In his Syntax, Rutherford cites a passage (no luck finding it so far) with this form. It is parsed as a 3rd person 2nd aorist of ἀποδιδράσκω. I feel a little foolish asking such a basic question, but I do not understand the ending. For the 3rd person, I would have expected ε. What am I missing? The whole sentence is Ἰστιαῖος ἀπέδρα βασιλέα Δαρεῖον ἐξηπατηκώς.
This is an intransitive aorist like εβην from βαινω, but in Attic, the α that underlies the η in εβην in the intransitive aorist form doesn’t change to η after ρ in this verb.
Rather than 2d aor., it’s more accurately characterized as an athematic aorist. The personal endings are added directly to the root δρα- (long α), rather than a thematic vowel ε/ο, just like the athematic aorist participle form αποδυντα (1st sing, indic. απεδυν) from root δυ- in your previous question.
The 3rd singular athematic aorist personal ending is zero.
You may not have found the precise citation, but it’s definitely a third singular, and it’s actually common throughout Greek. I’m not good at this, but I think it’s because it is a second aorist, which means the α is part of the stem, and it just absorbs the ε, just like α-contracts, so the third person of ἀγαπάω is ἀγαπᾷ. But I’m sure one of the technicians on our list should be able to correct or explain it better.
Barry, see my previous post. This is an athematic aorist. -α- doesn’t change to -η- after ρ in Attic.
The picture with trans. δυω forms and intrans. δυνω* forms are a bit more complicated, I think.
Hi Charlie,
Just to back up Hylander, here is a reference to Smyth:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Asmythp%3D681.
-διδράσκω is one of those verbs that are inflected like a -μι verb in the 2nd aorist (for the list see para 687). -μι verbs being athematic, simply add the personal endings to the stem, so in the case of (ἀπο) -διδράσκω, the stem is δρᾱ, so you would have ἔδραν, ἔδρας, ἔδρα, ἔδρατον,ἐδράτην, ἔδραμεν, ἔδρατε, ἔδρασαν. (I think I got that right..)
Check out Herodotus bk.6 for Histiaeus, tyrant of Miletus under Darius. It’s a memorable tale. Darius refused to believe in Histiaeus’s treachery and gave his decapitated head an honorable burial. Ἱσταῖος must be a typo (or was it an alternative form?) and in Herodotus ἀπέδρα would be απεδρη with eta, the ionic form.
Thanks. Much better explanation. I need at some point to review all that. I recognize it when I see it, but explaining it not so much.
Barry, to echo Hylander, see my previous post.
It was indeed a typo. My mistake. I corrected my post. Thank you all very much for your help. I can see that I need to review carefully these athematic forms. Actually, I don’t think I understand the effect of the ρ. Is there a reference to Smyth or another grammar that explains that?
Greek has basically three types of aorists: athematic, thematic and sigmatic.
Athematic and sigmatic aorists are generally lumped together as “second aorists”. In general, they are formed from what Smyth refers to as “primitive” aorist stems – very old aorist stems. They were “unproductive”: they did not attach to new verbs and were limited to specific older aorist stems, unlike the productive sigmatic aorist. Sigmatic (“first”) aorists are of course the most common, but the other types include many verbs in frequent use.
Athematic aorists were generally formed by attaching personal endings directly to roots ending in vowels.
Thematic aorists were generally formed by expanding roots ending in a consonant with a “thematic” vowel, either ε or ο, and attaching personal endings to the stem formed in this way.
Sigmatic aorists were generally formed by attaching σ with a vocalism to the basic verbal stem and adding personal endings.
The personal endings are generally the same for all three types of aorists, with a couple of exceptions. The basic endings are -ν, -ς, zero, -μεν, -τε. -ν. These are the same endings as the imperfect of thematic (-ω) verbs, which have the ε/ο thematic vowel attached to the stem.
But in the case of sigmatic and athematic aorists, there are a few exceptions:
The 1st sing. sigmatic aorist ending is -α (maybe an original syllabic/vocalic ν that merged with α). The third sing. sigmatic aorist ending is -ε, probably taken from the imperfect/thematic aorist zero ending on the thematic vowel ε, to avoid confusion with the 1st sing.
The 3rd plur. athematic aorist ending is -σαν, probably taken from the sigmatic aorist to avoid confusion with the first sing. ending -ν.
But the identical 1st sing. and 3rd plur. endings of the thematic imperfect and thematic aorist don’t seem to have given rise to problems.
