I've taken this to the pedagogy forum, where the current discussion really belongs.RandallButh wrote:Sometimes there are simple items that are easy to grasp and implement even within 'Grammar Translation' curricula:
> 'Please remember to use real words, and only real words, when teaching beginning Greek.'
and ... 'when learning Greek'
This can help a student plan how to be thinking.
One recurrent item when this question is raised is the lexical lemmatization of verbs -- and the listing of "principal parts" or key forms of the major verbs and their paradigms -- is the matter of how we refer to the contract verbs: ἀγαπῶ, ποιῶ, σταυρῶ. These are always lemmatized and always referred to in non-existent uncontracted 1 sg. indicative active forms. They would be perfectly recognized as conract verbs if written in the present active (or middle) infinitives: ἀγαπᾶν, ποιεῖν, σταυροῦν. I recall that Randall made this point clearly and well in a volume of papers on lexicography (Danker festscrift?).
The lexicographical conventions are an obstacle to overcoming this problem. I don't think, either, that there's any universally accepted convention for listing the "principal parts" or a catalog of verb-stems for the different tense/voice systems. A lexicographical convention is essential, I think, for any pedagogical system. The principal parts or a conventional catalog of essential verb forms indicative of the tense/voice systems is, I think, a necessary element for the "grammar/translation" pedagogy. Could infinitives be used throughout such a catalog? The usefulness of the 1 sg. indicative forms, I guess, is that they show the augment, but how important is that? Might we have something like: λύειν, λὺσειν, λῦσαι, λελυκέναι, λέλυσθαι, λυθῆναι? -- or more importantly, for an irregular verb, e.g. πάσχειν, πείσεσθαι, παθεῖν, πεπονθέναι or γίνεσθαι, γενήσεσθαι, γενέσθαι, γεγονέναι, γεγένησθαι, γενηθῆσθαι?
In sum, how might we better formulate the tabular paradigms for Greek verbs to be most helpful for pedagogy and for reference?