In NT Greek (maybe in koine in general) the imperfect and aorist forms of φημί are said to be identical namely ἔφη.
In Classical Greek the imperfect is ἔφην or ἐφάμην and the aorist ἔφησα.
Why would the usage of verb change from a more regular form to an irregular one, even more puzzeling considering that the later form is also ambiguous.
Imperfect and Aorist of fhmi
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1889
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
- Location: Arthur Ontario Canada
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Contact:
Hi Bert,
φημί is an old and interesting word.
In Homer both 2nd aorist and imperfect look the same, e.g., ἔφην. But it may be that all occurrences of these forms in Homer are the imperfect. I don't think that the first aorist form ἔφησα is attested in Homer.
But first aorist ἔφησα does appear in classical greek.
I'm not certain about NT greek. Wenham says that φημί occurs in the NT as imperfect ἔφη, but never as an aorist (just like in Homer?).
But in any event, why do you regard this change in form as a movement toward greater irregularity?
Cordially,
Paul
φημί is an old and interesting word.
In Homer both 2nd aorist and imperfect look the same, e.g., ἔφην. But it may be that all occurrences of these forms in Homer are the imperfect. I don't think that the first aorist form ἔφησα is attested in Homer.
But first aorist ἔφησα does appear in classical greek.
I'm not certain about NT greek. Wenham says that φημί occurs in the NT as imperfect ἔφη, but never as an aorist (just like in Homer?).
But in any event, why do you regard this change in form as a movement toward greater irregularity?
Cordially,
Paul
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1889
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
- Location: Arthur Ontario Canada
Paul wrote:
But in any event, why do you regard this change in form as a movement toward greater irregularity?
Because I consider the σα tense-formative as regular for aorist. Maybe the 2nd aorist is just as regular, just a different form.
It does seem strange that an aorist and an imperfect form would be identical for it is hard to distingish from context between these two.
Thanks
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
- Location: Madison, WI, USA
- Contact:
Re: Imperfect and Aorist of fhmi
I have a few quick comments. First, at the same time a language is simplifying in some areas, it may become more complex in others. Very small, very common words (be, say, do) tend to retain or even emphasize irregularities the most.Bert wrote:Why would the usage of verb change from a more regular form to an irregular one, even more puzzeling considering that the later form is also ambiguous.
According to my NT Analytical Greek Lexicon, the only forms of this verb to occur at all are φημί, φησι (3sg.), φασί (3pl), and the 3.sg. imperfect, ἔφη. However, there are forms of εἶπον available for an aorist when it is really necessary to be clear, and ἔλεγον for imperfect.
Also, I tried to think of a situation - outside an imperative - where the aorist is really vitally different from the imperfect with "to say". I cannot.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/ — http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;