Why no contraction in ποιεω

How can I best learn the paradigms of nouns and verbs and the other inflected parts of speech?
Post Reply
Chris Engelsma
Posts: 18
Joined: July 7th, 2011, 12:23 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Why no contraction in ποιεω

Post by Chris Engelsma »

The rules for contraction puzzle me. Take ποιεω.

The stem is ποιε-
Add the connecting vowel to make ποιεο
There is no ending in first singular. The omicron lengthens to an omega which gives ποιεω.

My question is...why (according to the rules of contraction) doesn't the omega swallow the preceding epsilon?
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3350
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Why no contraction in ποιεω

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Chris Engelsma wrote:My question is...why (according to the rules of contraction) doesn't the omega swallow the preceding epsilon?
Actually, it does contract. The contracted form ποιῶ is indeed the standard form of the New Testament: Matt 21:24, 27, 26:18; Mark 11:29, 33; Luke 20:8; John 5:36, 6:38, 8:28, 29, 10:35, 37, 38; 13:7, 14:12, 31; Rom 7:15, 16, 19, 20; 1 Cor 9:23; 2 Cor 11:12; and Rev 21:5.

The uncontracted form ποιέω is mainly found in Herodotus, Greek grammatical writers, and your NT lexicon.

Stephen
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Why no contraction in ποιεω

Post by Jason Hare »

Chris Engelsma wrote:The rules for contraction puzzle me. Take ποιεω.

The stem is ποιε-
Add the connecting vowel to make ποιεο
There is no ending in first singular. The omicron lengthens to an omega which gives ποιεω.

My question is...why (according to the rules of contraction) doesn't the omega swallow the preceding epsilon?
All contract verbs are listed like this in lexica and word lists. This way, you don't lose track of the fact that it's a contract and can easily see what the vowel is (whether -ε- or -α- or -ο-).

ὁράω (in the lexicon) becomes ὁρῶ in the texts.
δηλόω (in the lexicon) becomes δηλῶ in the texts.
ἐράω (in the lexicon) becomes ἐρῶ in the texts.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3350
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Why no contraction in ποιεω

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Jason Hare wrote:All contract verbs are listed like this in lexica and word lists.
As far as I can tell, this has been the practice at least since the dawn of printing. I don't like it because the lexicon forces the user to use artificial forms. Present infinitives would be better (aorist infinitives don't distinguish alpha and epsilon contracted verbs). Another proposal I read suggested that second person singular imperatives should be the lemma.

Stephen
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Why no contraction in ποιεω

Post by Jason Hare »

sccarlson wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:All contract verbs are listed like this in lexica and word lists.
As far as I can tell, this has been the practice at least since the dawn of printing. I don't like it because the lexicon forces the user to use artificial forms. Present infinitives would be better (aorist infinitives don't distinguish alpha and epsilon contracted verbs). Another proposal I read suggested that second person singular imperatives should be the lemma.

Stephen
In most Hebrew dictionaries, entries are made based on the third-person singular perfect ("past"). For example, you look up עשה ("he did, made") rather than either לעשות ("to do, make") or עשיתי ("I did, made"). Generally, that form bears the closest form to the stem in a given verbal structure (binyan), or it makes it easier to work back into the root.

It might not be a bad idea to use the second-person singular present to represent verbs in the dictionary. What would be a drawback of this idea?
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Post Reply

Return to “Learning Paradigms”