first three principal parts of 'I depart'

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.

first three principal parts of 'I depart'

Postby Orrin Winton » June 29th, 2013, 8:13 pm

For: ὑπάγω, I think I see (in Trenchard's "Complete Vocabulary Guide to the GNT" and in Mounce's "Analytical Lexicon...") that the only other tense used in the NT is ὑπῆγον (imperfect forms). For info, I am using Wenham (1965) for my self-teaching.

Still, I'm interested in knowing what the first three principle parts would be. (In the grammar I'm only through the first 3 PP.)
would it be: ὑπάγω ὑπάξω ὑπῆγον (the last one being an imperfect because an aorist form is never used?).

I'd still be interested even if it means including OT, other Hellenistic, or even Attic, usages. And more than just the first 3 PP
if such exist. Thank you

Orrin.
Last edited by Stephen Carlson on June 30th, 2013, 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed spelling of the term "principal part"
Orrin Winton
 
Posts: 7
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 8:09 pm

Re: first three principal parts of 'I depart'

Postby Stephen Carlson » June 30th, 2013, 3:49 am

The verb ὑπάγω is a compound of ὑπό + ἄγω. To find its principal parts, take those of ἄγω and add the prefix ὑπ- (which loses its final vowel).

The third principal part (aorist) is ὑπήγαγον. Though it is not found in the New Testament, it is found in the contemporaneous writer Plutarch, so I would expect all the writers of the NT to know this form even though it is not actually attested in their writings.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: first three principal parts of 'I depart'

Postby Barry Hofstetter » June 30th, 2013, 7:52 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:The verb ὑπάγω is a compound of ὑπό + ἄγω. To find its principal parts, take those of ἄγω and add the prefix ὑπ- (which loses its final vowel).

The third principal part (aorist) is ὑπήγαγον. Though it is not found in the New Testament, it is found in the contemporaneous writer Plutarch, so I would expect all the writers of the NT to know this form even though it is not actually attested in their writings.


All correct of course. However, I have to point out an important point about ἄγω. It is the only Greek verb (of which I am aware) whose principal parts may be sung to the tune of "Good King Wenceslas. Try it!
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Barry Hofstetter
 
Posts: 583
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: first three principal parts of 'I depart'

Postby RandallButh » June 30th, 2013, 10:49 am

Orrin,

You have asked a ggod question that actually lands in an area that is not well covered in NT Greek teaching.

Languages often have systems in place that only partially "follow the rules" and require the language user to treat the item "idiomatically", as something idiosyncratic. "ὑπάγω" is an idiomatic item. It is only used in the present and imperfect (the forms that use the continuative/present stem of the verb). When a Greek speaker wanted to use a different tense or aspect they used ἀπελθεῖν ῾to go away'. Look at Luke 19:30-32: The disciples receive a command to ὑπαγετε ῾ "go off and ...". Then when to depart it uses ἀπελθόντες "having gone off ...".

What this means it that there is no aorist to be used of this verb. There is also no future. Instead of 'conjugating' a future for this verb you will say ἀπελεύσομαι "I will go away". Where does a beginner get such information? That is difficult to answer. The only source I know of at the moment is the Morphologia book at Biblical Language Center "A Greek Morphology, Verbs and Nouns for Koine Greek ἡ ἑλληνικὴ μορφολογία." It has about 200 patterns of the most common verbs layed out for the use. Also the noun and adjective patterns. An English-Greek index is also provided.

By the way, I think that this verb eventually shortened into the Modern Greek verb πάω "I'm going, walking".
RandallButh
 
Posts: 577
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: first three principal parts of 'I depart'

Postby Stephen Carlson » June 30th, 2013, 11:05 am

RandallButh wrote:What this means it that there is no aorist to be used of this verb.

Well, the aorist is very rare, but it is not nonexistent. It is found (in addition to Plutarch, as I mentioned above) in Exodus:
Exod 14:20 wrote:ἐξέτεινεν δὲ Μωυσῆς τὴν χεῖρα ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ ὑπήγαγεν κύριος τὴν θάλασσαν ἐν ἀνέμῳ νότῳ βιαίῳ ὅλην τὴν νύκτα καὶ ἐποίησεν τὴν θάλασσαν ξηράν, καὶ ἐσχίσθη τὸ ὕδωρ.

