The form κέκραγεν

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

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby cwconrad » May 6th, 2013, 10:01 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:Randy, can you tell what you think is going on then in John 1:15 Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων? The first verb looks like a historical present, so do you think that κέκραγεν is one too? Wouldn't this go against the grain of telic or punctual verbs in the historical present (or morphological perfect)?


See BDF§322 (re historical present):
The present is used in a similar way even outside a narrative: 15 Ἰωάνης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν (= κράζει; κέκραγα is pres. in Att., also LXX; also cf. μαρτυρόμενος καὶ κεκραγώς Plut., Cato Min. 58, βοᾷ καὶ κέκραγεν Hippoc., Morb. Sacr. 15 [VI 388 Littré])

Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (167). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.



The form is clearly perfect, but LSJ clearly enough indicates that the perfect κέκραγα is indeed commonly used in a present sense, κεκράξομαι is used as a future equivalent to κράξω

Nouns κέκγραγμα, κεκραγμός and κεκρακτής are built on the perfect stem; these nouns appear in Aristophanes, Euripides, and Lysias, Attic authors. Use of the perfect in a present sense must, it would seem, be Attic. κέκραχθι and κεκράγεε appear as imperatives of κράζω in Aristophanes and Menander.

I'd like to know more about these perfect tense forms that appear to be used in the sense of a present tense. There are evidently several in addition to οἷδα and ἕστηκα. ἔρρωμαι (ῥώννυμαι) is one of them, from which our "farewell" ἕρρωσο derives; another may be πεφίμωσο (= φιμώθητι) -- although this may be an instance of conflation of aorist and perfect.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1363
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: The form ἐκέκραγον

Postby MAubrey » May 6th, 2013, 11:19 am

RandallButh wrote:"What is wrong with this picture?"

Nothing.
RandallButh wrote:What is incongruent in that statement?

Nothing.
RandallButh wrote:The pairing is a mismatch, either the wrong aspects are being paired, or for a small subset of verbs (related to ἐκεκράγει), the opposition doesn't normally exist**.

The fact that a pairing is rare cannot be said to be significant unless you motivate it.
RandallButh wrote:On the one hand, the opposite of an imperfect is an aorist indicative. The imperfect is a past marked for imperfectivity while the aorist is a past marked for perfectivity. An author can subjectively take a particular verb and move in and out of the modes of presentation, choosing an imperfect ('e.g. was singing') or an aorist ('sang'). That is plain-vanilla narration, provides relational information to the flow of the story and can be used for additional pragmatic effects.

If you paid attention to how the past perfect is used in narrative, you'd see that it fills the very same function in narrative in relation to the aorist: offline, background material vs. mainline, foreground.
RandallButh wrote:The incongruency in the quoted statement is the pairing of imperfect with past-perfect. That is not a normal or expected opposition.

You keep saying that. But I need something more than your intuition and translation glosses to be convinced of it. By what language internal criteria do you make such a claim? I certainly do not see evidence (here or in general) that using two aspectual forms in conjunction with each other should be viewed as anomalous.

RandallButh wrote:**As a PPS: notice in Josephus how the pluperfect ἐκεκράγει functions with imperfects:
Antiq 10.117 ... ἐκεκράγει καὶ ἐκήρυσσε (were proclaiming)
War 2.280 ... ἱκέτευον (were imploring) ... ἐκεκράγεσαν
War 2.295 (ἔνιοι) ... ἐκεκράγεσαν ... ἀπῄτουν (were soliciting).
War 2.599 ...(τὸ πλῆθος) ἀνεβόα (crowd was crying out)... (οἱ δε) ἐκεκράγεσαν (others were "having-cawwed"-ing) παρώξυνεν δὲ τοὺς πολλούς ὁ Ἰωάννης (was provoking).
War 5.458-459 ... ἐβλασφήμουν (were blaspheming) ... ἐβόων (were shouting) ... ἀναμίσγοντες (mixing these words with reproaches) ἐκεκράγεσαν (were "having cawwed"-ing).
War 6.308 μάλιστα δ' ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς ἐκεκράγει (especially in the feasts he used to "having cawwed") ... οὔτ' ἤμβλυνεν τὴν φωνήν ([and for 7 years and 5 months] was not dulling his voice).

I could take the time to repeat all of these clauses and then add my own non-imperfective translation in parenthesis, too, but that wouldn't make my claim any more true that it does for yours. Give me a motivation.
RandallButh wrote:NB: Josephus does not use the imperfect (e.g., ἔκραζε). The commonplace imperfect of this word is a seemingly colloquial development that occurs in the NT 13 times.

Right. But...

(1) Is the significance of that fact that the perfect is filling that role?
(2) Is it that Josephus never had a practical need to use the past imperfective?
(3) Or is it that the semantics of the lexeme are such and the semantics of the perfect are such that there's a grammatical preference for the perfect over against the imperfect?

Considering that there are only 16 instances of κρἀζω in the past imperfective from Homer up to the 2nd century AD (in Perseus plus the Duke Documentary Papyri and other texts in Logos), there's little reason why I should go with either options one or two. Option three is vastly superior. It also makes sense when we note that the non-past imperfective is nearly just as rare for this verb.
cwconrad wrote:The form is clearly perfect, but LSJ clearly enough indicates that the perfect κέκραγα is indeed commonly used in a present sense, κεκράξομαι is used as a future equivalent to κράξω

Nouns κέκγραγμα, κεκραγμός and κεκρακτής are built on the perfect stem; these nouns appear in Aristophanes, Euripides, and Lysias, Attic authors. Use of the perfect in a present sense must, it would seem, be Attic. κέκραχθι and κεκράγεε appear as imperatives of κράζω in Aristophanes and Menander.

I'd like to know more about these perfect tense forms that appear to be used in the sense of a present tense. There are evidently several in addition to οἷδα and ἕστηκα. ἔρρωμαι (ῥώννυμαι) is one of them, from which our "farewell" ἕρρωσο derives; another may be πεφίμωσο (= φιμώθητι) -- although this may be an instance of conflation of aorist and perfect.

What does LSJ mean by "present sense"? Do they mean present temporal reference? Do they mean "used like a non-past imperfective" (i.e. Greek present stem)?
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 RandallButh » May 6th, 2013, 11:25 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:Randy, can you tell what you think is going on then in John 1:15 Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων? The first verb looks like a historical present, so do you think that κέκραγεν is one too? Wouldn't this go against the grain of telic or punctual verbs in the historical present (or morphological perfect)?


Thank you for the good question, Stephen. In a sense, John 1:15 is what started this thread when I commented that the style of John is "real Greek" even if using a repetitive vocabulary. In John 1:15 the both verbs are functioning like 'presents', and as such are natural candidates for 'historical present'. The 'testify' carries an implied object and can be thought of 'telically'. "Cawwing, crying out" is more of a process, but it, too, can have a telic interpretation "cawwed a caw", like we saw in the Aesop's fable and as is implied in John 1:15 where the content/telic object is provided in the quotation material after λέγων.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 611
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby RandallButh » May 6th, 2013, 11:41 am

Μιχαὴλ ἔγραψεν
RandallButh wrote:
**As a PPS: notice in Josephus how the pluperfect ἐκεκράγει functions with imperfects:
Antiq 10.117 ... ἐκεκράγει καὶ ἐκήρυσσε (were proclaiming)
War 2.280 ... ἱκέτευον (were imploring) ... ἐκεκράγεσαν
War 2.295 (ἔνιοι) ... ἐκεκράγεσαν ... ἀπῄτουν (were soliciting).
War 2.599 ...(τὸ πλῆθος) ἀνεβόα (crowd was crying out)... (οἱ δε) ἐκεκράγεσαν (others were "having-cawwed"-ing) παρώξυνεν δὲ τοὺς πολλούς ὁ Ἰωάννης (was provoking).
War 5.458-459 ... ἐβλασφήμουν (were blaspheming) ... ἐβόων (were shouting) ... ἀναμίσγοντες (mixing these words with reproaches) ἐκεκράγεσαν (were "having cawwed"-ing).
War 6.308 μάλιστα δ' ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς ἐκεκράγει (especially in the feasts he used to "having cawwed") ... οὔτ' ἤμβλυνεν τὴν φωνήν ([and for 7 years and 5 months] was not dulling his voice).


I could take the time to repeat all of these clauses and then add my own non-imperfective translation in parenthesis, too, but that wouldn't make my claim any more true that it does for yours. Give me a motivation.


The point of the Josephus' quotations is the tense of the parallel and overlapping verbs in each context of κεκραγέναι. The motivation is to fit seemlessly with the imperfects and the imperfect of κεκραγέναι did not seem to make it. The other verbs are all IMPERFECTs. I find that interesting, especially when it is 6 out of 6. At this stage I'm merely pointing out the phenomenon, not explaining it ('motivating it'). You can erase my translation of ἐκεγράγει, I only added it to help others on the list see how the pluperfect might be fit together in English with the imperfects. At any rate, you do have to agree that the "crying out"s are consistently used with imperfects in Josephus but are never imperfects themselves.

