Baker wrote:I can see that this is annoying you, and I apologize for being perhaps a bit too blunt in my previous response, but I do hope you will take heart. For I don't understand why you need to use anything but the synopsis for a regular omega verb to check your synopsis of ῥίπτω? It follows the pattern. That is why Smyth, et. al. don't give you more than the basic paradigm for an omega verb, a mi verb, and contracted verbs, as well as those few verbs that are truly irregular in many forms.
Baker wrote:Alright. First I would set up my synopsis just like Smyth does for λύω, considering that ῥίπτω is also an omega verb. Then, considering I have not memorized the principal parts for this verb, I would look them up in the Appendix; I would write them down in a convenient location on my page. Then I would plod my way thorough filling in the 3rd person plural for each tense. I would make mistakes, though not more than 49Then I would take Smyth, put it side by side with my synopsis and check my work in about 3-4 minutes or less, depending on the number of errors. I would leave enough room for such synopses in omega verbs to fill in the 3rd person plural of other verbs, if I chose.
Cheers,
Eliot
Update: I left out an estimate of how long it would take me to make the synopsis. I'm thinking it would take about 15 to 20 for an omega or mi verb ( longer for a contracted verb).
pster wrote:Are you a gambling man?
Ahab wrote:Pster-
Have you tried the Kalos program? It can be found here:
http://www.kalos-software.com/
Baker wrote:pster wrote:Are you a gambling man?
Not generally.
Ahab wrote:Pster-
Have you tried the Kalos program? It can be found here:
http://www.kalos-software.com/
Baker wrote: As far as morphological analysis, this software is $29 .
Eliot
Baker wrote:Ahab wrote:Pster-
Have you tried the Kalos program? It can be found here:
http://www.kalos-software.com/
How is this better than what pster already mentioned? ...It also does not seem to recognize the original form he asked about, ἔρριφας. The inflection charts are no better than other sources he listed, e.g. Mastronarde, et. al.
Eliot
Baker wrote:You win.
pster wrote:Baker wrote:Ahab wrote:Pster-
Have you tried the Kalos program? It can be found here:
http://www.kalos-software.com/
How is this better than what pster already mentioned? ...It also does not seem to recognize the original form he asked about, ἔρριφας. The inflection charts are no better than other sources he listed, e.g. Mastronarde, et. al.
Eliot
It doesn't seem to recognize it on the first tab. But it does come out when you generate the tables on the third. So better than Perseus and Mastronarde. WE HAVE A WINNER!
pster wrote:For αιρεω, it botches the following:
3pl active imperative present and m/p, all active and middle aorists, 3pl aorist passive imperative, 3pl perfect m/p indicative (indeed, all periphrastic forms), 3pl plup. m/p indicative
Ahab wrote:pster wrote:For αιρεω, it botches the following:
3pl active imperative present and m/p, all active and middle aorists, 3pl aorist passive imperative, 3pl perfect m/p indicative (indeed, all periphrastic forms), 3pl plup. m/p indicative
Well that's no good. Program must be buggier than I realized. Sorry now that I recommended it to you.
pster wrote:How well do you know the Kalos folks Ahab?
Ahab wrote:pster wrote:How well do you know the Kalos folks Ahab?
Not very well. Just exchanged a couple of emails with maker of that program. It has been around for many years. First tried the program about 7 or 8 years ago. It was not very good at that time. The interface has improved greatly, but it looks like there are still some underlying problems with it.
pster wrote:Ahab wrote:pster wrote:How well do you know the Kalos folks Ahab?
Not very well. Just exchanged a couple of emails with maker of that program. It has been around for many years. First tried the program about 7 or 8 years ago. It was not very good at that time. The interface has improved greatly, but it looks like there are still some underlying problems with it.
Do you have the email? The sales one doesn't seem to work any longer.
Scribo wrote:Made some mistakes in my synopsis, in the duel and also in some of the imperatives. ALWAYS THE IMPERATIVES!?! TI PRAGMA ESTI TOUTO !?!?!?!
pster wrote:Scribo wrote:Made some mistakes in my synopsis, in the duel and also in some of the imperatives. ALWAYS THE IMPERATIVES!?! TI PRAGMA ESTI TOUTO !?!?!?!
How did the fut. perf. m/p participle(s) go?
Scribo wrote:Not bad, I'm pretty well drilled in general. I'll try to scan up my sheets so people can see what mistakes etc I'm making. My hand writing is pretty rough and I can spot a few accentuation errors but shhh.
Users browsing this forum: bedwere, Exabot [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], hmederos22, korakinos and 109 guests