These verbs, respectively on page 194 and page 202 in M, have translations that include "…and first aorist ; including first aorist.. . OR “and second aorist; including second aorist”.
I can’t figure out what the verb tense has to do with the meaning. Would it not mean the same thing (other than the time of the action) if the verb was at the future tense, or present, or imperative, infinitive, etc. Why the mention of the aorist in the definition???
M really loses me here!
Thanks to all.
Hey asterisk,
These are verbs that have transitive and intransitive meanings. In English there is not much occasion to think about the difference, so that for instance most people can never get “lie” and “lay” straight.
What Mastronarde means is that to say “to put in a standing position” or “to make sink” you use the first aorist and the active forms, but for “to be in a standing position” or “to sink” (e,g, the sun below the horizon) you use the second aorist and passive forms.
It could help to just memorize some sentences showing the different use of these; I’m sure Mastronarde has such sentences in the exercises.
With δυω, at least, the main difference seems to be between the transitive δυω forms versus the intransitive δυνω/δυομαι forms. δυω has a 1st aorist (εδυσα) while δυνω has a second (εδυνα) and δυομαι a first (εδυσαμην). I seem to recall that Mastronarde has some confusion on this one and could use revision. The compounds behave the same.
(@Zembel, my wife still remembers the story of how Tolstoy took up Greek late in life and learned it fairly well, despite his wife’s early forecast that he would give it up like his other enthusiasms, saying “remember the bee-keeping!”)
I suggest you re-read para 3-5 on p. 199 -201.
Ex. τοῦτον κατεστήσαμεν κριτήν. (trans. 1st aor.)
We appointed this man judge.
(We caused this man to be established as judge.)
οὗτος κριτὴς κατέστη. (intrans. 2nd aor.)
This man became (was appointed, was established as) judge.
There is no second aorist middle, but the first aorist middle is found:
οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τὸν Δημοσθένη κατεστήσαντο στρατηγόν.
The Athenians appointed Demosthenes as general for themselves.
Note that the two third person plural aorist active indicative forms of ἵστημι are identical in appearance, though derived from different combinations of elements:
1st aor.: ἐ- + stem στησ- + tense vowel α + ending -ν → ἔστησαν
2nd aor: ἐ- + stem στη- + ending -σαν → ἔστησαν
…
I hope that clears up the confusion but if there is something you dont understand in this please ask again.
Again, see my above post. Mastronarde is misleading here (I assume he misunderstood the LSJ article on δυω, which is confusing, but I don’t understand how anybody who has read a lot of Greek could make the mistake). It’s not first versus second aorist forms, it’s δυω vs. δυνω/δυομαι forms, and the same holds true across the compounds.
To all 3 respondents (zembel, seneca2008, and jeidsath), a very heartfelt thank you. Your combined replies have finally enlightened me.
My understanding is now as follows: any tense of these verbs other than aorist can be used transitively or intransitively, but if the aorist is used, it must be the weak form if I mean to use it transitively, and it must be the strong form when used intransitively. Please tell me if I’m wrong.
I recognize that I was a bit thick on this one. I tried to figure it out while studying unit 22 (p 194) and got all tangled up. As per Seneca2008, section 3 in unit 23 clarifies it, but by the time I got to that unit, I was blind. M could have made things easier had he mentioned that in unit 22.
All the best!
Correction
instead of “unit 22, (p.194)” read “Unit 23, p.194”; instead of “section 3 in unit 23”, read “section 3 in unit 24”
Asterisk,
I don’t think you’ve got it quite yet. Luckily for people like us, Juan Coderch has made his Greek grammar available online here. The clearest and fullest explanation I have seen of ἵστημι starts on page 149.
You can even download the pdf for free.
Zem
I wouldn’t agree with your summary, no. For active forms of ἵστημι:
Transitive:
ἵστημι (present)
ἵστην (imperfect)
ἔστησα (1st aorist)
στήσω (future)
Intransitive:
ἕστηκα (perfect)
εἱστήκη (pluperfect)
ἔστην (2nd aorist, root)
ἑστήξω (future perfect)
I would summarize this as “in the active of ἵστημι, the perfect forms and root aorist refer to the state of standing (are intransitive)”.
Now, as far as I know, it’s not really the 2nd aorist that’s important here, so much as the fact that it’s a root aorist (ending gets stuck right on the root). Verbs with both root and regular aorist tend to be intransitive in the root aorist, and transitive in the regular. (ἔφυν/ἔφυσα, ἔστην/ἔστησα,). But φθάνω can be transitive/intransitive in both, and βιόω is intransitive in both.
With δύω though, the transitive δύω intransitive δύνω/δύομαι difference is in my opinion more important (although it’s violated sometimes), as there is a non-root aorist intransitive form (ἔδυνα), and the 1st aorist ἐδυσάμην is also intransitive. Further, the compounds don’t always have both aorists, and the root aorist is mostly Homeric.
Thanks to jeidsath and Zembel.
I read you, and I appreciate your comments.
But please remember that M’s unit 24 is as far as I have studied. Perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect are still terra incognita to me, so my statement did not consider them.
