Splitting Compound Verbs?

Alan Bunning
Posts: 299
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Alan Bunning »

Stephen Hughes wrote:If you like we could work through all the Pi words together. (Para, Peri, Pro and Pros). I working in the Pi’s now for something else, so if your hitching a ride, it’s on my way anyway.
I think work like that could be extremely valuable for understanding word meanings (see the quotes below), but at this point, I don’t think I can use that for a basis for word divisions because I can’t get passed the accent arguments (#2 and #3) for keeping them joined. I think the inevitable conclusion is that if compound verbs can be split, then there has to be evidence that the accents changed from the 1st century until they became visible in the texts a few centuries later. Someone could try to claim that all the prepositional prefixes were proclitics (noting that εισ, εκ, and εν are already in the list) in the case of verbs, but even that does not seem to work when the accent can be placed on the last vowel of the preposition (but I am still not sure why it cannot recede further back then that). I am not sure if an alternative theory on accents could explain all of that away, but that is what would have to happen to be plausible.

Otherwise, the only other alternative would be to claim that the accents changed from the 1st century until they became visible in the texts a few centuries later. In order for that to be plausible, there would have to be evidence to that effect and that is not likely, because we don’t see the accents in the manuscripts! It just doesn’t seem likely that accents could change that radically in only a few centuries, and there would be no reason to postulate that without evidence. I know of no such evidence. Does anybody else?

My take is that the accent evidence should trump all of the other pro-splitting arguments because it is structural to the language, even though it could not be seen in the language until a few centuries later. That said, there seems to be merit in taking a deeper look at the meanings of these compound verbs, and why it seems that the meanings of many could be represented by their constituent elements.

1814 – “The negligence and inconsideration, with which lexicographers and grammarians in general have proceeded in assigning the force and significancy of the Greek particles, cannot have escaped the notice of any correct Greek scholar; and in no species of particles, perhaps, have these faults been more frequently conspicuous, than in respect to the prepositions.” (On the Force of the Greek Prepositions in Compound Verbs, as employed in the New Testament, J. A. H. Tittmann)

1840 – “The full import of the compound verbs in the N.T., and the extent to which they can assume place of simple verbs, has not yet been sufficiently investigated on rational principles...” (A grammar of the idioms of the Greek language of the New Testament, Georg Benedikt Winer)

2011 – “The lack of a scholarly examination towards prepositions led to an almost schizophrenic attitude with some either denying any emphasis while others seeing too much.” “...an attempt to handle the issue of prepositions in compound verbs, an issue that still is seemingly not settled, even among Greek scholars.” (Those pesky prepositions in compound verbs, Dan Fabricatore)
Alan Bunning
Posts: 299
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Towards defensibility of your ideas

Post by Alan Bunning »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:I have no such needs and there is nothing here I am looking to publish.
I mean the collation of manuscripts.
I have no plans to publish anything there either. The website is my “publication”.
Not splitting senteces or even paragraph could be argued as being the most valid. The grooming that you have already done, in fact, is an alteration / simplification of the evidence to conform to the standards of mediaeval (Byzantine) scholarship. You have become part of the process of manuscript transmission, redoing / replying the same standards / conventions to uncial manuscript's, as Byzantine scribes did when they first copied uncial to miniscule.
That is a really good point. If someone doesn’t like how words are divided, they can always delete all of the spaces, and then they can see it like it was.
Physically altering the text to the extent that you are proposing is probably too radical. Of course speakers needed to be able to "guess" the meaning of newly encountered words based on both elements and context. A small dot between constituent elements is probably adequate.
I think that is where I might be going with this. I could put a hyphen between the constituent elements and leave the word divisions exactly where I have them (with constituent elements meaning only the prepositional prefixes at this point, not other types of compound words). That way, the lexical entries and parsings can remain exactly how they are, but the reader can still see where the elements break if they think that is of some benefit. If someone doesn’t like that, they can simply delete all of the hyphens and see it exactly how they are used to seeing it. My only concern with this idea is that it might clutter the text. What do other people think about this idea?
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

You can only play trumps in some card games not in life

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Alan Bunning wrote:I can’t get passed (sic.) the accent arguments (#2 and #3) for keeping them. I think the inevitable conclusion is that if compound verbs can be split, then there has to be evidence that the accents changed from the 1st century until they became visible in the texts a few centuries later.
...
I am not sure if an alternative theory on accents could explain all of that away, but that is what would have to happen to be plausible.

My take is that the accent evidence should trump all of the other pro-splitting arguments because it is structural to the language, even though it could not be seen in the language until a few centuries later.
I understand what you are referring to when you say "trumps" the basic working rules of language are at about the same level of difficulty as are those of cards or mahjong. Language has some four-letter expletives that are strong and work in all situations to stop further discussion. The deck of cards has red and black jockers, and in some games a dominant genus / house - reflective also in some small way of human social structure. Language, like real life society is more complex than simple models. There is no one element in the system that beats all the rest.

Now, I don't think it is "structural to the language" as you imagine, just to the majority of the dialects in a majority of cases.

I only have only done a semester or two on dialects, and accentuation was like a footnote in the introduction, so I only have a rudimentary knowledge of the patterns (more rude than mental I think), but that could be a starting point for discussion.

The Lesbian Aeolian dialect applied barytonesis to all words and not just to verbs, as other dialects did to a some degree at least. That is to say that no di- or polysyllabic words in that dialect were pronounced oxytone. Most other dialects follow the rules we are familiar with in the Koine (more or less).

The evidence you have is that in a small number of instances verbs undergo barytonesis (pushing the accent back as far as possible) onto the suffixed preposition. That is to say that the rule has been applied more successfully in those moods. The moveable (able to be fixed on a given place in the word without the application of the rules of barytonesis and oxytonesis) accent: those patterns /types of accents that we see in nouns, adjectives and other words in our dialect is, in fact, still retained in a number of verb forms, like -μέν-, and the second aorists .

Splitting or non-splitting is an idea that arises as a reaction to seeing the application of the various rules and tendencies in accentuation, in various circumstances. The language doesn't need words split based on the working of the rules of accentuation within words. That is to say that saying where barytonesis did it didn't work is a cause to split or not split, is an oversimplification too.

Accentuation is not a simple trump that works in all situations as barytonesus did in Lesbian Aeolic.

What you are left with - from the current accentuation in the later texts - is that in words types such as everything except verbs, which retained a moveable accent and moods of the verb where barytonesis happened without hindrance, the preposition was almost certainly joined. In other moods of the verb, there is no conclusive "trumping" evidence to disprove splitting based on accentuation patterns.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by RandallButh »

I can’t get passed (sic.) the accent arguments (#2 and #3) for keeping them. I think the inevitable conclusion is that if compound verbs can be split, then there has to be evidence that the accents changed from the 1st century until they became visible in the texts a few centuries later.
Alan, you keep writing as though the verbs can and should be split, that you need to keep looking until you can find some justification. So you keep looking for that elusive justification instead of declaring the elephant in the room.

The Greeks did not split them and did not allow words to come between the prefix and verb-stem. You need to turn your operational direction around, this thread keeps generating postings that are trying to push water uphill.

If you want to do a lexical survey of 'para- verbs' and 'pros- verb', fine. But splitting Greek verbs is not an issue.
Alan Bunning
Posts: 299
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Alan Bunning »

RandallButh wrote:Alan, you keep writing as though the verbs can and should be split, that you need to keep looking until you can find some justification. So you keep looking for that elusive justification instead of declaring the elephant in the room.
Wow! I have no idea what you are talking about, for I just declared the elephant in the room and gave up on the splitting idea based on accent and apparently you could not figure that out. And then after stating that I would leave the words joined, I asked people’s opinion on using hyphens between the prepositional prefixes. Perhaps you did not understand that. Now Stephen Hughes is saying that I threw the towel in too early.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Splitting or non-splitting is an idea that arises as a reaction to seeing the application of the various rules and tendencies in accentuation, in various circumstances. The language doesn't need words split based on the working of the rules of accentuation within words. That is to say that saying where barytonesis did it didn't work is a cause to split or not split, is an oversimplification too.

Accentuation is not a simple trump that works in all situations as barytonesus did in Lesbian Aeolic.

What you are left with - from the current accentuation in the later texts - is that in words types such as everything except verbs, which retained a moveable accent and moods of the verb where barytonesis happened without hindrance, the preposition was almost certainly joined. In other moods of the verb, there is no conclusive "trumping" evidence to disprove splitting based on accentuation patterns.
Okay, Stephen, where is the flaw in my reasoning here:
Alan Bunning wrote:I think the inevitable conclusion is that if compound verbs can be split, then there has to be evidence that the accents changed from the 1st century until they became visible in the texts a few centuries later. Someone could try to claim that all the prepositional prefixes were proclitics (noting that εισ, εκ, and εν are already in the list) in the case of verbs, but even that does not seem to work when the accent can be placed on the last vowel of the preposition (but I am still not sure why it cannot recede further back then that). I am not sure if an alternative theory on accents could explain all of that away, but that is what would have to happen to be plausible.
Are you proposing that περι, κατα, etc. can become proclitics when placed in front of verbs? And then that the accent receding back to the last vowel of the preposition can be normal under some circumstances, but not necessarily showing that the words are joined?
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

the role of prepositions in scripta continua

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Alan Bunning wrote:Now Stephen Hughes is saying that I threw the towel in too early.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Splitting or non-splitting is an idea that arises as a reaction to seeing the application of the various rules and tendencies in accentuation, in various circumstances. The language doesn't need words split based on the working of the rules of accentuation within words. That is to say that barytonesis did or didn't work as a cause to split or not split, is an oversimplification too.

Accentuation is not a simple trump that works in all situations as barytonesis did in Lesbian Aeolic.