When you only found 16 imperfects in Greek literature up to 2nd century CE outside of the NT (if I understood you correctly), that too becomes attention getting when compared to the NT, where there are a full 13 examples of "imperfect/ἔκραζεν." Something appears to have changed for the NT authors, yet the older sense in κέκραγε is preserved in John 1:15. If you do not see anything going on, fine. Some of us do. The quote from Plutarch that Carl brought from BDF was especially nice:
μαρτυρόμενος καὶ κεκραγώς Plut.


Hopefully, all of us, even the old Greeks, could join ourselves with Mr Jon(es) in a Dylan line, "you know something is happening but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jon(a)."
RandallButh
 
Posts: 611
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby MAubrey » May 6th, 2013, 12:58 pm

RandallButh wrote:
Μιχαὴλ ἔγραψεν
RandallButh wrote:
**As a PPS: notice in Josephus how the pluperfect ἐκεκράγει functions with imperfects:
Antiq 10.117 ... ἐκεκράγει καὶ ἐκήρυσσε (were proclaiming)
War 2.280 ... ἱκέτευον (were imploring) ... ἐκεκράγεσαν
War 2.295 (ἔνιοι) ... ἐκεκράγεσαν ... ἀπῄτουν (were soliciting).
War 2.599 ...(τὸ πλῆθος) ἀνεβόα (crowd was crying out)... (οἱ δε) ἐκεκράγεσαν (others were "having-cawwed"-ing) παρώξυνεν δὲ τοὺς πολλούς ὁ Ἰωάννης (was provoking).
War 5.458-459 ... ἐβλασφήμουν (were blaspheming) ... ἐβόων (were shouting) ... ἀναμίσγοντες (mixing these words with reproaches) ἐκεκράγεσαν (were "having cawwed"-ing).
War 6.308 μάλιστα δ' ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς ἐκεκράγει (especially in the feasts he used to "having cawwed") ... οὔτ' ἤμβλυνεν τὴν φωνήν ([and for 7 years and 5 months] was not dulling his voice).


I could take the time to repeat all of these clauses and then add my own non-imperfective translation in parenthesis, too, but that wouldn't make my claim any more true that it does for yours. Give me a motivation.


The point of the Josephus' quotations is the tense of the parallel and overlapping verbs in each context of κεκραγέναι. The motivation is to fit seemlessly with the imperfects. The other verbs are all IMPERFECTs. I find that interesting, especially when it is 6 out of 6. You can erase my translation of ἐκεγράγει, I only added it to help others on the list see how the pluperfect might be fit together with the imperfects. At any rate, you do have to agree that the "crying out"s are consistentantly used with imperfects in Josephus.

When you only found 16 imperfects in Greek literature up to 2nd century CE outside of the NT (if I understood you correctly), that too becomes attention getting when compared to the NT, where there are a full 13 examples of "imperfect/ἔκραζεν." Something appears to have changed for the NT authors, yet the older sense in κέκραγε is preserved in John 1:15. If you do not see anything going on, fine. Some of us do. The quote from Plutarch that Carl brought from BDF was especially nice:
μαρτυρόμενος καὶ κεκραγώς Plut.

I'd say the more interesting one is the indicative BDF quotes directly after from Hippocrates: βοᾷ καὶ κέκραγεν. The participle in Plutarch is hardly parallel to a historical present.

That's 16 total--Including those 13 in the NT--there are three outside of the New Testament. One in Judges 18:22, 1 in Testament of Abraham (A) 5:8 and one in Doinysius Halicarnassensis (De Compositione Verborum).

This is across Perseus, Josephus, Philo, OT Pseudepigrapha, NT Apocrypha, NT, Apostolic Fathers, LXX, and the Duke Database of Documentary Papyri: 16 total.

I do see something going on. It's just a different thing than what you see.

I see (at best) localized grammaticalization of a past imperfective form in 1st century Palestine that never made it to the mainstream and died shortly after and sporatic performance errors attempting to fill in a paradigmatic gap. I also see entries in Tischendorf for all 13 occurrences of this form, except one (Acts 19:32) and an entry in Swete's apparatus for Judges 18:22. The scribes don't like these past imperfective forms at all.

I most certainly do not see any tokens of the past imperfective form of this verb in Josephus, If he doesn't have a past imperfective for this verb in his mental lexicon, then the perfect is the logical choice as the only other narrative offline aspectual form. That doesn't make these perfects functioning as past imperfectives. It means there's no linguistic choice for Josephus to make. I see a verbal lexeme that doesn't like imperfective aspect in general. Again, I would suggest that its lexical semantics are such that it prefers the perfect and perfective aspects over against the imperfective.

Lastly, what I see is that if a speaker want to convey the meaning of κράζω with an imperfective, that speaker would almost invariably choose the verb βοάω instead, a verb that has essentially the opposite distribution of κράζω with regard to the perfect and past imperfective: 900 past imperfectives and 4 perfects (two past perfect, two non-past perfects). And notably, Josephus never uses a perfect of βοάω, while using the past imperfective 24 times (out of 52 occurrences; 21 non-past imperfectives, 6 past perfectives, and 1 future).
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 ἐκέκραγον

Postby Stephen Carlson » May 6th, 2013, 1:12 pm

MAubrey wrote:Considering that there are only 16 instances of κρἀζω in the past imperfective from Homer up to the 2nd century AD (in Perseus plus the Duke Documentary Papyri and other texts in Logos),


In TLG, there are 22 imperfects of κράζω through the 2nd cen. AD, only two of which are pagan:

Results for κραζω wrote:1. Septuaginta, Judices (Cod. Alexandrinus). {0527.008} (3 B.C./A.D. 3) Chapter 18 section 22 line 2.
καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες οἱ σὺν τῷ οἴκῳ μετὰ Μιχα ἔκραζον κατοπίσω υἱῶν
2. Dionysius Halicarnassensis Hist. et Rhet., De compositione verborum. {0081.012} (1 B.C.) Section 18 line 170.
τραχύτητας ἔκραζεν. αὐτὸ δ’ ἦν, ὃ λέγω, τὸ συνάγον
3. Novum Testamentum, Evangelium secundum Matthaeum. {0031.001} (A.D. 1) Chapter 21 section 9 line 2.
προάγοντες αὐτὸν καὶ οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες ἔκραζον λέγοντες,
4. Novum Testamentum, Evangelium secundum Matthaeum. {0031.001} (A.D. 1) Chapter 27 section 23 line 2.
δὲ ἔφη, Τί γὰρ κακὸν ἐποίησεν; οἱ δὲ περισσῶς ἔκραζον
5. Novum Testamentum, Evangelium secundum Marcum. {0031.002} (A.D. 1) Chapter 3 section 11 line 2.
προσέπιπτον αὐτῷ καὶ ἔκραζον λέγοντες ὅτι Σὺ εἶ ὁ @1
6. Novum Testamentum, Evangelium secundum Marcum. {0031.002} (A.D. 1) Chapter 11 section 9 line 2.
ἔκραζον,
7. Novum Testamentum, Acta apostolorum. {0031.005} (A.D. 1) Chapter 19 section 28 line 1.
Ἀκούσαντες δὲ καὶ γενόμενοι πλήρεις θυμοῦ ἔκρα-
ζον λέγοντες, Μεγάλη ἡ Ἄρτεμις Ἐφεσίων.
καὶ
8. Novum Testamentum, Acta apostolorum. {0031.005} (A.D. 1) Chapter 19 section 32 line 1.
εἰς τὸ θέατρον.
ἄλλοι μὲν οὖν ἄλλο τι ἔκραζον, ἦν
9. Novum Testamentum, Apocalypsis Joannis. {0031.027} (A.D. 1) Chapter 18 section 18 line 1.
ἔστησαν
καὶ ἔκραζον βλέποντες τὸν καπνὸν τῆς
10. Novum Testamentum, Apocalypsis Joannis. {0031.027} (A.D. 1) Chapter 18 section 19 line 2.
καὶ ἔκραζον κλαίοντες καὶ πενθοῦντες, λέγοντες,
11. Novum Testamentum, Evangelium secundum Matthaeum. {0031.001} (A.D. 1) Chapter 15 section 22 line 2.
τῶν ὁρίων ἐκείνων ἐξελθοῦσα ἔκραζεν λέγουσα, Ἐλέησόν
12. Novum Testamentum, Evangelium secundum Marcum. {0031.002} (A.D. 1) Chapter 10 section 48 line 2.
δὲ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἔκραζεν, Υἱὲ Δαυίδ, ἐλέησόν με.
13. Novum Testamentum, Evangelium secundum Lucam. {0031.003} (A.D. 1) Chapter 18 section 39 line 2.
δὲ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἔκραζεν, Υἱὲ Δαυίδ, ἐλέησόν με.
14. Novum Testamentum, Acta apostolorum. {0031.005} (A.D. 1) Chapter 16 section 17 line 2.
ἡμῖν ἔκραζεν λέγουσα, Οὗτοι οἱ ἄνθρωποι δοῦλοι τοῦ
15. Novum Testamentum, Acta apostolorum. {0031.005} (A.D. 1) Chapter 23 section 6 line 2.
καίων τὸ δὲ ἕτερον Φαρισαίων ἔκραζεν ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ,
16. Clemens Romanus et Clementina Theol., Pseudo–Clementina (epitome de gestis Petri praemetaphrastica) [Sp.]. {1271.012} (A.D. 1) Section 176 line 7.
λησεν. ἄλλοι δὲ πνεύματι διαβολικῷ ἐκκαυθέντες ἔκραζον· γοητικαῖς τέχναις
17. Testamentum Abrahae, Testamentum Abrahae (recensio A) (olim partim sub auctore Hesychio Hierosolymitano). {1701.001} (A.D. 1) Section 5 line 20.
πρὸς τὴν θύραν ἔκραζεν λέγων· Πάτερ Ἁβραὰμ, ἀναστὰς
18. Vitae Aesopi, Vita W (vita Aesopi Westermanniana) (recensio 2). {1765.002} (A.D. 1) Section 90 line 1.
ἀδείας κἀγὼ φράσω τὰ ζητούμενα.”
οἱ δὲ ὄχλοι παμπληθεὶ ἔκραζον “ἐλευθέρωσον
19. Acta Pauli, Acta Pauli et Theclae. {0388.004} (A.D. 2) Section 28 line 5.
Ἱερόσυλος. αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες μετὰ τῶν τέκνων ἔκραζον ἄνωθεν
20. Martyrium Carpi, Papyli et Agathonicae, Martyrium sanctorum Carpi, Papyli et Agathonicae. {0390.001} (A.D. 2) Section 23 line 2.
κρεμασθέντα ξέεσθαι. ὁ δὲ ἔκραζεν· Χριστιανός εἰμι. ἐπὶ πολὺ δὲ
21. Hegesippus Scr. Eccl., Fragmenta (ex incerto libro). {1398.001} (A.D. 2) Page 212 line 1.
μαρτυρουμένων ὑπὸ Ἱερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου, ἔκραζε
22. Acta Andreae, Martyrium prius Andreae. {3150.002} (A.D. 2) Section 6 line 6.
πόλιν, καὶ βοῶντες ἔκραζον· «Μεγάλη ἡ δύναμις τοῦ ξένου θεοῦ·
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby MAubrey » May 6th, 2013, 1:19 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:In TLG, there are 22 imperfects of κράζω through the 2nd cen. AD, only two of which are pagan:

Thanks. That's not a big change. And again, at least 14 of those 22 are corrected by scribes (I'd be curious about what apparatuses say for the other 8). It's also generally affirming that Perseus is broadly sufficient for these kinds of generalizations.

Would you be able to look up how often βοάω appears in the perfect, too?
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 RandallButh » May 6th, 2013, 1:23 pm

It means there's no linguistic choice for Josephus to make. I see a verbal lexeme that doesn't like imperfective aspect in general. Again, I would suggest that its lexical semantics are such that it prefers the perfect and perfective aspects over against the imperfective.


well, that's almost what I see, too. However, the Greek perfect is not exactly the same as 'perfective' (aorist) and κεκραγέναι does not like the aorist, just like it doesn't like the imperfect.

Nevertheless, the κεκραγέναι perfects are ducks. but since they try to refuse the imperfectives and aorists, I call them pink-polka dot ducks.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 611
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby Stephen Carlson » May 6th, 2013, 1:29 pm

MAubrey wrote:I most certainly do not see any tokens of the past imperfective form of this verb in Josephus, If he doesn't have a past imperfective for this verb in his mental lexicon, then the perfect is the logical choice as the only other narrative offline aspectual form. That doesn't make these perfects functioning as past imperfectives. It means there's no linguistic choice for Josephus to make. I see a verbal lexeme that doesn't like imperfective aspect in general. Again, I would suggest that its lexical semantics are such that it prefers the perfect and perfective aspects over against the imperfective.


What are the lexical semantics of κέκραγα that would fit a perfect as opposed to a present with perfect morphology? And what about its semantics would have it avoid the present stem? It does not appear to be a typical resultative perfect.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: The form κέκραγεν

Postby Stephen Carlson » May 6th, 2013, 1:29 pm

MAubrey wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:In TLG, there are 22 imperfects of κράζω through the 2nd cen. AD, only two of which are pagan:

Thanks. That's not a big change. And again, at least 14 of those 22 are corrected by scribes (I'd be curious about what apparatuses say for the other 8). It's also generally affirming that Perseus is broadly sufficient for these kinds of generalizations.

Would you be able to look up how often βοάω appears in the perfect, too?


TLG finds 12 (plu)perfects, all moods, of βοάω up through the 2nd century. It gets more popular after that:

Results for βοαω wrote:1. Herodotus Hist., Historiae. {0016.001} (5 B.C.) Book 3 section 39 line 10. (Browse)
πρήγματα ηὔξετο καὶ ἦν βεβωμένα ἀνά τε τὴν Ἰωνίην καὶ
2. Lucius Annaeus Cornutus Phil., De natura deorum. {0654.002} (A.D. 1) Page 31 line 17. (Browse)
θεολογίας διεφθάρη· νῦν δὲ τὰ βεβοημένα παρὰ τοῖς
3. Apollonius Soph., Lexicon Homericum. {1168.001} (A.D. 1-2) Page 42 line 12. (Browse)
διὰ τὸ Ἄργον φονεῦσαι τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς βεβοημένης Ἰοῦς φύλακα.
4. Pseudo–Dioscorides Med., De iis, quae virus ejaculantur, animalibus libellus, in quo et de rabioso cane (= Theriaca). {1118.002} (p. A.D. 1) Section 19 line 83. (Browse)
λῆ σκελετευθεῖσα τῶν βεβοημένων εὑρίσκεται· πρότερον δὲ
5. Aelius Aristides Rhet., Ῥώμης ἐγκώμιον. {0284.014} (A.D. 2) Jebb page 202 line 2. (Browse)
πάνυ ποτὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐβεβόητο, καὶ μέγαν παρέσχετο
6. Aelius Aristides Rhet., Πρὸς Πλάτωνα περὶ ῥητορικῆς. {0284.045} (A.D. 2) Jebb page 3 line 11. (Browse)
Ἀθήνηθεν ἀντὶ τῶν νῦν βεβοημένων· ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἔθνεσι
7. Aelius Aristides Rhet., Ἀσκληπιάδαι. {0284.007} (A.D. 2) Jebb page 44 line 9. (Browse)
γύπτῳ βεβοημένους, τὰς δ’ εὐεργεσίας σύμβολον τοῦ γέ- @1
8. Aelius Aristides Rhet., Πρὸς Πλάτωνα ὑπὲρ τῶν τεττάρων. {0284.046} (A.D. 2) Jebb page 127 line 29. (Browse)
βεβοημένους ἐν φαύλῳ καθαιρεῖς, οὐδὲν διαφερόντως ἢ εἴ
9. Aelius Aristides Rhet., Πρὸς Δημοσθένη περὶ ἀτελείας. {0284.053} (A.D. 2) Jebb page 30 line 21. (Browse)
πράγμασιν ἐν καιρῷ, ὥστε διχόθεν αὐτὴν βεβοῆσθαι, ἔκ
10. Aelius Aristides Rhet., Συμμαχικὸς βʹ (πρὸς Θηβαίους περὶ τῆς συμμαχίας). {0284.039} (A.D. 2) Jebb page 503 line 31. (Browse)
ὑμετέροις αὐτῶν ἔργοις, ἀφ’ ὧν βεβόησθε. πολλὰ δὲ
11. Pausanias Perieg., Graeciae descriptio. {0525.001} (A.D. 2) Book 6 chapter 11 section 4 line 1. (Browse)
καὶ τὸ ἔργον ἀνὰ πᾶσαν ἐβεβόητο τὴν Ἑλλάδα. ὅσα
12. Flavius Philostratus Soph., Vitae sophistarum. {0638.003} (A.D. 2-3) Chapter 2 Olearius page 561 line 23. (Browse)
καί που καὶ βεβοηκότες „ὢ πικροῦ μέλιτος“ καὶ
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

PreviousNext

Return to Word Meanings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron