Primary and Secondary Personal Endings
Posted: July 8th, 2011, 5:33 pm
I have been asked to say something helpful or make some suggestions about understanding the bewildering array of personal (pronominal) endings of the Greek verb. To phrase the question in that manner is to confess the nigh-impossibility of fulfilling the request. One can say something simple that is true and that may seem, at first glance, to be helpful -- I’ll try to do that --, but it will soon become evident that what I can say is far less helpful than might have been hoped.
So, let’s take the easy part first. There’s plenty of evidence that the original Proto-Indo-European pronominal verb additives have survived, more or less, in ancient Greek:
1 sg. PIE “m” Lat. sum Greek μ (as final consonant becmes ν)
2 sg. PIE “s” Lat. habeσ Greek ς
3 sg. PIE “t” Lat. habεt Greek τ (as final consonant drops away)
1 pl. PIE “me/os” Lat. habemus Greek με
2 pl. PIE “te” Lat. habetis Greek τε
3 pl. PIE “nt” Lat. habent Greek ντ (τ as final consonant drops away)
In Greek these pronominal endings are preserved with the least phonological change in the Secondary “Active” endings that we observe in the thematic imperfect and aorist:
1 sg. ἔλυο-ν
2 sg. ἕλυε-ς
3 sg. ἕλυε (τ dropped away)
1 pl. ἐλύο-μεν (question: whence the ν?)
2 pl. ἐλύε-τε
3 pl. ἔλυο-ν (final τ dropped away)
The comparable Secondary Middle-Passive endings display in most of the surviving forms an omicron additive to the pronominal morpheme:
1 sg. ἐλυό-μην (inexplicable on the basis of anything thus far mentioned)
2 sg. ἐλύε-σο (intervocalic σ drops out, compensatory lengthenings
3 sg. ἐλύε-το
1 pl. ἐλυό-μεθα (θα inexplicable in terms of anything thus far mentioned)
2 pl. ἐλύε-σθε (this does seem to be a middle-marking variant of τε
3 pl. ἐλύο-ντο
The Primary Active endings display in most of the surviving forms an iota additive to the pronominal morpheme:
1 sg. εἰ-μι
2 sg. ἐσ-σι (Homeric, later ἔσι, later εἷ after loss of intervocalic sigma)
3 sg. ἐσ-τι
1 pl. ἐσ-μεν (whence the ν?)
2 pl. ἐσ-τε
3 pl. ἐσ-ντι becoming through phonological change εἰσι
The Primary Middle-Passive endings display in most of the surviving forms an -αι additive to the pronominal morpheme:
1 sg. λύο-μαι
2 sg. λύε-σαι becoming λύῃ after loss of intervocalic sigma and contraction)
3 sg. λύε-ται
1 pl. λυό-μεθα (just like Secondary middle 1 pl.)
2 pl. λύε-σθε (just like Secondary middle 2 pl.
3 pl. λύο-νται
Τhus we see the pronominal morphemes μ, σ, τ, με, τε, ντ
--in their purest form in the secondary active endings: ν, σ, _, με(ν), τε, ντ
--with o additive in the secondary mp endings: μην, σο, το, μεθα, σθε, ντο
--with ι additive in the primary active endings: μι, σι, τι, με(ν), τε, ντι
--with αι additive in the primary mp endings: μαι, σαι, ται, μεθα, σθε, νται
BUT: although we can trace the archaeology of the verb-forms in Classical and Koine Greek, the complexities of phonological change to the original combinations of vowels, diphthongs, and consonants is dismayingly complex. The upshot of all this is that what I have written about the pronominal endings as intelligible combinations of pronominal elements and vocalic additives is of almost no use at all to one learning the paradigms of the verbs. As Robert E. Lee is said to have moaned aloud repeatedly as he rode away with his battered troops from the field at Gettysburg, “Too bad, too bad!”
If one wants to explore about as clear an accounting of the personal endings of the Greek verb and their derivation, I would point to Smyth §§462-486.
I have an account of how roots, tense-stems and all the voice and mood markers link together to produce the seemingly myriad forms that ancient Greek verbs may take; it is accessible at
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/d ... ekVerb.pdf
But, alas, I’m told that it too is not helpful, not useful to anyone who has not already mastered the whole gamut of extant verb forms. I don’t believe memorization of paradigms is much help in learning to read Greek -- I’ve seen too many students who could recite the paradigms but couldn’t read Greek. Knowing the paradigms as paradigms is of little value; what ultimately is important is discerning the exact meaning of verb forms when they are encountered in a text or in oral discourse.
So, let’s take the easy part first. There’s plenty of evidence that the original Proto-Indo-European pronominal verb additives have survived, more or less, in ancient Greek:
1 sg. PIE “m” Lat. sum Greek μ (as final consonant becmes ν)
2 sg. PIE “s” Lat. habeσ Greek ς
3 sg. PIE “t” Lat. habεt Greek τ (as final consonant drops away)
1 pl. PIE “me/os” Lat. habemus Greek με
2 pl. PIE “te” Lat. habetis Greek τε
3 pl. PIE “nt” Lat. habent Greek ντ (τ as final consonant drops away)
In Greek these pronominal endings are preserved with the least phonological change in the Secondary “Active” endings that we observe in the thematic imperfect and aorist:
1 sg. ἔλυο-ν
2 sg. ἕλυε-ς
3 sg. ἕλυε (τ dropped away)
1 pl. ἐλύο-μεν (question: whence the ν?)
2 pl. ἐλύε-τε
3 pl. ἔλυο-ν (final τ dropped away)
The comparable Secondary Middle-Passive endings display in most of the surviving forms an omicron additive to the pronominal morpheme:
1 sg. ἐλυό-μην (inexplicable on the basis of anything thus far mentioned)
2 sg. ἐλύε-σο (intervocalic σ drops out, compensatory lengthenings
3 sg. ἐλύε-το
1 pl. ἐλυό-μεθα (θα inexplicable in terms of anything thus far mentioned)
2 pl. ἐλύε-σθε (this does seem to be a middle-marking variant of τε
3 pl. ἐλύο-ντο
The Primary Active endings display in most of the surviving forms an iota additive to the pronominal morpheme:
1 sg. εἰ-μι
2 sg. ἐσ-σι (Homeric, later ἔσι, later εἷ after loss of intervocalic sigma)
3 sg. ἐσ-τι
1 pl. ἐσ-μεν (whence the ν?)
2 pl. ἐσ-τε
3 pl. ἐσ-ντι becoming through phonological change εἰσι
The Primary Middle-Passive endings display in most of the surviving forms an -αι additive to the pronominal morpheme:
1 sg. λύο-μαι
2 sg. λύε-σαι becoming λύῃ after loss of intervocalic sigma and contraction)
3 sg. λύε-ται
1 pl. λυό-μεθα (just like Secondary middle 1 pl.)
2 pl. λύε-σθε (just like Secondary middle 2 pl.
3 pl. λύο-νται
Τhus we see the pronominal morphemes μ, σ, τ, με, τε, ντ
--in their purest form in the secondary active endings: ν, σ, _, με(ν), τε, ντ
--with o additive in the secondary mp endings: μην, σο, το, μεθα, σθε, ντο
--with ι additive in the primary active endings: μι, σι, τι, με(ν), τε, ντι
--with αι additive in the primary mp endings: μαι, σαι, ται, μεθα, σθε, νται
BUT: although we can trace the archaeology of the verb-forms in Classical and Koine Greek, the complexities of phonological change to the original combinations of vowels, diphthongs, and consonants is dismayingly complex. The upshot of all this is that what I have written about the pronominal endings as intelligible combinations of pronominal elements and vocalic additives is of almost no use at all to one learning the paradigms of the verbs. As Robert E. Lee is said to have moaned aloud repeatedly as he rode away with his battered troops from the field at Gettysburg, “Too bad, too bad!”
If one wants to explore about as clear an accounting of the personal endings of the Greek verb and their derivation, I would point to Smyth §§462-486.
I have an account of how roots, tense-stems and all the voice and mood markers link together to produce the seemingly myriad forms that ancient Greek verbs may take; it is accessible at
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/d ... ekVerb.pdf
But, alas, I’m told that it too is not helpful, not useful to anyone who has not already mastered the whole gamut of extant verb forms. I don’t believe memorization of paradigms is much help in learning to read Greek -- I’ve seen too many students who could recite the paradigms but couldn’t read Greek. Knowing the paradigms as paradigms is of little value; what ultimately is important is discerning the exact meaning of verb forms when they are encountered in a text or in oral discourse.