Is this a typo?
Section 554: The enclitics are:
1)...4) The present indicative of εἰμί be, and of φημί say (except . . . and possibly the second singular φῄς of φημί).
Should it not be φής instead of φῄς ( the latter being in the subjunctive, not the indicative mood)?
Lesson IV, typo?
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Lesson IV, typo?
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
- Location: Rhenen
- Contact:
Re: Lesson IV, typo?
This is what I get from the program Diogenes:
Perseus analysis of φῄς:
φημί (Spir. Prooem.): pres ind act 2nd sg
Subjunctive would be:
Perseus analysis of φῇς:
φημί (Spir. Prooem.): subj act 2nd sg
Here is a site with the whole paradigm: http://sphinx.metameat.net/sphinx.php?p ... =_6-t-y!zt
Perseus analysis of φῄς:
φημί (Spir. Prooem.): pres ind act 2nd sg
Subjunctive would be:
Perseus analysis of φῇς:
φημί (Spir. Prooem.): subj act 2nd sg
Here is a site with the whole paradigm: http://sphinx.metameat.net/sphinx.php?p ... =_6-t-y!zt
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: Lesson IV, typo?
In Section 967 of Pharr, conjugation tables, there is no iota subscript for the 2nd pers. sing. ind. act. of φημί.
Indeed, Adelheid, the 2nd pers. sing. subj. act. of φημί has the circumflex. Sorry about that.
Indeed, Adelheid, the 2nd pers. sing. subj. act. of φημί has the circumflex. Sorry about that.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
- Location: Rhenen
- Contact:
Re: Lesson IV, typo?
Perhaps we should rule that a typo? Still, it looks like both forms are valid:PeterD wrote:In Section 967 of Pharr, conjugation tables, there is no iota subscript for the 2nd pers. sing. ind. act. of φημί.
Perseus analysis of φής:
φης,φημί (Spir. Prooem.): pres ind act 2nd sg
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:20 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: Lesson IV, typo?
From Athenaze Volume 2, page 308, φᾑς is present indicative second person singular, while φῇς is present subjunctive second person singular. In the vocabulary section, φημι is mentioned as a postpositive enclictic.
Jean K.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: Lesson IV, typo?
In one section of Pharr, the 2nd pers. sing. ind. act. of φημί, has the iota subscript (554); in another section (967), it does not. Which one is correct? Both?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:46 pm
Re: Lesson IV, typo?
See Smyth sec. 784: "Instead of φῄς, the spelling φής is infrequently found."PeterD wrote:In one section of Pharr, the 2nd pers. sing. ind. act. of φημί, has the iota subscript (554); in another section (967), it does not. Which one is correct? Both?
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: Lesson IV, typo?
Thank you, Didymus.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis