The form κέκραγεν

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.

The form κέκραγεν

Postby RandallButh » May 1st, 2013, 8:21 am

2.
Well, I've got an article on Johannine connectors from 1992 that might help, Linguistics and NT Interpretation, ed. D. A. Black, "OYN, DE, KAI, and Asyndeton in John's Gospel" 144-161. Also an article in the Levinson festschrift, edited S. Runge, from 2011 "Evaluating Luke's Unnatural Greek: A Look at His Connectives" 335-370.

As an anecdotal example: a few days ago I was looking at John and saw Ἰωάνης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων. This correctly gets the Greek idiom with ΚΕΚRAΓΕΝΑΙ in the perfect along with the present MARTYREI. Look at the LXX where the perfect is used for "present" contexts, so much so that crazy forms are found, like an "imperfect" ἐκέκραγον Isa 1.3 καὶ ἐκέκραγον ἕτερος πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον. So who among NT writers reflects this idiomatic Greek perfect? John, -- at 1.15. Yea, John, Go, John, go!

As for Luke, his gospel style is up and down, schizophrenic. Surely you've noticed the switch from Luke 1.1-4 to the rest of Luke 1. Luke best represents Hellenistic prose in Acts 16-28. Even in Acts 22, where he portrays a Hebrew speech of Paul, he uses an impersonal ἐγένετο ... αὐτὸν ποιῆσαι Greek structure (like Greek "συνέβη ... αὐτὸν ποιῆσαι") a structure that is NEVER found in the LXX. That Greek (non-Hebraic) structure is the only one found in Acts, while in the gospel it is mixed with about thirty examples of the impersonal Hebraic "ἐγένετο ... (καὶ) ἐποίησε". But in Acts, the impersonal Hebraic structure is never found, contra erroneous statements by Dalman, Turner, et al, and expectations of commentators.

However, this discussion is now dealing with data that should be outside of a beginners forum.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 597
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Too many "hims"

Postby Ken M. Penner » May 1st, 2013, 3:16 pm

RandallButh wrote:As an anecdotal example: a few days ago I was looking at John and saw Ἰωάνης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων. This correctly gets the Greek idiom with ΚΕΚRAΓΕΝΑΙ in the perfect along with the present MARTYREI. Look at the LXX where the perfect is used for "present" contexts, so much so that crazy forms are found, like an "imperfect" ἐκέκραγον Isa 1.3 καὶ ἐκέκραγον ἕτερος πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον.

I've been looking into the reduplicated forms of κράζω, and it makes more sense to me to take these not as perfects but aorists. See the thread beginning at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... f=7&t=1115 and especially http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... t=10#p5387 and http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... t=10#p5403
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University
Ken M. Penner
 
Posts: 623
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada

Re: Too many "hims"

Postby RandallButh » May 1st, 2013, 3:33 pm

Ken, it depends on whether they are -άξεν or -άγεν.
The ones with ξ are aorist, just like ἐκεκραγον is imperfect, as if from a verb κεκράγω "I am shouting".
RandallButh
 
Posts: 597
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Too many "hims"

Postby Ken M. Penner » May 1st, 2013, 4:17 pm

RandallButh wrote:The ones with ξ are aorist, just like ἐκεκραγον is imperfect, as if from a verb κεκράγω "I am shouting".

Do you consider ἐκεκραγον imperfect rather than second aorist because κράζω is attested in the first aorist, or for a different reason?
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University
Ken M. Penner
 
Posts: 623
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada

Re: Too many "hims"

Postby RandallButh » May 2nd, 2013, 1:24 am

Κεν ἔγραψεν
RandallButh wrote:
The ones with ξ are aorist, just like ἐκεκραγον is imperfect, as if from a verb κεκράγω "I am shouting".



Do you consider ἐκεκραγον imperfect rather than second aorist because κράζω is attested in the first aorist, or for a different reason?


yes, because ἐκέκραξε is the aorist, well-attested in Isaiah and LXX,
and because καὶ ἐκέκραγον ἕτερος πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον καὶ ἔλεγον
occurs in a descriptive repetitive context of imperfects v.2 and translating וקרא...ואמר in v3.
It seems pretty clear on this one.

BTW Accordance has ἐκέκραγον mistagged, not the first time somebody slipped. If someone wanted to press things, they could call it a pluperfect with imperfect endings, or an imperfect on a perfect stem, but not an aorist. This isn't too different from what we see with ἥκω 'I'm present, here'. And then the hyper correction in Mark ἥκασιν putting a perfect ending on a 'present' neologism from a perfect stem. We call these tiqqun-yeter in Hebrew and they happen when people with a lot of grammar training pause in their speech.

And κέκραγεν is a perfect that patterns like a "present" something like οἲδα and ἕστηκα.
See Jos War 6:108, πάλιν ἀγανακτεῖς καὶ κέκραγάς μοι λοιδορούμενος
and the darkly humorous prophet at 6:301 τοῦτο μεθ᾿ ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτωρ κατὰ πάντας τοὺς στενωποὺς περιῄει κεκραγώς.
Josephus doesn't have κράζειν in a 'present' or imperfect among his 15 examples, all examples are based on κεκραγέναι.
Philo, inconsistently, has one κράζειν-based participle among 13 examples, with the others all based on κεκραγέναι.

I allow κράζειν (κράζουσιν κράζοντες ἔκραζον) as "OK Hellenistic" because of the NT aberration where it reflects a colloquial development.
As mentioned, John 1:15 stands out in the NT as a "normal Greek" exception.

PS: somebody should probably move this to a thread on κέκραγεν and Johannine style.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 597
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby Stephen Carlson » May 2nd, 2013, 4:37 am

Owing to the topic shift, I split this topic into its own thread. Personally, I think this verb is in a kind of morphological limbo, probably because it continues in some sense the Homeric perfectum intensivum but I wonder whether the old perfect has been relexicalized as a present or something.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1900
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby Ken M. Penner » May 2nd, 2013, 6:03 am

RandallButh wrote:BTW Accordance has ἐκέκραγον mistagged, not the first time somebody slipped. If someone wanted to press things, they could call it a pluperfect with imperfect endings, or an imperfect on a perfect stem, but not an aorist.

What are your reasons for excluding the second aorist? The existence of a first aorist for that verb is certainly insufficient reason, since the coexistence of two aorist stems is a phenomenon attested often enough (e.g., both ἁμάρτῃ and ἁμαρτήσῃ in Luke 17:3-4).
If I saw some presents of κραζειν following the pattern κεκραγειν κεκραγα I would be more open to thinking of ἐκέκραγον as an imperfect.
If I saw some pluperfects of κραζειν following the pattern ἐκεκραγειν I would be more open to thinking of ἐκέκραγον as a pluperfect.
Because we so often see two aorist forms (thematic and sigmatic) of the same verb used simultaneously, I think if we have to resort to explaining it as a mixed form, it is less of a stretch to posit two aorist stems than to posit a mix whereby secondary endings are used on an unaugmented stem.
What do you think?
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University
Ken M. Penner
 
Posts: 623
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby RandallButh » May 4th, 2013, 4:03 pm

Ken M. Penner wrote:
RandallButh wrote:BTW Accordance has ἐκέκραγον mistagged, not the first time somebody slipped. If someone wanted to press things, they could call it a pluperfect with imperfect endings, or an imperfect on a perfect stem, but not an aorist.

What are your reasons for excluding the second aorist? The existence of a first aorist for that verb is certainly insufficient reason, since the coexistence of two aorist stems is a phenomenon attested often enough (e.g., both ἁμάρτῃ and ἁμαρτήσῃ in Luke 17:3-4).
If I saw some presents of κραζειν following the pattern κεκραγειν κεκραγα I would be more open to thinking of ἐκέκραγον as an imperfect.
If I saw some pluperfects of κραζειν following the pattern ἐκεκραγειν I would be more open to thinking of ἐκέκραγον as a pluperfect.
Because we so often see two aorist forms (thematic and sigmatic) of the same verb used simultaneously, I think if we have to resort to explaining it as a mixed form, it is less of a stretch to posit two aorist stems than to posit a mix whereby secondary endings are used on an unaugmented stem.
What do you think?


Ken, I gave other reasons that you did not respond to. when you put them altogether, I think that ἐκέκραγον is obviously not functioning as an aorist.

As for verbs having "first aorists" and "second aorists", it would depend on what you are talking about. To me ειπας and ειπες are the same word, dialectically different. The citation of Luke 17 αμαρτη αμαρτηση also shows different dialects where a regularization process is affecting the forms. The second aorist would normally be the older, the first aorist the newer (unless reflecting a suppletion process from different dialects). Like εγημα εγαμησα 'i married.' But εκεκραγον as an aorist cannot be called a regularization, it would have been the opposite, an irregularization. we call that making water flow uphill. Moreover, something like εστησε and εστη are different words with different meanings. None of the double-pattern aorist verb constellations explains Is 6.3 as an aorist.
My advice is take a step back and look at the bigger picture of the verbs in Is 6:2-3, and then the κεκραγ stem in the LXX or try to deal with the restriction of the verb in Josephus.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 597
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby MAubrey » May 4th, 2013, 11:35 pm

Am I missing something? Exactly what makes this so abnormal to be a perfect? The semantics looks like a perfect; the form looks like a perfect; if it quacks like a duck...
Mike Aubrey
Canada Institute of Linguistics & Trinity Western University Graduate School
MAubrey
 
Posts: 634
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby RandallButh » May 5th, 2013, 3:07 am

MAubrey wrote:Am I missing something?


Maybe. How tight is your morphology?

Exactly what makes this so abnormal to be a perfect? The semantics looks like a perfect; the form looks like a perfect; if it quacks like a duck...


Here are some ducks in Aesop
PINK POLKA-DOT ducks,
and I'm not saying that they are not ducks, just
pluperfects being used idiomatically where an imperfect is expected:

Aesop: κόραξ καὶ ἀλώπηξ Raven and Fox: at climax (with English approximation):
... ὁ δὲ παραστῆσαι αὐτῇ θέλων ___but the [crow] wanting to show him
ὅτι καὶ φωνὴν ἔχει, ___that he has a voice
βαλὼν τὸ κρέας ___having-tossed the meat
μεγάλα ἐκεκράγει. ___greatly he had cawwed
[pluperfect for either an imperfect or aorist, as if to say "was ca-ca-cawwing"]
προσδραμοῦσα καὶ τὸ κρέας ἁρπάσασα
ἔφη "..." ___having-run up and having snatched the meat [the fox] said ...

= = =
Aesop: κορώνη καὶ κόραξ ___hooded-crow
(who wanted to be regarded as an omen-teller like the raven)
...καὶ δὴ θεασαμένη ___so having-seen
τινὰς ὀδοιπόρους παριόντας ___some travellers passing by
ἧκεν ἐπὶ τινος δένδρου ___[flew] took a position on a tree
καὶ στᾶσα ___and standing/stopping [on the tree]
μεγάλα ἐκεκράγει. ___greatly had [sic] ca-ca-cawwed [pluperfect for either an imperfect or aorist]
... εἷς τις ἔφη "ἀλλ' ἀπίωμεν ___ one of them said "But let's keep going
κορώνη γάρ ἐστιν, ___ because it's a a hooded-crow
ἥτις κεκραγυῖα οἰωνὸν οὐκ ἔχει ___that ca-ca-cawwed (when it crows) does not have a bird-omen

Such idimoatic quasi-imperfective usage of κεκραγεναι (do a search for κράζειν in Aesop for starters)
was expanded and regularized in the LXX
In the LXX the perfect morphology
was regularized into an aorist by adding as 's',
which produces a root κεκρᾶξαι Is 65.24 (sic)
(perf is κεκραγέναι and frequently found in "present/imperfective" contexts)
See Jud 3.9, 3.15, 4.3, 6.6 6.7 where the perfect has an 's' added and the aorist ending 'αν' instead of the perfect 'ασι'.

Anyway, back in Isaiah 6.3, the perfect stem was regularized into an imperfect
by using imperfect endings in an imperfective context in Greek Is 6.2-3,
that was explicitly marked as imperfective in Hebrew Is 6.2-3.
Quite nicely, really.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 597
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Next

Return to Word Meanings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests