On p.392, M. states that “Principal parts that occur only in compounds in Attic prose are preceded by a hyphen (in the following table of principal parts)” On p. 401 of the table, I see “-πληττω” - preceded by a hyphen. So, I conclude that I should see that verb only when preceded by a prefix, like maybe απο, εισ, etc..
Yet, in Unit 20 p.171, in exercise I.2, he gives “επληττοντο” to be translated (They were being struck/they were striking themselves). The word has an augment, but that doesn’t make it a compound, or does it?
What is it that I’m not getting?
According to LSJ the uncompounded verb is not found in Attic in the present tense. εκ-πλήττω is usual (spelled -σσω outside of strict Attic). You should not expect to see it compounded with απο-, let alone with εισ- (whatever would it mean?)
But this is the sort of detail that you do not need to learn!
According to the LSJ, it’s the present tense form that’s only used with compounds in Homer and Attic prose. The other tenses appear not to be affected:
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/πλήσσω
I don’t have Mastronarde, but I’ll bet there’s a footnote somewhere qualifying his statement. I’m not 100% sure but I think that verbs only used in compounds are normally displayed with the hyphen and I suspect that use only in compounds may not extend to every tense.
EDIT: Cross posted with MWH. I’ll leave the post so you can check the link to the LSJ.
“Outside Attic, πλήττω appears as πλήσσω. As the principal parts list below shows, in several tenses only compounds occur in Attic prose, while the simple forms in those tenses are poetic.”
“-πλήττω, -πλήξω, -έπληξα, πέπληγα, πέπληγμαι, ἐπλήγην or -επλάγην” on p.145
As you can see from p. 145 M. is simply saying there is no present/future/aorist in attic without a prefix.
As Michael says this is a small point but I assume that while the present tense may not be seen in Attic without a prefix the imperfect (mid/passive) ἐπλήττοντο must be. “ἐ” here is a temporal augment not a prefix in the sense of a part of a compound verb.
My confusion stems from the fact that both the present and the imperfect can be generated from the first pp, it seemed logical to me that the rule should also apply to the imperfect. Wrong!
@Aetos: I didn’t find any specific mention of that in M.
If even the imperfect occurred, the standard would be to admit the entire present system in the charts. The imperfect in the exercise is just a goof. Neither the present nor the imperfect appear before Christ without a compound.
ἀποπλήττω has made its way into English, actually, by way of “apoplexy” and the Greek medical writers. I see it just this once in Attic when I search (Antigone.)
None of this matters or is important, but I thought it was fun to see the only place that the compound does appear in the TLG, which gives a very detailed description of precisely the blows that the author was trying to describe with it. (It’s like reading “Tales of Old Japan”.)