periphrastic pluperfect

[bingley]

I'm working my way a little at a time through Lysias' [face=SPIonic] (Upe\r tou= )Eratosqe/nouj fo/nou a)pologi/a[/face], which is a reader from a series "A Greek Prose Reading Course for Post-Beginners". <br /><br />In sections 9-10 we have this:<br />[face=SPIonic] e)peidh\ de\ to\ paidi/on e)ge/neto h(mi=n, h( mh/thr au)to\ e)qh/lazen: <br />i(/na de\ mh/, o(po/te lou=sqai de/oi, kinduneu/h| kata\ th=j kli/makoj katabai/nousa, e)gw\ me\n a)/nw dih|tw/mhn, ai( de\ gunai=kej ka/tw. kai\ ou(/twj h)/dh suneiqisme/non h)=n, w(/ste polla/kij h( gunh\ <br />a)ph/|ei ka/tw kaqeudh/sousa w(j to\ paidi/on, i(/na to\n titqo\n <br />au)tw=| didw=| kai\ mh\ boa=|.[/face]<br /><br />My query is on [face=SPIonic]suneiqisme/non h)=n[/face], which the notes describe as a periphrastic pluperfect. Could anyone point me to more information on the use of the periphrastic pluperfect as I've not come across this before?

[klewlis]

a couple of hints from Wallace ("Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics", focused on NT)<br /><br />pluperfect periphrastic = eimi in the indicative + a perfect participle<br /><br />"the periphrastic constructions often resemble an imperfect more than an aorist in translation."<br /><br />it gives a couple of NT examples too, that I can post if you're interested.

[bingley]

Yes, please. If no-one objects to Koine in a classic thread. ;D

[Jeff Tirey]

Hi Bingley:<br /><br />Goodwin's Greek Grammar has a little bit to say about this. Here's a link to the index to find everything in the grammar about periphrastic forms:<br /><br />http://montgomery.cas.muohio.edu/textkit/WWG_greek_grammar.pdf#page=483<br /><br />And of course Smyth has a lot to say about this topic. His grammar is coming....<br /><br />I didn't see the periphrastic pluperfect covered in Goodwin but it is covered in Smyth.<br /><br />jeff

[bingley]

Goodwin section 448 mentions that where the third person plural ending for the pluperfect indicative middle/passive -[face=SPIonic]nto[/face] results in something impossible to pronounce, a periphrastic participle + [face=SPIonic]h)=san[/face] is used.<br /><br />However, section 490.3 has [face=SPIonic]e)qi/zw[/face] as an example and gives the normal 3rd person singular pluperfect indicative middle/passive form [face=SPIonic]ei)qisto[/face], rather than the [face=SPIonic]suneiqisme/non h)=n[/face] in this passage.<br /><br />So thanks for trying, but I'm not much further forward. :-\

[Skylax]

[face=SPIonic]suneiqisme/non[/face] could be considered a nominalized participle, meaning "an usual thing", an habit. It would be the same as [face=SPIonic]ei)ko/j[/face] "a likely (or "normal") thing" in the phrase [face=SPIonic]ei)ko/j e)stin[/face]

[Paul]

Hi,<br /><br />[face=SPIonic]suneiqisme/non[/face] would appear to be a perfect participle passive of <br />[face=SPIonic]suneqi/zw[/face] here meaning something like "having been made accustomed".<br /><br />Smyth 599 has a brief discussion of periphrastic forms.<br />599d states that "..the perfect or pluperfect passive is often paraphrased by the perfect participle and [face=SPIonic]e)sti/[/face] or [face=SPIonic]h)=n[/face].."<br /><br />Cordially,<br /><br />Paul

[bingley]

Does he give any clues as to whether it's a stylistic thing, totally random, or imparts some particular nuance?

[Paul]

Hi,<br /><br />For pluperfect indicative active, Smyth does say that the periphrastic forms denote a state rather than an action.<br /><br />But he's mum about the pluperfect passive.<br /><br />Cordially,<br /><br />Paul

[bingley]

Right, thanks for that everyone.