Thank you very much, Hylander. It is much clearer to me now.
The picture with trans. δυω forms and intrans. δυνω* forms are a bit more complicated, I think.
Well, those forms are presents, not aorists. The δυ- root has given rise to thematic transitive present stems, whiie retaining an archaic intransitive athematic aorist (in addition to a transitive sigmatic aorist ἀπέδυσα). The tendency is typically for archaic forms to be supplanted by more common modern forms. The archaic forms are typically preserved in words that are in very frequent use.
Athematic aorists are typically intransitive, and in this case the athematic intransitive aorist coexists peacefully alongside the transitive sigmatic aorist.
On further point: the aorist passive seems to have been modeled on the intransitive aorist, with the suffix -θη-. It’s important to distinguish athematic aorists from passive aorists.
For ἀποδύω, a transitive and middle sigmatic aorist, an intransitive athematic aorist, and an aorist passive are all attested.
LSJ (with added emphasis):
ἀπο-δύω ,
I. in fut. -δύσω, aor. 1 > -έδυ_υσα > (for pf. -δέδυ_κα v. infr. 11.1), trans. used by Hom. (esp. in Il.) of stripping armour from the slain,
c. acc. rei, strip off, “τεύχεα δ᾽ Ἕκτωρ δηώσας ἀπέδυσε” Il.18.83, cf. 4.532, etc.; “ἀπὸ μὲν φίλα εἵματα δύσω” 2.261; “ἀ. τί τινος” Pl.Chrm.154e.
c. acc. pers., strip, “ἀπέδυσε τὰς . . γυναῖκας” Hdt.5.92.ή, cf. Pl.Epigr.12.3; ἵνα μὴ ῥιγῶν ἀποδύη (sc. τοὺς ὁδοιπόρους) Ar.Av.712, cf. Th.636, Ec.668: c. dupl. acc., “τὴν ἐσθῆτά τινα ἀ.” Luc.Nigr.13:—Pass., to be stripped of one’s clothes, οὔ τοι τοῦτον ἀποδυθήσομαι (sc. τὸν τρίβωνα) Ar.V.1122; “ἵνα μή ποτε > κἀποδυθῆ > μεθύων” Id.Ra.715, cf. Pl.930; “θοἰμάτιον ἀποδεδύσθαι” Lys. 10.10; ἀποδυόμενος stripped of its shell, of the nautilus, Arist.HA 622b18.
II. Med., fut. -δύσομαι: aor. 1 “> -εδυσάμην> ” Od.5.349 (v.l.), Pl.R.612a(v.l.), Lys.Fr.232S., etc.; mostly with intr. aor. 2 Act. > ἀπέδυν, > pf. ἀποδέδυ_κα (used trans. by X.An.5.8.23 πολλοὺς ἤδη ἀποδέδυκεν):—strip off oneself, take off, “εἵματα ταῦτ᾽ ἀποδύς” Od.5.343; “ἀπόδυθι . . θοἰμάτιον” Ar.Th.214; τῶν ἱματίων ἀποδύσας (aor. 2 part. pl. fem.) having stripped off some of them, ib.656; “σῶμ᾽ ἀποδυσάμενος” Epigr.Gr.403 (Galatia): metaph., “ἀ. τὴν ὑπόκρισιν” J.AJ13.7.1.
- abs., ἀποδυσάμενος having stripped, v.l. for ἀπολυσ-, Od.5.349; “ἀποδύντες” stripped naked, Th.1.6, cf. Pl.Mx.236d: metaph., ἀποδύεσθαι πρὸς τὸ λέγειν, εἰς ἀγορανομίαν, Plu.Dem.6, Brut.15; οἱ ἀποδυόμενοι εἰς τὴν παλαίστραν those who strip for the palaestra, who practise there, Lys.Fr.45.1; “εἰς τὸ γυμνάσιον” IG14.256 (Phintias); “πρὸς τὸ ἀχανὲς πέλαγος” Jul.Or.4.142c; ἀποδύντες τοῖς ἀναπαίστοις ἐπίωμεν let us strip and attack the anapaests, Ar.Ach.627, cf. Ra.641.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)podu%2Fw
Hylander, thanks for the review, very helpful.
It’s too late to correct the error, but I see that I mistakenly wrote in an earlier post, “Athematic and sigmatic aorists are generally lumped together as ‘second aorists’.” Should be “Athematic and thematic aorists are lumped together as ‘second aorists’.”