stymied when you see ὑπεκδὺς. You will also be more likely to remember irregular forms once you've seen them if you understand how they originated and can place them in larger patterns of regularities.
Users browsing this forum: C. S. Bartholomew and 51 guests