So, if I revise my statement by removing “any tense other than the aorist…” which is too broad, and I narrow it down to “the present, imperfect, and future of ιστημι can be used transitively or intransitively, but if the aorist is used, it must be the weak form if I mean to use it transitively, and it must be the strong form when used intransitively.” Which looks a lot like M’s statement in section 3, p.199, as mentioned by Seneca.
M does not seem to talk about the root aorist per se, and seems satisfied to assign a transitive meaning to the fist aorist and an intransitive meaning to the second aorist of ιστημι. So that will satisfy me for now, but I will further explore that concept in other books. Thanks to jeidsath for bringing this up, And thanks to all for a very informative discussion. (to be continued?)
I think that it is helpful just to concentrate on what M. has covered. M. is not writing a grammar he is simply trying to present information in a way which can be assimilated by his students. His book is very dense and not I think designed for self study.
Here is the treatment given in the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. (I have not included the full list of verbs on p. 167)
I am sure that a teacher could introduce this material in class if he felt the class had mastered what had been presented. It is important to know about the terminology “root aorist” but at your stage it is more important to grasp that some verbs have more than one aorist stem and that that these have different meanings.
On a separate issue are you satisfied with the answers you got on the articular infinitive?
I don’t think you’ve got it. The different forms of ἵστημι are pretty much one or the other, not either/or. The active present/imperfect/future of ἵστημι are always transitive.
There is a less frequent middle. Mastronarde’s “intransitive or quasi-passive” is as a good a way to describe it as any. The (very infrequent) middle aorist that he describes, however, is transitive. I don’t see why he introduces the middle of this verb at this point, actually.
It’s the active voice of ἵστημι where the transitive/intransitive distinction is important and ubiquitous in Greek. To say “I set up”, you use the active present/imperfect/1st aorist/future. To say “I stand” you use the perfect/pluperfect/2nd aorist/future perfect forms.
I set up = ἵστημι
I stand = ἕστηκα
I was setting up = ἵστην
I was standing = εἱστήκη
I set up = ἔστησα
I stood = ἔστην
I will set up = στήσω
I will stand = ἑστήξω
Of course, the ambiguities of English don’t help. E.g. is “I set up” ἵστημι or ἔστησα? Joel’s chart doesn’t show the difference.
In a classroom all this is much easier, since it can be enacted. You can say ανἵσταμαι as you stand up (are in the act of standing up), ανἕστηκα as you are standing up (have stood up).
I call TMI. I think there’s a risk of swamping Asterisk with too many details before s/he is ready for it.
Thanks for the Coderch grammar Zembei. Looks good, and I see there’s a book of exercises to go with it. And I see he has a Latin grammar on the same lines.
PS Not so good, in fact very bad: his use of the term “predicative object” (p.16).
Thanks to all for your patience and guidance. The last few post have given me a lot to study.
Stay tuned.
To Zimbel: I have ordered the Coderch grammar and vocabulary books. Thanks for mentioning him.
To Seneca: Hmm… articular infinitive? I don’t remember posting a question about the articular infinitive. This doesn’t mean that I didn’t…
Quite right, it was Lukas. Sorry for confusion.
I had traditional grammar for English (including diagramming sentences) pounded into my head in elementary school long ago. But I don’t remember the term “predicate object” and when I ran across it in a beginner Greek book (not Coderch) it made no sense to me. Where did it come from? mwh, do you object to using this term, or do you mean it’s being used wrong?
Whatever, I still like Coderch’s approach. He tries to see grammar as the learner sees it and anticipate the pitfalls.
What passes for English grammar is really Latin or Greek grammar. (Hence the foolish objection to split infinitives, for example.)
I too like Coderch’s approach. But “predicative object” is grammatical nonsense.
Yes, certainly. I can remember in 7th grade: “The verb is this sentence is active voice, indicative mood, third person singular.” It was useless for understanding English, but when it came to Latin and other languages it was like knowing the math that gets you into science.
The following was posted by Joel on Nov 30/20. How time flies… Please see my reply below.
"It’s the active voice of ἵστημι where the transitive/intransitive distinction is important and ubiquitous in Greek. To say “I set up”, you use the active present/imperfect/1st aorist/future. To say “I stand” you use the perfect/pluperfect/2nd aorist/future perfect forms.
I set up = ἵστημι
I stand = ἕστηκα
I was setting up = ἵστην
I was standing = εἱστήκη
I set up = ἔστησα
I stood = ἔστην
I will set up = στήσω
I will stand = ἑστήξω"
I have been struggling with “ιστημι” for months (I’m slow, although I never had such difficulties with previous units of M). Joel’s post is concise, and even super slow I can understand it.
Yet, I am still struggling to understand why, for example, I must use the perfect ( “ἕστηκα”-“I have stood”) to say “I stand”, instead of simply using ἱτ “ιστημι” withouτ a direct object. I guess the simple answer is “that’s the way it is”. Anyway, my current understanding is sufficient to let me muddle through the translations in the exercises of M’s units 23 and 24.
While perusing Coderch, I came across at the bottom of page 151, paragraph 196, where he translates the weak aorist εστησεν as the “strong aorist transitive”, and εστη as “weak aorist intransitive”, which I believe is wrong. Please comment.
One thing here, my understanding is that in order to say “I stand” (not using the perfect) you would need to use the middle voice, ἵσταμαι, rather than the active voice, ἵστημι.