Future Perfect forms in LXX?

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.

Re: Future Perfect forms in LXX?

Postby cwconrad » March 25th, 2012, 1:24 pm

The questions concerning reduplicated forms of κράζω do well to call attention to the not-so-well known fact that reduplication, although it generally characterizes perfect-tense stems, is not by any means limited to perfect stems. We use presents like γι(γ)νώσκω, γί(γ)νομαι, πίπτω, etc. and aorists like ἤγαγον commonly without a second thought. I personally have found it useful -nay, salutary -- to consult Smyth §§439-448, most especially §§447-448 on reduplication in present-tense stems and second-aorist stems.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
… ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὸν οἶνον ἠξίους
πίνειν, συνεκποτέ’ ἐστί σοι καὶ τὴν τρύγα Aristophanes, Plutus 1085
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: Future Perfect forms in LXX?

Postby Ken M. Penner » March 25th, 2012, 1:46 pm

Alan Patterson wrote:(what is the difference in translating a Future Passive from a Future Perfect)

I think some of this confusion is my fault, since I mistakenly contrasted "future perfect" with "future passive." I've now edited that post to remove this misleading statement.
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University
Ken M. Penner
 
Posts: 621
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada

Re: Future Perfect forms in LXX?

Postby Mark House » March 25th, 2012, 3:51 pm

Thanks for the spade work on this, Ken. Very helpful, if a bit "crazy" (my mnemonic for κράζω).
Mark House
 
Posts: 19
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 3:14 pm

Re: Future Perfect forms in LXX?

Postby RDecker » March 25th, 2012, 4:52 pm

This grows more interesting as the length of this thread grows! :) Who would have thought that a form as "common"! as a FutPerf would generate a thread now into its 3g page?! Thanks Ken, for digging out the TLG data. I can't access TLG from home and haven't been back on campus, but you've saved me a lot of work. I still need to think through all of it.

As for Smyth, I'm a bit puzzled, so Dr. "Carl-Smyth" :) may need to take me in hand here. The discussion in 447 pertains to what I've usually called "iotat redup." which is the normal form for the present in the μι verbs, in contrast to "normal"/ε redup. used in the perf. And 448 lists only 2 verbs, ἀγω and φερω, that have a duplicated syllable at the beginning of the stem in 2Aor--but I've never thought of them as "reduplicated" forms that have the same morphology as perfects. Perhaps I've just used "reduplicated" in a narrower sense (maybe narrower than I should?).

I already noted Smyth's listing in 1955:
But then look at Smyth, §1955, who lists 10 future-perfect monolectic forms, including 3 κεκ- forms: ἀναγεγράψομαι, δεδήσεται, κεκλῄσεται, πεπράξεται, εἰρήσεται, κεκλήσομαι, μεμνήσομαι, κεκτήσομαι, τεθνήξω, and ἑστήξω. He does refer to some of these (κεκλήσομαι, μεμνήσομαι, κεκτήσομαι in particular) as being "used like a simple future," but that is a statement of pragmatic function, not morphological formation.


Likewise on p. 703 in Smyth's Verb List he shows κραζω with a futurePerfect form κεκραξομαι, noting that it is "as fut."--which I assume means "is used with the same meaning as a future" (similar to his preceding comment, "2 perf κεκραγα as pres.").

Maybe I'm missing some other data in Smyth somewhere or not understanding what I've cited correctly, but regardless of what may be true of other forms listed in other posts above, it sure sounds to me like Smyth is treating the reduplicated κεκ- forms of κραζω as legitimate, monolectic, futurePerfect forms of κραζω.

So what have I gotten twisted up here?
Rodney J. Decker
Prof/NT
Baptist Bible Seminary
Clarks Summit, PA
(See profile for my NTResources blog address.)
RDecker
 
Posts: 46
Joined: May 31st, 2011, 7:10 pm
Location: Clarks Summit, PA

Re: Future Perfect forms in LXX?

Postby Ken M. Penner » March 25th, 2012, 5:01 pm

Rod, I'm curious: what prompted your original question about future perfects in the LXX? Was is something you're working on in the NT?
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University
Ken M. Penner
 
Posts: 621
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada

Re: Future Perfect forms in LXX?

Postby RDecker » March 25th, 2012, 6:24 pm

An unannounced project; contact me offline. (I apparently no longer have your email address.) Contact info here: http://ntresources.com/blog/?page_id=942
Rodney J. Decker
Prof/NT
Baptist Bible Seminary
Clarks Summit, PA
(See profile for my NTResources blog address.)
RDecker
 
Posts: 46
Joined: May 31st, 2011, 7:10 pm
Location: Clarks Summit, PA

Re: Future Perfect forms in LXX?

Postby cwconrad » March 25th, 2012, 8:46 pm

RDecker wrote: ... As for Smyth, I'm a bit puzzled, so Dr. "Carl-Smyth" :) may need to take me in hand here. The discussion in 447 pertains to what I've usually called "iotat redup." which is the normal form for the present in the μι verbs, in contrast to "normal"/ε redup. used in the perf. And 448 lists only 2 verbs, ἀγω and φερω, that have a duplicated syllable at the beginning of the stem in 2Aor--but I've never thought of them as "reduplicated" forms that have the same morphology as perfects. Perhaps I've just used "reduplicated" in a narrower sense (maybe narrower than I should?). ...


There are the Homeric reduplicated second aorists that Smyth mentions in 446d, but there's one reduplicated second aorist that he does not mention that is one of the most important verbs in the language -- he probably doesn't mention it because the reduplication is hidden by evanescence of the digamma and subsequent contraction of ε + ε into ει -- I'm referring to εἶπον/εἰπεῖν from an original ϝέϝεπον. Some might imagine that εἶπον is simply augmented: ἔϝεπον, but the aorist verb stem is εἰπ-, not ἐπ-.

I'm not trying here to elucidate the problematic future perfect, but only illustrating that there are complexities in ancient Greek that defy oversimplification of verb morphology into simple patterns and rules. I'm inclined to think that every period of Greek linguistic history from which texts survive can display "living fossils" of former eras.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
… ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὸν οἶνον ἠξίους
πίνειν, συνεκποτέ’ ἐστί σοι καὶ τὴν τρύγα Aristophanes, Plutus 1085
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Previous

Return to Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest