Page 1 of 1

chs XXXII XXXIII and XX XXI μιow verbs and participles

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:16 pm
by Tertius Robertus
i leave you with these question:
  1. On the present participle: he presents for them 2 possible charts that differ by the stem. that is, the stem either ends in ovt and nominative wv, ouca and ov; or in ovt avt evt uvt, ending in s in the nominative masc. How the hell can I know to which class the verb belongs? knowing not the stem previously? :roll: [at least he says something about the mi :roll: which goes into the second]
  2. On the mi verbs, there are also four (with the pres and imper for each) charts for the mi's differing only by the vowel in the duals and plurals, how can I know to which chart the verb belongs?
  3. Also, how do their 3rd persons behave when followed by vowel? it is ci does the i drops and the c goes s, or there is nu movable thing? or both?
  4. He asks to memorize all 11 forms of the participle. but there are only 10 :?
    act: ps aor fut perf, medial: these and fut perf, passive: aor
  5. Finally do the existence of a principal forms implies the existence of the derived forms? and does its inexistence implies the inexistence of the derived forms? I ask this because of the olekei, which has imperfect, but not the others.

Re: chs XXXII XXXIII and XX XXI μιow verbs and participles

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:14 pm
by modus.irrealis
Alright, this is pretty long because I wanted to see if I could explain it decently, but I will say that it's not too hard, with regular exposure, to get a passive knowledge of the μι-verbs so that you'll be able to recognize what the forms are. But anyway:

1. The basic division with Greek verbs is between the thematic conjugation and the athematic conjugation, and roughly speaking, in the former endings are added with an ο/ε depending on the ending, and in the latter, endings are added directly to the stem. So to try and summarize:

The thematic conjugations are the present in -ω and the aorist in -ον. Here you add -οντ- to get the participle, e.g. λ?ω > λ?ων and ἔλιπον > λιπών.

Aorist verbs in -α are, I guess, technically athematic, but they're different from the rest, so you can treat them separately and just remember that the participle has -αντ-, e.g. ἔλυσα > λ?σας.

Those are the simplest cases, and fortunately the most numerous. Everything else is athematic (including the -κα aorists of μι-verbs), and to get the participle you need to add -ντ- directly to the stem. The problem with finding the stem is that it usually appears in a lengthened form in the principal part, so you have:

δίδωμι - stem διδο-
ἔδωκα - stem δο-
ἔγνων - stem γνο-
δείκνυμι - stem δεικνυ-
τίθημι - stem τιθε-
ἵστημι - stem ἱστα-
?λ?θην - stem λυθε-

The problem here is that both -α- and -ε- are lengthened to -η- so you need to learn how to distinguish them. But basically -η- represents -ε- in τίθημι, ἵημι, and the aorist passive, and -α- in most other places.

Once you know the stem, you just add -ντ- and you get the participle, so for those verbs above, you have διδο?ς, δο?ς, γνο?ς, δεικν?ς, τιθείς, ἱστάς, λυθείς.

2. In theory, you would go by the vowel the stem ends in. But the idea is that in certain forms the stem-ending vowel is lengthened, e.g. in the present, in all the singular forms. But there are all sorts of irregularities, even in what Pharr calls "regular" μι-verbs, so you almost have to learn each verb separately (verbs in -νυμι are all alike though), but there are generalizations you can make.

3. I think both are possible but some quick searching suggests that the nu movable is much more common.

4. Well, there are 11 forms in Attic Greek when you add the future passive. I don't know if that's how he gets 11 though.

5. Not much of an answer, but if they don't have all the forms derivable from a principal part, then they are defective in some sense. But if they don't have a principal part listed at all, then they don't have any of those forms -- if it had one of the forms but not the form that would usually be the principal part, they'd use a substitute principal part (if that makes sense). Like how some verbs have active forms in the present but only middle forms in the future, then the future principal part will be the 1st person singular middle.

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:23 pm
by Tertius Robertus
thanks, mode, this is great :D

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:09 pm
by edonnelly
Tertius Robertus wrote:thanks, mode, this is great :D
I agree. This info is very helpful. Thanks.

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:34 pm
by modus.irrealis
I'm relieved it makes sense. It was really helpful for me too to try and explain it :D.

Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:56 pm
by Tertius Robertus
i have another question on mi verbs. because we are given another chart to memorize, which is the perfect system of ιστημι, but it is not told whther the chart works for all the mi verbs with the combination (h a) of verb stems..

by the way, i remember to have asked somewhere how to know to which chart the mi verb belongs, it seems that the mi verbs have besides themselves at the exercises lists between parenteses the combination of verb stems, among other things which i am still not able to dechipher.


Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:12 pm
by annis
Tertius Robertus wrote:i have another question on mi verbs. because we are given another chart to memorize, which is the perfect system of ιστημι, but it is not told whther the chart works for all the mi verbs with the combination (h a) of verb stems..
ἵστημι must be taken on its own terms — it's a very odd verb.

I'm not a big fan of the phrase "μι-verbs." There is no such thing as a μι-verb, there are only verbs which have μι presents. It is true that some of the most common μι-present verbs are odd in several of the principal parts, but that's not intrinsic to their taking μι-presents. βαίνω is a perfectly normal present stem but has a root-aorist, ἔβην, which acts like the 2nd aorist of ἵστημι, ἔστην, whereas δείκνυμι has a boring, regular aorist, ἔδειξα.

Each principal part of a verb may have its own character which will not necessarily be predictable from other principal parts.

Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:01 pm
by Tertius Robertus
thanks, yeah that makes sense. i found it weird too when he defined athematic and thematic verbs, just to say later that no verb is thoroughly athematic or thematic... :? some grammarians.... :?

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:41 am
by Tertius Robertus
there is yet another thing which i didnt notice before. 3 of the mi present verbs (:D) have 2nd aorists, whereas icthmi doesnt. also, these 3 have also a 1st aorist, which is not displayed at the chart. so just i must assume that they are regular on account of this. secondly, does the lack of a second aorsit system is a particularity if icthmi, or a generality of the mi present verbs with stem (h a).

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 2:05 am
by modus.irrealis
ἵστημι does have two aorists in the active, namely ἔστησα and ἔστην, with very different meanings. In the middle, though, it only has the first aorist.

The other three verbs are different in that the first aorist forms have the same meaning as the second aorist forms, plus these first aorist forms only occur for certain persons,numbers, and voices. There's no ?δωκάμην for example.

I'm going to say to ignore Pharr when he calls those four them regular. I've been thinking about it and I don't see what he means by regular -- the best I can come up with is that they're appear regularly in any Greek text. The aorists in -κα are, I believe, limited only to those three verbs. For other verbs, you just need to know the principal part, and for the most part they will be first aorists, like δείκνυμι, ἔδειξα.

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:23 pm
by Tertius Robertus
thanks mode :D

Re: Sell Nike,Jordan,Air force 1 sneaker

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:10 pm
by Lex
sneakersupplier wrote:*zot*
Sir, you are Satan. Get thee hence, vile fiend!

Somebody ban this putz.

Re: Sell Nike,Jordan,Air force 1 sneaker

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:24 pm
by annis
Lex wrote:
sneakersupplier wrote:*zot*
Somebody ban this putz.
Lex, if you quote the spammer, you somewhat reduce the effect of me banning them. ;)

I almost always notice these within a day. No need to reply to them unless you've seen something older than a day, and then you should pester me or Jeff directly.