So I have been looking for any rule, contraction or general explanation for why the first person aorist participle in nominative of γιγνώσκω has that declension. I understand that the stem should be γνω- or γν- after eliminating the -σκ- infix and the γι- reduplication, so shouldn’t the declension be γνώσας or γνῶν? I know for a fact that γμούς is the correct one, but I Cannot understand why, can anybody help?
Thanks beforehand.
The aorist of γιγνωσκω, i.e., εγνων, is essentially a -μι (“athematic”) aorist. The participle is analogous to the aorist active participle of διδωμι, i.e., δους, from δο-ντ-ς, where -ντ- has dropped out before -ς, with the compensatory lengthening (Erzatzdehnung, as Timothée would say) of -ο- to -ου-. Similarly, γνο-ντ-ς > γνους. (Actually, the process was probably -ο-ντ-ς > -ο-ν-ς > ους.)
Unlike the aorist indicative active of διδωμι, the aorist indicative active of γιγνωσκω has a long vowel in the 1st, 2d and 3rd person plural (εγνωμεν, etc.). Usually, athematic verbs have short vowels in the indicative plural (εδομεν etc.), but εστην/εστημεν is an exception, as is εγνωμεν. In the case of εγνωμεν, this is possibly the effect of analogy, which tends to levelize irregularities in Greek as in other languages. (The explanation for εστημεν seems to go back deeper into the Proto-Indo-European prehistory of the Greek language.)
The present and aorist of the verb γιγνωσκω were presumably formed by two different processes from a primitive root γνω-/γνο-: (1) the present with the suffix -σκω + reduplication (which frequently accompanies the suffix -σκω), and (2) an athematic aorist. Most verbs, of course, are less “irregular”, but older, more basic verbs tend to exhibit “irregularities” like this.
It’s probably best not to think of this as an irregular process for forming the aorist. Rather, there is a “menu” of processes for forming each of the present, aorist, perfect and aorist passive/intransitive stems, and Greek verbs, especially older ones, often mix and match from these menus.
Hope this helps!
Thanks a lot Hylander, that was a good and revealing explanation, I really couldn’t find anything about that rule for a thematic verbs, not to mention the rest of the implied information in the response.
Now I can continue reading the Protagoras dialog, didn’t want to just “asume” the declensions.
Now, if I may add another question (don’t know if it’s appropriate), in the Protagoras appears the following verbs: ἀκούσας and ἐξαναστήσας, in my reasoning both should be by it’s declension active aorist infinitive first person, however both by the context and by the result of the ‘Perseus’ tool, it shows them to be aorist participle, however, both forms seems indistinguishable, is there any form besides the context to, well, distinguish them?
Again, thanks for all the help.
Forms ending in -σας, if they were aorist indicative, would be 2d person singular, not 1st person singular. The 1st person would end in -σα. But ἀκούσας and ἐξαναστήσας, as you recognize, are aorist participles. The aorist indicative forms would have augment: ηκουσας, εξανεστησας. It’s the augment that distinguishes the 2d person aorist indicative from the aorist masculine nominative participle. The augment attaches itself only to the indicative forms – not subjunctive, optative, imperative, infinitive or participle.