The future of this verb is even more rare, but it is still attested among mainly medical writers, including Galen and (pseudo-)Dioscurides.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: first three principal parts of 'I depart'

Postby RandallButh » June 30th, 2013, 2:25 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
RandallButh wrote:What this means it that there is no aorist to be used of this verb.

Well, the aorist is very rare, but it is not nonexistent. It is found (in addition to Plutarch, as I mentioned above) in Exodus:
Exod 14:20 wrote:ἐξέτεινεν δὲ Μωυσῆς τὴν χεῖρα ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ ὑπήγαγεν κύριος τὴν θάλασσαν ἐν ἀνέμῳ νότῳ βιαίῳ ὅλην τὴν νύκτα καὶ ἐποίησεν τὴν θάλασσαν ξηράν, καὶ ἐσχίσθη τὸ ὕδωρ.

The future of this verb is even more rare, but it is still attested among mainly medical writers, including Galen and (pseudo-)Dioscurides.


Well, here we might get a little technical, but I would consider Stephen's examples to be a different verb from a user's perspective.

ὑπάγω means "I am going, leaving."
If someone wants to say "I went" or "I *goed"[sic, see below] or "I left" then they could say ἀπῆλθον, or ἐπορεύθην.

Please note that ὑπήγαγεν above in Ex 14.20 has an object, τὴν θάλασσαν and it does not mean 'the Lord departed, went away'! LXX Ex 14.20 means 'the Lord led away, drew away.
More commonly used is another verb ὑπαγαγέσθαι (pass: ὑπαχθῆναι) ὑπάγεσθαι 'to control, subdue'. This latter verb is a metaphorical extension of the literal transtitive ὑπο+ἄγειν 'to lead something under, lead away'.

While these verbs are linked etymologically, they are distinct structures in Greek are need to be treated as idioms if one would use or interpret them correclty.

So for the Koine student:
ὑπάγω means 'I am departing'
and for the future one says ἀπελεύσομαι and for the past ἀπῆλθον.
That is the verb commonly in use in the NT and that developed into Modern πάω.
It would not be Greek to say *ὑπήγαγον with the meaning "I went", just like it is not English to say I *goed.

Now if someone wants to talk about "subduing something, bringing it under control," then the word to choose is ὑπαγαγέσθαι ὑπάγεσθαι.
Also available is the active ὑπαγαγεῖν ὑπάγειν τινα, which refers to leading something "under", leading to authority or control.

Again, ὑπάγειν as an intransitive 'to go away' must be treated as a separate idiom in a continutative aspect only (present tense, imperfect tense, continuative imperative, continuative infinitive, continuative subjunctive and continuative participle) and one that is completed in other aspects with another verb like ἀπελθεῖν (ἀπῆλθον, ἵνα ἀπέλθω, ἀπελευσόμαι, ἀπελθόντες.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 577
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: first three principal parts of 'I depart'

Postby Stephen Carlson » June 30th, 2013, 2:37 pm

RandallButh wrote:Well, here we might get a little technical, but I would consider Stephen's examples to be a different verb from a user's perspective.


Well, I would consider this a case of polysemy, not homonymy. Sure, some meanings are not to be found in certain tenses or with certain stems, but others of its meanings are.

Frankly, I don't consider the question of the aorist of ὕπαγω to be all that difficult for a Greek. Even if he's never heard an aorist or future of this form, he can easily produce one based on analogies with compounds of ἄγω that are attested in the aorist.

Nevertheless, this thread does raise the issue of the value of teaching and memorizing principal parts in general, and whether to learn those parts which are hardly to be found.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: first three principal parts of 'I depart'

Postby RandallButh » June 30th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
RandallButh wrote:Well, here we might get a little technical, but I would consider Stephen's examples to be a different verb from a user's perspective.


Well, I would consider this a case of polysemy, not homonymy. Sure, some meanings are not to be found in certain tenses or with certain stems, but others of its meanings are.

Frankly, I don't consider the question of the aorist of ὕπαγω to be all that difficult for a Greek. Even if he's never heard an aorist or future of this form, he can easily produce one based on analogies with compounds of ἄγω that are attested in the aorist.

Nevertheless, this thread does raise the issue of the value of teaching and memorizing principal parts in general, and whether to learn those parts which are hardly to be found.


>this thread does raise the issue of the value of teaching and memorizing principal parts in general,
Actually, I am disagreeing that one can or should connect an aorist form with ὑπάγειν 'to be going'.

I think that specific, restricted meanings and structures need to be taught as specific, restricted structures. And then along with that must be given the Greek solution for areas beyond those strictures. That is why I gave the example in Luke 19.30-32: ... ὑπάγετε ... ἀπελθόντες ... . Luke did not use ὑπάγειν and could not use ὑπάγειν, when he wanted an aorist/perfective aspect.
(Otherwise, please find an example of *ὑπήγαγον meaning "I went". Or *ὑπάξω meaning "I will go." Or ὑπαγαγόντες meaning "having gone".
On the other hand, ὑπῆγον 'I was going away', ὕπαγε "Go!", ἵνα ὑπάγω "so that I would be going" are a dime a dozen.)

Intransitive ὑπάγειν is the Greek idiom that people need to learn. And Greeks did not produce *ὑπήγαγον for the meaning "I went", just like English don't say "*I goed", even though they can produce it. We're on the same team here, though we need to play by the universal grammar rule number 1, "we do it like that, because that's the way they do it."
RandallButh
 
Posts: 577
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: first three principal parts of 'I depart'

Postby Stephen Carlson » June 30th, 2013, 5:31 pm

Well, I don't really want to get into a debate over what is a word and whether intransitive and transitive senses ought to be considered the same word (with different meanings obviously) or different words. Frankly, I don't think it can be done with any rigor. Nevertheless, dictionaries lump these two senses under one lexical entry, and I don't really see a strong reason to be confusing people by splitting them up. I suppose one could say that the intransitive meaning is defective in the aorist, or that the aorist of the intransitive sense is supplied by another verb, say, ἀπῆλθον, but this raises the issue of what is or should be the pedagogical purpose of the principal parts.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: first three principal parts of 'I depart'

Postby RandallButh » June 30th, 2013, 6:48 pm

Stephen,
I, too, am not interested in a theoretical debate over what is or is not a word or a meaning. It would probably be boring, because much would depend on how the parameters were set up. So what was the issue at stake?

The issue grows out of the original question. When Orrin asked about the priniciple parts of ὑπάγω "I am going away, departing" he was trying to get to know that word.
Practically, he was asking how to say "I went away", based on ὑπάγω. My answer is that one cannot use that ὑπάγω in the aorist (or the future). If someone departed and a narrator reports it, the narrator can say ἀπῆλθεν 'he went away', or ὑπῆγεν 'he was going away, departing', but he cannot say *ὑπήγαγεν.

Pedagogically, the question can end right there, but it is information that is not often made clear in Greek materials for students. I would advocate making that information explicit and clear. So in the Mophologia booklet, we have a table for ὑπάγειν ᾽to be going away'. But in the aorist column and the future column is a note "lacking, use ἀπελθεῖν". As the example passage for this verb, the applicable words from Luke 19:30-32 are quoted, so that the user can see the word used correctly. In addition, there is an extra note mentioning another aorist, "(this verb is idiomatic as ‘depart’. In the ἀόριστος the verb is rare and has a different meaning ‘to urge’, literally “to lead under”)" In that way someone can be shown how to use ὑπάγειν 'to depart, be going away', and have some of its quirks and restrictions explicitly signalled. We want to encourage students of Greek to use the language, without creating pieces of a fictive language by extrapolating inapplicable rules or inapplicable processes. Thanks to this exchange on the forum, I will probably add another table for ὑπαγαγέσθαι ὑπάγεσθαι 'to subdue'. Typically in the morphologia there is only one διάθεσις (aka: voice) of a verb listed. If another voice is useful, then a separate table is written out. Because ὑπαγαγέσθαι ὑπάγεσθαι 'to subdue' is irregular and is also semantically and structurally distinct from ὑπάγειν 'be going away', it can justify a second table. Maybe a third table could be justified for ὑπαγαγεῖν ὑπάγειν τινα "to lead away, compel" but its frequency does not make it much of a priority.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 577
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Next

Return to Grammar Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest