I have some questions about the case tables in Pharr's book.
For example, in 648: First Declension, Singular, Masculine, Nominative.
Why is there an '[size=134]ς[/size] (none)'? What exactly does the "(none)" mean in this context? Does this mean either I'll see an [size=134]ς[/size] or I won't?
Another question is in 649.
Are ALL forms in the brackets rare and not needing to be memorized? Or just the ones with the footnote attached to it specifying that? I got confused when the First Declension, Dual, Masculine, Genitive (in 649) was [[size=134]ῃιν[/size]] and I thought it was rare, but then saw it plain as day in 659, implying that it was not rare at all since 659 are forms meant to be memorized.
Another question:
In the places where "none" is written (in 648)--excepting the case where the ablaut is specified, will I just see the appropriate word stem for that case?
Another question:
In 649, what is the difference between the Third Declension, Singular, Masc&Fem, Nominative and the Third Declension, Singular, Masc&Fem, Vocative? One of them is 'sigma (none)' and the other is '(sigma none)'.
And one more question, suppose I have a First Declension, Singular, Feminine, Nominative noun, how can I tell it isn't a First Declension, Dual, Feminine, Nominative noun? How does one know the difference? By the number and person of the verb associated with the nominative noun? Am I correct in assuming that all declension conflicts vanish when declensions are combined with the number and person of the verbs operating on them? So far, without verbs (I'm on Lesson III/IV) it is sometimes hard to figure out the plurality of some things.
What's the story?
Thanks!
P.S. I am unable to emit a Macron or a Breve in betacode...
Pharr 648 and 649: Cases
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:38 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Contact:
Hi,
eta. So the nominative and vocative forms of [size=134]βουλή[/size] are not its stem.
When I first encountered the table in 648 I thought, "Great, a single statement of the many case-endings. Master it and you'll be able to derive any substantive form." The reality was quite otherwise. I don't find this table especially useful. The tables provided in 649 are far more useful.
Hope this helps.
Cordially,
Paul
Yes, 'none' means that there is no 'inflection' for that particular form, no case-ending. Linguists often refer to this as the 'zero' inflection. Among first declension masculine nominatives [size=134]ἀτρεΐδης[/size] ends in sigma; [size=134]αἰχμητά[/size] in 'none'.psilord wrote: For example, in 648: First Declension, Singular, Masculine, Nominative.
Why is there an '[size=134]ς[/size] (none)'? What exactly does the "(none)" mean in this context? Does this mean either I'll see an [size=134]ς[/size] or I won't?
Yes, the forms in square brackets are rare. I'm not sure why Pharr failed to bracket the feminine dual [size=134]ῃιν[/size] in 649.psilord wrote: Another question is in 649.
Are ALL forms in the brackets rare and not needing to be memorized? Or just the ones with the footnote attached to it specifying that? I got confused when the First Declension, Dual, Masculine, Genitive (in 649) was [[size=134]ῃιν[/size]] and I thought it was rare, but then saw it plain as day in 659, implying that it was not rare at all since 659 are forms meant to be memorized.
Not necessarily. Aside from the changes that result from combining stem vowel and case-ending, other changes may occur. Example: Ionic tends to change long alpha intopsilord wrote: Another question:
In the places where "none" is written (in 648)--excepting the case where the ablaut is specified, will I just see the appropriate word stem for that case?
eta. So the nominative and vocative forms of [size=134]βουλή[/size] are not its stem.
I suspect this is a typo in Pharr's text.psilord wrote: Another question:
In 649, what is the difference between the Third Declension, Singular, Masc&Fem, Nominative and the Third Declension, Singular, Masc&Fem, Vocative? One of them is 'sigma (none)' and the other is '(sigma none)'.
For first declension feminine nouns with nominative singular in long alpha, it can be confusing because these two forms are the same. For such nouns in short alpha, it can also be confusing because they seem to change the short alpha to a long alpha in the dual. This might be apparent in scansion, but it won't be immediately obvious. But, happily, such nouns in eta seem to show long alpha in the dual.psilord wrote: And one more question, suppose I have a First Declension, Singular, Feminine, Nominative noun, how can I tell it isn't a First Declension, Dual, Feminine, Nominative noun? How does one know the difference? By the number and person of the verb associated with the nominative noun?
Not entirely. There are apparent exceptions to the concords in Greek. This means that the expected GRAMMATICAL agreement can be superseded by agreement according to sense or attraction.psilord wrote: Am I correct in assuming that all declension conflicts vanish when declensions are combined with the number and person of the verbs operating on them? So far, without verbs (I'm on Lesson III/IV) it is sometimes hard to figure out the plurality of some things.
When I first encountered the table in 648 I thought, "Great, a single statement of the many case-endings. Master it and you'll be able to derive any substantive form." The reality was quite otherwise. I don't find this table especially useful. The tables provided in 649 are far more useful.
Hope this helps.
Cordially,
Paul
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:38 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
Did you mean to write that the feminine dual [size=134]ῃιν[/size] in 649 SHOULD be bracketed? Because it is. I only questioned it becausePaul wrote: Yes, the forms in square brackets are rare. I'm not sure why Pharr failed to bracket the feminine dual [size=134]ῃιν[/size] in 649.
the first noun decelension we learn (plan, council) uses a declension that is considered rare.
Yeah, I'm reorganizing those tables into some LaTeX because they appear to have an anti-memorization field about them which is upsetting me. I care much more about singularity to plural changes than masculine to feminine changes for memorization purposes.Paul wrote: When I first encountered the table in 648 I thought, "Great, a single statement of the many case-endings. Master it and you'll be able to derive any substantive form." The reality was quite otherwise. I don't find this table especially useful. The tables provided in 649 are far more useful.
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:38 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
Also, I have another question. The Third Declension Neuter Nominative, Accusative, and Vocative have a long line through them in table 649. Is this the same as 'none', which is implied by table 648 of the same case endings? Or does it mean that you will never find any third declension neuter words using those cases?
Thanks.
Thanks.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Contact:
Sorry, I meant 659.psilord wrote:Did you mean to write that the feminine dual [size=134]ῃιν[/size] in 649 SHOULD be bracketed? Because it is. I only questioned it becausePaul wrote: Yes, the forms in square brackets are rare. I'm not sure why Pharr failed to bracket the feminine dual [size=134]ῃιν[/size] in 649.
the first noun decelension we learn (plan, council) uses a declension that is considered rare.
Cordially,
Paul
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Contact:
You certainly will find third declension nouns in these cases.psilord wrote:Also, I have another question. The Third Declension Neuter Nominative, Accusative, and Vocative have a long line through them in table 649. Is this the same as 'none', which is implied by table 648 of the same case endings? Or does it mean that you will never find any third declension neuter words using those cases?
Thanks.
I suppose he's trying to say that these three forms are zero inflexion and identical.
Cordially,
Paul
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:38 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
Sorry to reply to myself, but I actually did this reorganization. You can find it on aoidoi.org in this location:psilord wrote:Yeah, I'm reorganizing those tables into some LaTeX because they appear to have an anti-memorization field about them which is upsetting me. I care much more about singularity to plural changes than masculine to feminine changes for memorization purposes.
http://www.aoidoi.org/articles/pharr/decl-649.pdf
I checked it very carefully for errors, but PM me if you find any and I'll correct them as soon as I can.
Thanks.