[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Rom. 9:3

Carl Conrad replied to JohnBARACH@aol.com;

<omission>
>>Eeuchomeen is the 1 sing impf. ind. dep. ... but what would euchomeen be?
>> The ending is 1 sg. impf. ind. dep ... but it's missing the augment?  Very
>>puzzling, says I.
>
>EUCOMHN (your "euchomeen"), an unaugmented present stem with a first person
>sg. MP secondary ending, shouldn't represent anything in any traditional
>Greek orthography. I can understand how it may have appeared in some MSS at
>some points because HUCOMHN and EUCOMHN would have been PRONOUNCED alike,
>but in morphological terms, EUCOMHN doesn't mean anything at all. It is
>most likely a mis-spelled form of HUCOMHN.
>
Its interesting that in the NT and much of Hellenistic Greek AU always
forms the augment as HU, but EU will sometimes remain unchanged for an
augmented form and sometimes augment HU. egs. EUDOKEW in aor. EUDOKHSA, but
EUKAIREW in the impf. and aor. HUKAIROUN/ HUKAIRHSA;  EULOGEW in the aor
and perf. EULOGHSA/ EULOGHKA/EULOGHMAI;  EUNOUCIZW in aor. pass
EUNOUCISQHN; EUODOW in aor EUODWQHN; EURISKW in the impf is HURISKOMHN but
in aor. is EURON, EURA, EUREQHN and the perf. is EURHKA.  It would not be
surprizing then if some scribes (perhaps lazy) ignored the temporal augment
here.


Carlton L. Winbery
114 Beall St.
Pineville, LA 71360
Fax (318) 442-4996
e-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
        winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
        winbrow@aol.com
Phone 318 487-7241 Home 448-6103