What form(s) should be learned for verbs?

Re: What form(s) should be learned for verbs?

Postby Shirley Rollinson » October 23rd, 2013, 6:56 pm

Alan Patterson wrote:Interestingly, Wm Mounce does not have first year students learn accents in Basics of Biblical Greek. Perhaps he feels it is better for 2nd year students, who have enough Greek under their belts, to begin learning accents. Just a wild guess, although he doesn't seem to be too concerned with the accent side of Greek. I wonder if he doesn't believe teaching accents altogether?

Neither did Wenham use accents, nor the earlier editions of Dobson.
If the students get plenty of practice reading aloud from the GNT (which has the accents) they will pick up the speech patterns automatically. The rationale is that beginning students have enough to do to get the eyes, tongue, ears and brain working on the sounds of the Greek letters and the breathings before they add the complication of placing an accent.
Shirley Rollinson
 
Posts: 138
Joined: June 4th, 2011, 6:19 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: What form(s) should be learned for verbs?

Postby RandallButh » October 24th, 2013, 1:09 am

Shirley Rollinson wrote:...
If the students get plenty of practice reading aloud from the GNT (which has the accents) they will pick up the speech patterns automatically.


While I think that it is fine to read the text outloud, I find that such practice is insufficient for internalizing a language. Using the language in real communication and listening for meaning while the text is being read (correctly) seem to be more instrumental. Of course, simply reading the text also helps, since spelling is enhanced through reading.
As for the accent rules, they, like the alphabet, can be taught at any time. The trick for the teacher is remembering that the accent rules are not the conduit for learning and internalizing the language.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 569
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: What form(s) should be learned for verbs?

Postby Jonathan Robie » October 27th, 2013, 4:28 pm

Paul-Nitz wrote:[size=120]Reference form to learn: ἀόριστος καὶ παρατατική ἀπαρέμφατος
“What form should be learned as a reference word?” I'm with the crowd. The Aorist Infinitive. But why pick only one? λογός, –ου, ὁ consists of three pieces of information to memorize. So, why not memorize Aor & Pres Infinitive? Look at what wealth of information you get out of these pairs. This is manageable learning, unlike a memorization pattern consisting of 6 parts (with variable blanks in many patterns).

    χρήσασθαι---- χρῆσθαι
    γένεσθαι---- γίνεσθαι
    πειραθῆναι---- πειρᾶσθαι
    λυπηθῆναι---- λυπεῖσθαι
    βουληθῆναι---- βούλεσθαι
    ἀναστῆναι---- ἀνίστασθαι
    χαρῆναι---- χαίρειν
    δοῦναι---- διδόναι
    θεῖναι---- τιθέναι
    ἀφεῖναι---- ἀφιέναι
    γνῶναι---- γινώσκειν

Verbs which are regularly in Middle, or which have Middle forms that substantially change the meaning, should be treated as separate verbs in instruction and (if I had my wish) in lexicons.

Sample of paradigms: βασιλεύς ὁ ἀόριστος
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... sp=sharing


Is there a fairly complete list of the most important GNT verbs, in a machine readable format, along these lines?

I really like both your spreadsheet and Randall's book (which I have now bought), but I'd also like to create an Ankhi flashcard set for the aorist and present infinitives of important verbs.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
Jonathan Robie
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm

Re: What form(s) should be learned for verbs?

Postby Paul-Nitz » October 31st, 2013, 11:21 am

Jonathan,
I've written to the Kalos creator to see if he could generate Aor and Pres Inf for a list of common verbs that I have compiled.

I've also begun compiling infinitives from Robertson* list of specially important NT verbs. I have been checking the Infinitive forms against Lexham** and Kalos. It's slow going, so I'm not sure if I'll get around to finishing. If I do, I'll send it to you. These many took me 60 min.

διαθ. gloss ἀόριστος Freq παρατατική Freq in NT
κοινή to kill ἀποκτεῖναι 16 ἀποκτείνειν 0
ἑαυτική to kill ἀποκτανθῆναι 6 ἀποκτέννεσθαι 1
κοινή to destroy ἀπολέσαι 9 ἀπολλυείν 0
ἑαυτική to destroy ἀπολέσθαι 3 ἀπόλλυσθαι 2
ἑαυτική to touch ἅψασθαι 2 ἅπτεσθαι 2
ἑαυτική to push aside ἀπῶσαι 0 ἀπωθεῖσθε 1
κοινή to please ἀρέσαι 2 ἀρέσκειν 0

Roberston's list is prefaced by this comment:
"The perfectly regular verbs like λύω, φιλέω, φωτίζω, etc., call for no comment. The rare verbs are not given with fullness. All that is here attempted is a summary of the most important verbs in the New Testament that have anything specially noteworthy about any of the tenses. It will be a handy list for the student. Only the forms that occur in the N. T. are given."

From what I see, the majority of the notable forms Robertson lists would be suggested by the κοινή και ἑαυτική infinitives, as shown here.

*Robertson, A.T.. A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908, 3rd Edition. PDF on Archive.org

**(2011). The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Logos Bible Software.
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Paul-Nitz
 
Posts: 200
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am

Re: What form(s) should be learned for verbs?

Postby Stephen Hughes » October 31st, 2013, 9:51 pm

Ἔα! Παρέβλεψα τοῦτο τὸ νῆμα νομίζων ἓμ βασικὸν ἐρώτημα εἰναι. Νῦν δὲ δηλόν ἐστιν ἐκ τῶν συμμετοχῶν τε καὶ φύσεως τοῦ διαλόγου αὐτοῦ ὁτι ἐν τούτῳ τῷ νήματι μελετῶμεν τὴγ κατανόησιν ἐκπαιδευτικῆς μεθοδολογίας. εἰς τοῦτο δὲ ἐᾶτε με οὕτως ὀψὲ ἀντιγράφειν μερικὰς σκέψεις μου ἀπὸ τοῦ σαυτοῦ νήματος.
What I mean is that I personally learn (and teach) verbs in the infinitive as the most "ungrammatical" from, and nouns etc. in the accusative as the form from which all other forms decline with the least mean difference/distance. I begin thinking about verbs in their aspect - mood - tense differentiated forms in the 3rd person singular (and later) plural, and for nouns etc. after the accusative I move to the accuasative plural then on to the Genitive or Dative in both singular and plural. The nominative is the conceptually most difficult form to think about. The second person forms come after the third, then the first - for the reasons that I ennumerated earlier in this thread (Re: σαυτοῦ (14th reply)). I don't teach (or think by) tables and columns starting at the nominative, I work with individualities in the language whose interconectedness starts at the accusative singular and works out, and I use as my starting point the infinitive ("present" infinitive for 1st aorist verbs and "aorist" infinitive for 2nd aorist verbs) then work out from there. I don't use, refer to or think about any grammatical words when I read or teach - grammar is for discussions by people who know the language - not for beginners and not for personal use - but rather think in terms of the interrelatedness of the parts of the sentence and the expectations for what comes after a word or what a word comes after - so called "collocations", but not only in the sense that the Polish linguists originally conceived them, but also what for example what case a verb takes.

In short, I agree with your assessment of case in the case of this word, and would like to tell you that I think it is true for all other declined forms, and to suggest to you that conjugated words start at their most basic (least ellaborated) form of infinitive.

ὁμολογουμένως δὴ ἡ προηγουμένη διάνοια παραβαίνει ἐκ μέρους τὸ ζήτημα ὃ ἔθηκεν ὁ Ῥάνδαλλ ἀλλὰ οὐκ ἠθέλησα μετασχηματίσαι τὸ προγεγραμμένον λόγιον μου.
Stephen Hughes
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
(Attributed to Albert Einstein)
Stephen Hughes
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Location: China

Re: What form(s) should be learned for verbs?

Postby Paul-Nitz » November 1st, 2013, 3:22 am

Stephen,

Thanks for the intriguing reply. I had skipped over that σαυτου thread.

I very much like the idea of starting with the Accusative since it seems to be the most basic form. For example, thinking of πας as a sort of mental title for the forms of this word doesn't encourage connecting its pattern with ὤν or even τις. But ὄντα and πάντα and τινα are clearly the same pattern.

Your practice of thinking in terms of Present Infinitive for 1st Aorists and Aorist Infinitives for the 2nd Aorist verbs is very interesting. I think I'll try that for myself.

For me, the most memorable and important point you make is this:

Stephen Hughes wrote:I don't teach (or think by) tables and columns starting at the nominative, I work with individualities in the language whose interconectedness starts at the accusative singular and works out, and I use as my starting point the infinitive ("present" infinitive for 1st aorist verbs and "aorist" infinitive for 2nd aorist verbs) then work out from there. I don't use, refer to or think about any grammatical words when I read or teach - grammar is for discussions by people who know the language - not for beginners


σύμφημι! Whatever tables or list we might come up with as helps for learning need to follow, not precede, encounters with the language.

Furthermore, when those learning encounters are designed as "genuine communication," I believe that the language is accepted in the brain as a part of a whole from which patterns can be more intuitively recognized. In contrast, if patterns and lists are the introduction to a language, the learner takes this as an almost insurmountable batch of details and rules that will overwhelm any average learner. Only the very detailed minded, highly intelligent, visual learners will survive (not me!).

    καιπερ φοβοῦμενος διατελλῶ περί τῶς νοημάτων μου ἀπολογεῖσθαι τῷ δήμῳ τοῦ B-Greek. Granted, these thoughts are subjective and intuitive based, not data based.

    I compare this view of language acquisition to what goes on in the brain as a person draws something (not pictograph drawing, but realistic drawing). If we were to draw a tree, should we sit down, analyze, and measure the diameters of the branches, the typical angles of departure from the trunk, and the variables in those angles between tree families (Pine versus Jacaranda!)? Of course, not. Instead, we "swallow" the look of the tree and begin drawing, adjusting, erasing, and redrawing as we go.

    This type of synthetic thinking is what is needed for efficient and meaningful language acquisition. But analysis of language is useful at certain stages, just as the artist hold up his pencil at arm's length now and again to measure proportions. After repeated "live" use of the language the learners will start seeing some of the patterns that exist. It's then that a teacher then can explicitly show the learner some patterns. In this way, the lists or explicit patterns the teacher demonstrates becomes a consolidation of learning, not a starting point for learning.

    By way of example, in my classes last year, we used the cases extensively via communicative methods. We were giving real objects to Datives, commanding students to go προς Accusatives, trading things αντι Genitives, and so on. When I saw that the students were understanding well, I brought out a list like what is shown below. I encouraged the students to imagine this κατάλογον as a real dialogue, letting their own imaginations supply the the situation and details. Then, they might consider (optional) memorizing the list:

      κατάλογος "τίς"

      τίς, τίς, ἤ τί;
      ὁ ἀνήρ, ἡ γυνή, ἤ το τέκνον;

      τίνος, τίνος, ἤ, τίνος;
      τοῦ ἀνδρός, τῆς γυναικός, ἤ, τοῦ τέκνου;

      κτλ.
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Paul-Nitz
 
Posts: 200
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am

Re: What form(s) should be learned for verbs?

Postby Stephen Hughes » November 1st, 2013, 6:55 am

Paul-Nitz wrote:Your practice of thinking in terms of Present Infinitive for 1st Aorists and Aorist Infinitives for the 2nd Aorist verbs is very interesting.

Ὡς ἁπλοῦν κεφάλαιον ἀρκεῖ ἡμῖν ἡ παραίνησις αὐτή. εἰ δὲ θέλομεν ἀκριβέστερον διακρῖναί τι ἢ ἐν τινὶ τρόπῳ ἔχομεν λυσιτελούντως μαθεῖν τὰ ῥηματα, θεωρῶμεν εἰ ἡ ἐννοία τοῦ ἀορίστου καὶ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος διαφέρει ἢ οὐ. ἐὰν οὐ διαφέρουσιν αἱ δυό, ἱκανοῖ εἷς χρόνος ὡς ἔλεγον. ἐὰν διαφέρωσιν μὲν αἱ δυό, συμφέρει μαθεῖν καὶ τὰς δυὸ μορφὰς τοῦ ῥήματος.
Stephen Hughes
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
(Attributed to Albert Einstein)
Stephen Hughes
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Location: China

Re: What form(s) should be learned for verbs?

Postby Paul-Nitz » November 4th, 2013, 7:59 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:Ὡς ἁπλοῦν κεφάλαιον ἀρκεῖ ἡμῖν ἡ παραίνησις αὐτή. εἰ δὲ θέλομεν ἀκριβέστερον διακρῖναί τι ἢ ἐν τινὶ τρόπῳ ἔχομεν λυσιτελούντως μαθεῖν τὰ ῥηματα, θεωρῶμεν εἰ ἡ ἐννοία τοῦ ἀορίστου καὶ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος διαφέρει ἢ οὐ. ἐὰν οὐ διαφέρουσιν αἱ δυό, ἱκανοῖ εἷς χρόνος ὡς ἔλεγον. ἐὰν διαφέρωσιν μὲν αἱ δυό, συμφέρει μαθεῖν καὶ τὰς δυὸ μορφὰς τοῦ ῥήματος.



To Stephen Hughes:
Sounds good to me. But, if we're learning lists, it's better to keep the parts of the list to a consistent number. So ελθειν-ερχεσθαι... γραψαι-γραφειν is easier to learn than ελθειν-ερχεσθαι... ______-γραφειν.

Paul-Nitz wrote:διαθ. gloss ἀόριστος Freq παρατατική Freq in NT
κοινή to kill ἀποκτεῖναι 16 ἀποκτείνειν 0
ἑαυτική to kill ἀποκτανθῆναι 6 ἀποκτέννεσθαι 1
κοινή to destroy ἀπολέσαι 9 ἀπολλυείν 0
ἑαυτική to destroy ἀπολέσθαι 3 ἀπόλλυσθαι 2
ἑαυτική to touch ἅψασθαι 2 ἅπτεσθαι 2
ἑαυτική to push aside ἀπῶσαι 0 ἀπωθεῖσθε 1
κοινή to please ἀρέσαι 2 ἀρέσκειν 0


To all:
What do you think about learning middles as separate pieces of information, even if they can be regularly formed from the active?
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Paul-Nitz
 
Posts: 200
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am

Re: What form(s) should be learned for verbs?

Postby Stephen Hughes » November 4th, 2013, 10:36 pm

Paul-Nitz wrote:What do you think about learning middles as separate pieces of information, even if they can be regularly formed from the active?
I have my own stupido question to add to Paul's:

How many inteligent people have suggested that the so called "middle" is the more basic form and that the other form (what would it be called then?) is a derivative from?
Stephen Hughes
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
(Attributed to Albert Einstein)
Stephen Hughes
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Location: China

Re: What form(s) should be learned for verbs?

Postby cwconrad » November 5th, 2013, 7:15 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Paul-Nitz wrote:What do you think about learning middles as separate pieces of information, even if they can be regularly formed from the active?
I have my own stupido question to add to Paul's:

How many inteligent people have suggested that the so called "middle" is the more basic form and that the other form (what would it be called then?) is a derivative from?


I don't know whether this is a rhetorical question ("Who would be so stupid?) or a serious one, but I'll respond on the assumption that it's serious. Randall Buth has suggested, and I would concur, that verbs like ἵστασθαι/στῆναι with intransitive sense of "stand/stand up/come to a halt" should have a separate lexical entry from the causative ἱστάναι/στῆσαι with its sense of "erect/station/bring to a halt." I think it would indeed be best to have two lexical entries for this, but if there should only be one, I think the middle should be the lemma. So with the similar verb ἐγείρεσθαι/ἐγερθῆναι with the sense of "wake up/rise up" and the active/κοινή ἐγείρειν/ἐγεῖραι with the sense "awaken/rouse/erect". There are, in fact, quite a few verbs that should, in my opinion, be lemmatized in the middle/ἑαυτική because these intransitive forms really are primary, while the active/κοινή forms are causatives and usually far less frequent. Then there are what are properly to be called "Middle Verbs" belonging to the various subcategories of reflexive or mostly indirect reflexive type or spontaneous process verbs that have causative active/κοινή forms that are relatively rare: γεύεσθαι/γεύσασθαι "taste" vs. γεύειν/γεῦσαι "give a taste", σήπεσθαι/σαπῆναι "rot" vs. σήπειν/σῆψαι "cause to rot".
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: 1253
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

PreviousNext

Return to Teaching Methods

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests