The form κέκραγεν

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

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby RandallButh » May 7th, 2013, 6:24 am

STephen I followed you on everything except:
I would also add that it is not a prototypical perfect morphologically (lacking the kappa marker).


Verbs in -ζ- may add voicing to the kappa, producing gamma. More specifically, the zeta can come from a gamma-root, to which the kappa assimilates.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 617
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: The form ἐκέκραγον

Postby Ken M. Penner » May 7th, 2013, 7:58 am

Chrysostom wrote:Τί ποτέ ἐστι τοῦτο τό• Ἐπέταντο καὶ τί παρασημᾶναι βούλεται; Ὅτι διηνεκῶς περὶ τὸν Θεόν εἰσι καὶ παρ’ αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἀφίστανται, ἀλλ’ αὐτὴ αὐτοῖς ἡ πολιτεία, τὸ διηνεκῶς εἰς αὐτὸν ᾄδειν, τὸ διαπαντὸς εὐφημεῖν τὸν ποιήσαντα. Οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν• Ἐκέκραξαν, ἀλλ’ Ἐκέκραγον, τουτέστι, διηνεκῶς τοῦτο ἔργον ἔχουσιν.

While we're at it, I should note that Justianian quotes Chrysostom slightly differently, according to the edition of Albertella, Amelotti, and Migliardi:
Καὶ ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις δὲ Ἰωάννης ὁ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος ἑρμηνεύων τὴν Ἡσαίου προφητείαν λέγει τάδε• διηνεκῶς τὰ σεραφὶμ περὶ τὸν θεόν εἰσιν καὶ παρ’ αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀφίστανται, ἀλλ’ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ πολιτεία τὸ διηνεκῶς εἰς αὐτὸν ἄιδειν, τὸ διὰ πάντων εὐφημεῖν τὸν ποιήσαντα. οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ἔκραξαν, ἀλλ’ ἐκέκραγον, τουτέστιν διηνεκῶς τοῦτο <ἔργον> ἔχουσιν, ἕτερος πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον καὶ ἔλεγον ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος σαβαώθ. τοῦτο τὴν παναρμόνιον αὐτῶν συμφωνίαν δηλοῖ καὶ τὴν μετὰ πολλῆς ὁμονοίας εὐφημίαν.
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University
Ken M. Penner
 
Posts: 626
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada

Re: The form ἐκέκραγον

Postby RandallButh » May 7th, 2013, 8:22 am

Ken M. Penner wrote:
Chrysostom wrote:Τί ποτέ ἐστι τοῦτο τό• Ἐπέταντο καὶ τί παρασημᾶναι βούλεται; Ὅτι διηνεκῶς περὶ τὸν Θεόν εἰσι καὶ παρ’ αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἀφίστανται, ἀλλ’ αὐτὴ αὐτοῖς ἡ πολιτεία, τὸ διηνεκῶς εἰς αὐτὸν ᾄδειν, τὸ διαπαντὸς εὐφημεῖν τὸν ποιήσαντα. Οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν• Ἐκέκραξαν, ἀλλ’ Ἐκέκραγον, τουτέστι, διηνεκῶς τοῦτο ἔργον ἔχουσιν.

While we're at it, I should note that Justianian quotes Chrysostom slightly differently, according to the edition of Albertella, Amelotti, and Migliardi:
Καὶ ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις δὲ Ἰωάννης ὁ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος ἑρμηνεύων τὴν Ἡσαίου προφητείαν λέγει τάδε• διηνεκῶς τὰ σεραφὶμ περὶ τὸν θεόν εἰσιν καὶ παρ’ αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀφίστανται, ἀλλ’ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ πολιτεία τὸ διηνεκῶς εἰς αὐτὸν ἄιδειν, τὸ διὰ πάντων εὐφημεῖν τὸν ποιήσαντα. οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ἔκραξαν, ἀλλ’ ἐκέκραγον, τουτέστιν διηνεκῶς τοῦτο <ἔργον> ἔχουσιν, ἕτερος πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον καὶ ἔλεγον ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος σαβαώθ. τοῦτο τὴν παναρμόνιον αὐτῶν συμφωνίαν δηλοῖ καὶ τὴν μετὰ πολλῆς ὁμονοίας εὐφημίαν.


That, too, is fine. It again underscores that ἐκέκραγον is an imperfect discussing something on-going διηνεκῶς.

One can explain the difference between aorists ἔκραξαν and Ἐκέκραξαν easily enough as a regularization of the special LXX-al form. Chrysostom used the form that would have otherwise been used in the LXX. Either scribes changed his text in the copy that Justianian saw, or else Justinian himself regularized Chrysostom's form into a "normal aorist" ἔκραξαν.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 617
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby MAubrey » May 7th, 2013, 9:56 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:I'm not familar with this meaning of the perfect. Do you have cites to the literature arguing for this?

It isn't a "meaning." Its just something that happens, especially in dialogue. I can give examples, though I don't want to start a rabbit trail...its a natural result of completive semantics, a la Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994, 57). Completives regularly have exhaustive readings and thus making assertions that involve the highest degree is a natural result in usage.
RandallButh wrote:This brings us to the verb ἐκεκράγει, right in the middle of that open-ended context, that you seem to want us to take as a single shriek "cried out and then proclaimed[sic-RB]." Josephus was expecting a more perceptive audience and he chose NOT to present things that way.

Wow, Randall. That's...cheap.

Combined with the fact that you've failed to follow most of what I've said, I think I'm done here...
Mike Aubrey
Canada Institute of Linguistics & Trinity Western University Graduate School
MAubrey
 
Posts: 654
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby Stephen Carlson » May 7th, 2013, 10:54 am

RandallButh wrote:STephen I followed you on everything except:
I would also add that it is not a prototypical perfect morphologically (lacking the kappa marker).


Verbs in -ζ- may add voicing to the kappa, producing gamma. More specifically, the zeta can come from a gamma-root, to which the kappa assimilates.


My point is merely is that if it looked more like a typical perfect (reduplication and kappa) then it would have better resisted reanalysis as a present.

As for verbs in -ζ- having perfects in -γ-, I'm not sure which verbs you have in mind. The perfect of ἁρπάζω is ἥρπακα, and the perfect of βαστάζω is βεβάστακα (attested in the 3rd person singular). ῥέζω has a second perfect ἔρογα but a first perfect ἔρρεχα, where the gamma is gone. The poetic τρίζω does have a perfect τέτριγα, though.

The point, however, isn't that κέκραγα is an invalid perfect, but that its morphology isn't so typically perfect in shape as to prevent a reanalysis of the form as having a reduplicated root rather than a simple root with a reduplicated stem.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby Stephen Carlson » May 7th, 2013, 11:08 am

MAubrey wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:I'm not familar with this meaning of the perfect. Do you have cites to the literature arguing for this?

It isn't a "meaning." Its just something that happens, especially in dialogue. I can give examples, though I don't want to start a rabbit trail...its a natural result of completive semantics, a la Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994, 57). Completives regularly have exhaustive readings and thus making assertions that involve the highest degree is a natural result in usage.


My understanding of the completives in BPP is not such that they would readily apply to verbs of communication at all, much less have the meaning that you are proposing for them. (For example, I don't understand how speaking literally "exhausts" anything. Eating, yes. Burning, yes. But speaking?) And none of their few examples are on point. Furthermore I don't understand why completive semantics, even if they can be made to work, would be better for these perfects than either the anterior or even the evidential sematics that resultatives have been known to evolve into, repeatedly.

I know you've got something in the works, and I'll have to withhold judgment until I read the argument and evidence, but, as far as I can tell, this is going to be an original proposal.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby Ken M. Penner » May 8th, 2013, 10:23 am

Chrysostom wrote:Τί ποτέ ἐστι τοῦτο τό• Ἐπέταντο καὶ τί παρασημᾶναι βούλεται; Ὅτι διηνεκῶς περὶ τὸν Θεόν εἰσι καὶ παρ’ αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἀφίστανται, ἀλλ’ αὐτὴ αὐτοῖς ἡ πολιτεία, τὸ διηνεκῶς εἰς αὐτὸν ᾄδειν, τὸ διαπαντὸς εὐφημεῖν τὸν ποιήσαντα. Οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν• Ἐκέκραξαν, ἀλλ’ Ἐκέκραγον, τουτέστι, διηνεκῶς τοῦτο ἔργον ἔχουσιν.

My off-the cuff rendering:
What is this "They were flying" and what is it trying to indicate? That they are continuously around God, and they do not leave his presence, rather this is the policy for them: to sing to him continuously, to always bless the Maker. For it doesn't say, "They called," but rather, "They kept calling," i.e., they have this task continuously.
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University
Ken M. Penner
 
Posts: 626
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby RandallButh » May 8th, 2013, 10:42 am

Ken,

just to clarify--

we would now agree that this ἐκέκραγον is an imperfect neologism.

Yes?
RandallButh
 
Posts: 617
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby Ken M. Penner » May 8th, 2013, 10:48 am

RandallButh wrote:we would now agree that this ἐκέκραγον is an imperfect neologism.

Yes. I no longer think it's a second aorist.
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University
Ken M. Penner
 
Posts: 626
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada

Previous

Return to Word Meanings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest