I think that what I stated above in a thread on the verb-form κεκοπίακες in Rev. 2:3 may have been misconstrued by some readers. Let me then reformulate the substance of that comment in hope of making my intent clearer.cwconrad wrote:My inclination is to blame Zondervan for this; they want to market Biblical Greek pedagogical books under the sure-sell title, "Basics of ... (X, Y, or Z)" -- and hopeful students will purchase them, find (later, rather than sooner) that the books are less helpful than they'd hoped; then they can move on to the books titled "(X,Y, or Z) Beyond the Basics," fondly hoping that all their questions about arcane Greek forms and constructions will be resolved. I'm here to tell you that those unresolved questions about arcane Greek forms and constructions are still coming at me well over 50 years since I began studying Greek.Wes Wood wrote:This is something that his Basics of Biblical Morphology does not discuss, to my knowledge. I say this because I had an identical question about this ending on another second person perfect a few years ago and did not find a satisfactory answer there. I believe I must have just thought "it happens" and moved on. I had forgotten about it until your post. I fear I have become less and less aware of these types of "discrepancies."
For one thing, I don’t really fault Zondervan for the marketing strategy I’ve described — I think it’s a good marketing strategy for selling pedagogical books in a relatively small market. The important question to consider, however, is where we draw the line between what is “basic” and what lies “beyond the basics.” A few years ago I thought that question had been finessed with the publication of Campbell’s Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. I objectied not so much to the book and its content as I did rather to calling “basic” what is an eclectic account of a subject still very much in dispute.
There are several pedagogical problems regarding teaching Biblical Greek. One obvious question is “What comes first?” The standard practice: first-declension nouns in η and present indicative active ω verbs. Wherever one starts, there are elements in the illustrative material that have to be glossed now and explained at some later time. A major problem is determining (a) what’s “basic” and what’s “beyond the basic” — what ought to be taught or learned in a “basic” course and what sequence of essential features of the language ought to be undertaken. There’s another question of pedagogical strategy regarding “regular” and “irregular” forms and usage: Do we just set forth and practice what’s “regular” and wait until it’s absolutely necessary to start discussing what’s deviant? We can’t avoid the contract verbs very long, much as we might wish to do so, but let’s put off as long as possible the μι verbs (apart from εἶναι which can’t do without). Should we talk about the optative mood in a first-year course? Which paradigms should be committed to memory, which should students be advised to consult an appendix for? More fundamentally, do we teach students what is “regular” and then, as need arises, drop lesser or greater “bombshells” of irregular forms and usage on them? For a struggling student, such repeated pedagogical “bombshells” can be like progressive stages of disillusionment to a sheltered child suddenly forced to “grow up.” For my part, I always tried to explain “regular” forms and usage as the “norms” in relation to which there were “deviants” to be encountered at a later time.
Is there a solid consensus about what’s “basic” in Biblical Greek and what should be postponed for “intermediate” or ‘advanced” study? Perhaps there is, but I don’t think it’s cut and dried.
I quite agree with what Randall says here. I will say that recognition of verb forms in ancient Greek texts hasn’t been a problem for me since my earliest years of Greek. I think, however, that my own unusual three-year progression from NT Koine in the first year to Homer in the second year to Attic prose and verse in the third year served to alert me to the hows and whys of morphological change over the millennium or more of ancient Greek. Much of that started with my second-year fascination with Homeric verse as a repository of Greek "linguistic archaeology."RandallButh wrote:Over πεντήκοντα, huh? well then I'm only at Jack's τριάκοντα ἐννέα.
At least the funny forms have a place to sit between the regular ones, after all of the regular slots get filled in.
And the funny forms often have some kind of simplification analogy going on.