Does anyone know why the nu drops out with the future of σπένδω?
I know that dentals drop out, but I am having a difficult time understanding the explanation of Introduction to Attic Greek on page 149 referring to stems that end in a nasal or liquid. I know it says that the intervocalic sigma drops out and that the remaining vowels suffer contraction, but nothing is said about the nu. Perhaps it is just one of those irregular things?
*σπενδσω > *σπενσω > σπεισω with compensatory lengthening of ε to ει.
σπένδω is irregular. See p. 391 of Appendix B.
The principal parts are : σπένδω, σπείσω, ἔσπεισα, — , ἔσπεισμαι, —
Note what Mastronade says on p. 147.
‘Formation of the Future Stem. The safest way to recognize or to be able to form the future of a given verb is to know the principal parts of the verb. But it is also useful to know some of the basic patterns involved in the formation of the future stem, as this helps in learning principal parts and in interpreting future forms you come across for the first time in reading. The future stem is commonly formed by the addition of sigma to a simple form of the verb stem. (The verb stem is not always obvious from the present indicative, or first principal part: for further discussion, see Appendix B.)”
σπένδω does not end in “ν” but “δ”. But you can see that the stem is in fact “σπεί-“.
Why did you ask about this verb in particular?
The verb was in the exercises.
Not really true, and you will be confused if you think of it like this. The cognates are from -νδ- version, in Greek and out, (σπονδή, spondeo, etc.). Nothing is built on σπει-. The present stem is eroded in the future and aorist by the σ, as Hylander says.
Thank you Joel for your post. I am not confused but I think you are confusing the OP.
Hylander helpfully explained how the non-existent form σπενδσω becomes σπεισω. Whether Lukas understood the significance of "" is a matter for him.
What I had to say comes from Mastronade’s textbook which the OP is using.
it is true that ντ, νδ, νθ when they occur before σ in inflections, are always dropped and the preceding vowel is lengthened (thus Goodwin 79.). This is a complication which M. clearly thought a little complex for beginners which is why he describes the verb as irregular.
No, it’s the use of the term “verb stem” to describe it that was incorrect. Stem does not mean “the bit of a word that gets attached to endings.” It’s the part of a word that gets inflected.
Your quote about the verb stem not always being obvious from the present applies to a verb like τιθημι, perhaps, but not here.
Really, this thread would have been better off if it had been left at Hylander’s contribution.
At the risk of making this thread even longer I cross posted with Hylander so hadn’t seen what he had said.
Hi Lukas.
You asked,
Does anyone know why the nu drops out with the future of σπένδω?
Here’s the problem, I think: The premise of your question is incorrect. The ν does not drop out, the combination νδ does, for reasons of euphony. See the Smyth grammar §100 (Seneca cites this as §79 of Goodwin’s Greek Grammar - both Smyth and Goodwin are available online), and note (1) this rule of euphony applies to nouns (e.g., παντ-σι > πᾶσι) as well as to verbs, and (2) σπενδ-σω > σπείσω is given as one of the verb examples.
The Grammars regard this as rendering the verbs in question slightly “irregular”. Hence σπένδω appears in Smyth’s “Appendix: List of Verbs” (defined by Smyth as verbs showing any formal peculiarity of tense) and apparently in Mastronarde’s list of irregular verbs (as cited by Seneca - I don’t have Mastronarde to check for myself).
Finally, I think the responses you are getting from Seneca and Joel reflect something you will often see, to wit, some confusion in grammar discussions about the meaning of “stem” (and associated words such as “root”). I don’t want to get in the middle of Seneca and Joel’s pissing contest, but I’ll just note the following:
First, be sure to distinguish stem, as a grammatical construct, from etymological root, as a linguistic construct (I’m not saying you’re not making the distinction). The Proto-Indo-European root of σπένδω is *spend-, with known cognates in Hittite and Latin (spondeo) (according to the two sources of Greek etymology I’m familiar with, Chantraine and Beekes).
Second, in addition to whatever treatment of “stem” you get in Mastronarde, you might want to check the distinction Smyth makes, first, between a word’s root and its stem (§§ 191-193, under the heading of Inflection in general), and, second, with respect to verbs, his distinction between tense-stem and verb-stem (from which all tense-stems are derived), §367 ff. I’m too chicken to say what Smyth would regard the verb-stem and future tense-stem of σπένδω to be, and I’ll leave that to the others!
At the risk of adding to the confusion, I think the term “euphony” is somewhat outdated and not the best word to describe the formation of the future stem of σπενδω – It’s best to think of it as the application in succession of two low-level phonological rules of Greek that reflect historical processes:
δσ > σ (More generally, this rule applies across the board to all three dental obstruents δ, τ and θ.)
[short vowe]νσ > [corresponding long vowel]σ
It’s important to remember that ει here is not really a diphthong (that’s why it’s referred to a spurious diphthong). It’s the graphic, written form of the long vowel corresponding to short ε.
Hence, sigmatic future *σπενδ+σ+ω > *σπενσω > σπεισω with compensatory lengthening of ε to ει.
But in any event, whether you call it euphony or the application of regular phonological rules, σπεισω is really not irregular.
My final word on this is that in my view this is all too involved for the OP, although he can speak to himself.
My only interest here is to help Lukas using the textbook he has. M. Says it’s irregular and that’s enough for the OP. The rest of my post about stems was reminding him how to form the future.
I have no interest in having any kind of contest with Joel.
My post was perhaps a bit too technical for someone learning Greek, and maybe confusing, and I should apologize for that. But I think students of ancient Greek should be encouraged to learn something of the historical processes that led to the bewildering proliferation of Greek verb forms, if only to see that there’s more order than meets the eye in the apparent irregularities.
Hylander - The clarity of your explanation, as always, is downright - dare I say it - euphonic! For my edification (if not for Lucas’s just yet), is there a post-Smyth source on the evolution of the ancient Greek language, from a linguistic perspective, you might recommend?
Seneca - For the record, I for one appreciate your trying to keep it within the OP’s frame of reference, i.e., in this case, Mastronarde. I fully understand and am edified by Hylander’s ‘per the application of regular phonological rules, σπεισω is really not irregular’, but it sure looks irregular to a beginner’s eye and is treated as such by Mastronarde (and Smyth; not that I think the classification of ‘regular’ or ‘irregular’ is of any moment - it is what it is and must be memorized).
Lucas, I will pour a libation (that would be σπείσω) in hopes your question has been answered satisfactorily.
My quibble with “euphony” is that it suggests that adding σ to the root to form the future stem and then applying the rules to reduce the consonants and lengthen the vowel were a productive process operative in the minds and on the lips of Ancient Greek speakers in the classical period as they spoke.
It’s possible, but I doubt it. I think that as they learned the language as children, they simply learned the future form without conscious analysis.
The σ of course is the marker of futurity, and they were probably consciously aware of that.
I certainly see your point about “euphony”; I’m sure that ongoing diachronic sound changes are not operative (i.e., consciously) in our minds as we speak. And you could also object that the “eu” implies a teleological explanation of sound change that would intuitively strike me at least as dubious. What does cause sound change, though, is something I’d love to know more about.
By the way (Hylander) - OFF TOPIC, I KNOW - when we see a sound change diagrammed as *σπενδσω > *σπενσω > σπεισω, do you take that to mean that at some point in time people actually said “σπενδσω” and then “σπενσω” and finally (in the historical period) “σπεισω”?
Seneca, Randy, I’m afraid that you are both confused now. Happily, I know that Randy is willing to admit it when pressed, which I will do so now.
Mastronarde knows what a verb stem is, and follows Smyth’s usage for both “verb stem” and “tense stem”. This has nothing to do with whether a verb is irregular or not.
And Mastronarde is quite correct in this sentence which Seneca quoted “The future stem is commonly formed by the addition of sigma to a simple form of the verb stem.”
You should be able to see from this – and it’s described in some detail in Smyth – that the future stem is a tense stem, always formed from and distinct from a verb stem. You usually add a thematic vowel to one of the forms of the verb stem to get the present tense stem. You add a sigma to one of the forms of the verb stem to get the future stem, etc.
Easy example
Verb stem: λυ
Present stem: λυ- + ο/ε
Future stem: λυ- + σ + ο/ε
etc.
Another example
Verb stem: λειπ, λοιπ, λιπ (note: a single verb stem, but with multiple forms)
Present stem: λειπ + ο/ε
Future stem: λειπ + σ + ο/ε
Aorist stem: ε + λιπ + ο/ε
Perfect stem: λε + λοιπ + α
etc.
Mastronarde was also correct about the statement that Seneca underlines: “The verb stem is not always obvious from the present indicative, or first principal part: for further discussion, see Appendix B.”
It does commonly apply. Just not to σπένδω, which is one of the exceptions, and reasonably classed as irregular. The verb stem is quite obvious from the present indicative. And σπει- is neither a verb stem of σπένδω, nor is it a tense stem (which would be σπεισ + ο/ε, and does not display a separate verb stem from the present*).
It’s fine to get stuff wrong, I do all the time. I even double down sometimes when I shouldn’t. But please, less snark.
It seems I’ve been overtaken by this latest flurry of posts. To amplify Hylander on “euphony.”
We can say that the (unconscious) application of phonological rules results in euphony (for a Greek). σπενδσω is unsayable for a Greek. But would a Greek find σπεισω any more euphonious than *σπεσω? No, not in itself. Phonology is in control.
(Of course language users can seek euphonious effects, but that has nothing to do with the behavior of the language itself.)
Strictly speaking, no Greek verb is irregular.
[Edit. @ Joel, who admits “I even double down sometimes when I shouldn’t.” Thank you for that acknowledgment, but it would save my time if you didn’t.]
Ευχαριστώ!
I was wondering what to do about σπένδω after I got rid of the delta. Then it was ending in a nu, and I did not know if the rule about words ending in nasals or liquids applied. I also had a difficult time understanding the rule, so I Googled it and read an explanation that was more understandable. The author is thorough, but sometimes he is difficult to understand.
Thanks especially to Randy and the pouring of a libation. 
The way my past few days has gone, I can use it.
[Edit. @ Joel, who admits “I even double down sometimes when I shouldn’t.” Thank you for that acknowledgment Joel, but it would save my time if you didn’t.]
It is true, and I willingly apologize to you all. Διὸ κατατείνας ἐρῶ τὸν ἄδικον βίον ἐπαινῶν, εἰπὼν δὲ ἐνδείξομαί σοι ὃν τρόπον αὖ βούλομαι καὶ σοῦ ἀκούειν ἀδικίαν μὲν ψέγοντος, δικαιοσύνην δὲ ἐπαινοῦντος. Unlike Glaucon, however, I was generally serious at the time, and I often cringe remembering certain of my old posts. I didn’t know a word of Greek five years ago, and it has been one of the real pleasures of my life to load up a bunch of OCTs on my Kindle and to hop between AirBnBs reading these past couple of weeks. How many people get to that point of comprehension I wonder? Very few, I know, even after longer periods of study than mine. It’s certainly due to the help of those here.
**when we see a sound change diagrammed as σπενδσω > σπενσω > σπεισω, do you take that to mean that at some point in time people actually said “σπενδσω” and then “σπενσω” and finally (in the historical period) “σπεισω”?
I have no way of knowing this, and maybe no one else does either. But I suspect that the assibilation or assimilation of -δσ- to -σ- (in effect, the disappearance of δ) occurred when sigma became the marker of futurity. That seems to me like a plausible and “natural” (whatever that means) sound change – something like that happens in casually spoken English – although in general the motivations for sound changes are poorly understood. The change from -νσ- to -σ- with compensatory lengthening would have to have occurred after the disappearance of δ, which brought -ν- into contact with -σ-.
All of this happened before Greek began to be written, so it’s really speculative to ask how the actual pronunciation changed. The absence of writing meant that there was no stabilizing factor that would impede changes in pronunciation.
Incidentally, Smyth sec. 532 says that the sigmatic future arose out of the sigmatic aorist (first aorist) subjunctive, but of course some verbs have second aorists, so the process must have involved a generalization of the sigmatic aorist with ε/ο vocalism as the future marker. I haven’t chased this down, though.
Smyth also asserts (sec. 100):
ντ, νδ, νθ before ς form νσς (98), then νς, finally ν is dropped and the preceding vowel is lengthened (37).
It seems unlikely to me that -νσς was ever part of the sequence of changes. The only evidence I can detect is the Homeric (and post-Homeric poetic) form ποσσι instead of Attic ποσι, but that can probably be explained by archaic formulas that originally included the word podsi, where aoidoi lengthened the first syllable to ποσσι when the sound change occurred so that the old formula would continue to fit the meter. Having a word shaped _υ alongside a word shaped υυ would have offered metrical flexibility for aoidoi, and subsequent poets no doubt took advantage of that following the Homeric model. But, hey, what do I know?
__
is there a post-Smyth source on the evolution of the ancient Greek language, from a linguistic perspective, you might recommend?
The rules of “euphony” in Smyth are really not bad, as long as you realize that “euphony” is something of a misnomer. These are descriptions of low-level, relatively recent (in relation to the classical language), phonological changes. I think a discussion of these rules is also found in the Cambridge Grammar of Ancient Greek.
To go back further, you are getting into pre-Greek and before that into Proto-Indo-European. In English, the most complete exposition is in Sihler, A New Comparative Grammar of Latin and Greek, but this work is dense amd difficult and frustrating to use, and on top of that very expensive. I generally use two French books, Lejeune, Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien for historical phonology, and Chantraine, Morphologie historique du grec, when I want to educate myself on specifics in the history and pre-history of ancient Greek. These date from mid-century, and are probably less up-to-date than Sihler (though apparently Sihler too is showing its age), but I find them – by orders of magnitude – much better organized and easier to use than Sihler. There’s also a German work by Rix on Greek historical phonology, Historische Grammatik des Griechischen, but I find this too algebraic.
I should emphasize that I’m no scholar myself, just a reader of ancient Greek with some interest in the history of the language.