What you are left with - from the current accentuation in the later texts - is that in words types such as everything except verbs, which retained a moveable accent and moods of the verb where barytonesis happened without hindrance, the preposition was almost certainly joined. In other moods of the verb, there is no conclusive "trumping" evidence to disprove splitting based on accentuation patterns.
Stephen Hughes spends most of his time looking at obscure words and meanings, and is interested in strategies for effective vocabulary acquisition. He is not interested in early manuscripts for the reconstruction of an eclectic text, but rather for the clues they give for the language. He reads the New Testament in the Byzantine textform. He finds his own ideas on the topic boring, but he is willing to interlocute with you as you explore your ideas.

Stephen Hughes also reads Chinese, with is a language written in scripta continua. While reading Chinese, the reader needs to supply pronunciation (word divisions, word stress, intonation and sentence stress patterns). A quarter of a life time ago, Stephen Hughes spent a semester reading Greek papyri, also in scripta continua. Stephen Hughes Master's degree study was in the Middle Egyptian language, and he can recognise and read individual words in the hieroglyphic scripta continua. Splitting words is not a personal issue for him.

If we look at Greek in scripta continua one of the easiest identifiable units are the prepositions (along with other non-declinable words).

There is a lot more use of joining words like δέ and καί in writing, I think in writing, than there would have been in speaking. The same way we (I at least) consciously add nuance words to my written English, that I don't use in speaking. They are breaking-the-text words. If we see a preposition, it is the marker of the beginning of a unit in the text. In poetry, which was heard, there are not so many of these marker words needed as there are in scripta continua writing, so tmesis is possible because the preposition doesn't serve the unit break function. Of course in an earlier (predominantly oral) period of the language it didn't need to serve that function either.
  • Verbal units with their non-original barytonesis accentuation patterns did not separate.
  • Nominal units tend to be pronounced together in slightly more complex (sentence stress-level) ways so they are written separately.
  • Adjectives and nouns with prefixed prepositions have predictable, but moveable (word level distinctive) accentuation patterns, and so function as a whole and are written together.
Following that reasoning, the only place where the accentuation / pronunciation pattern of verbs may allow for a different / disjoined pronunciation of the prepositional unit would be in the forms if the verb that have non-barytonetic stress patterns. If that did happen, then it would perhaps function as a secondary stress in those units. Greek does not mark secondary stress, but does hint at where it is not, by the elision of vowels.

Stephen Hughes is not suggesting what you should do with your towel, he is saying you should tread lightly on generalisations.
Alan Bunning wrote:Okay, Stephen, where is the flaw in my reasoning here:
Alan Bunning wrote:I think the inevitable conclusion is that if compound verbs can be split, then there has to be evidence that the accents changed from the 1st century until they became visible in the texts a few centuries later. Someone could try to claim that all the prepositional prefixes were proclitics (noting that εισ, εκ, and εν are already in the list) in the case of verbs, but even that does not seem to work when the accent can be placed on the last vowel of the preposition (but I am still not sure why it cannot recede further back then that). I am not sure if an alternative theory on accents could explain all of that away, but that is what would have to happen to be plausible.
Are you proposing that περι, κατα, etc. can become proclitics when placed in front of verbs? And then that the accent receding back to the last vowel of the preposition can be normal under some circumstances, but not necessarily showing that the words are joined?
I think that prepositions were joined to the verbs when the accent followed the rules of barytonesis, at least. In the cases where a verb still follows the older accentuation patterns, it is possible that there could have been a unit-level pattern of pronunciation that had an additional (secondary) stress on the preposition. But that is not indicated in extant mediaeval texts.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Alan Bunning
Posts: 299
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: the role of prepositions in scripta continua

Post by Alan Bunning »

Stephen Hughes wrote:He finds his own ideas on the topic boring, but he is willing to interlocute with you as you explore your ideas.
Thanks Stephen for being willing to explore this idea with me. I found your open-mindedness and rational thought on the matter to be quite refreshing. Your insights as well as those from the other contributors have been immensely helpful.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Nature v. nurture, but what's the nurture

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Alan Bunning wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:He finds his own ideas on the topic boring, but he is willing to interlocute with you as you explore your ideas.
Thanks Stephen for being willing to explore this idea with me. I found your open-mindedness and rational thought on the matter to be quite refreshing. Your insights as well as those from the other contributors have been immensely helpful.
Almost inevitably, this topic devolved into a nature v. nuture (etymology against context) polarisation.

I was looking at ths issue from a different perspective a couple of years ago, without the nature v. nuture undertones, perhaps that is what is refreshing??

The logical question which follows on from the proposition to split the prefixed preposition is "How does it fit into the overall syntax?" Splitting then becomes a question of context. The example I gave way back near the beginning with para- was to show the importance of syntax for determining the meaning of the prepositions. Those quotes that you quoted are indicative of considering the "problem" of prefixed prepositions. In fact, there is a relationship between syntactic patterns and many prefixed prepositions (not coverd in Moule BTW), and there is a great deal that can be gotten derivationally (not really etymology) too.

In over a hundred postings to this thread, there is one silence voice that grows ever stronger the longer it is left unuttered. What is the "nurture", what are the rules that govern the context? In the end, your idea of splitting is a realisation that the prefixed prepositions are not just related to the verb's meaning, but to the utterance's functioning.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”