past imperfect indicative of pascho, to suffer

[Douglas Nast]

What is the indicative future aorist of πασχω? A straightforward application of the rules I know, by adding a sigma and contracting would produce πασξω, but this cannot be right because it appears nowhere in the www universe including Strong's concordance. I am thinking that the stem must change for the future but can find that stem nowhere.

Also, just checking something I think I know the answer to. Is the principle part of the indicative imperfect past of πασχω given by ε-πασχ-ο-ν (i.e. επασχον)? That is, the stem for the imperfect is the same as for the present, is it not?

[Jonathan Robie]

What is the indicative future aorist of πασχω? A straightforward application of the rules I know, by adding a sigma and contracting would produce πασξω, but this cannot be right because it appears nowhere in the www universe including Strong's concordance. I am thinking that the stem must change for the future but can find that stem nowhere.

Are you looking for the future indicative or the aorist indicative?

Also, just checking something I think I know the answer to. Is the principle part of the indicative imperfect past of πασχω given by ε-πασχ-ο-ν (i.e. επασχον)? That is, the stem for the imperfect is the same as for the present, is it not?

Yes, you do seem to know this, but perhaps your wording could be improved. The imperfect and present are both formed from the same principal part. I like the description in Wikipedia:

Verbs in Ancient Greek have six principal parts: present (I), future (II), aorist (III), perfect (IV), perfect middle (V) and aorist passive (VI), each listed in its first-person singular form:

Part I forms the entire present system, as well as the imperfect.
Part II forms the future tense in the active and middle voices.
Part III forms the aorist in the active and middle voices.
Part IV forms the perfect and pluperfect in the active voice, and the (exceedingly rare) future perfect, active.
Part V forms the perfect and pluperfect in the middle voice, and the (rare) future perfect, middle.
Part VI forms the aorist and future in the passive voice.

[Douglas Nast]

My terminology is clumsy and/or non-standard I am sure. In the first part of my question I am asking for the principle part of the future indicative. I referred to it as the future aorist because it is future temporally, and it is not imperfect or perfect in aspect. This helps keep things straight in my head but I should be more careful when communicating with others.

[Robert Emil Berge]

For very many common verbs, like πάσχω, there is no way to deduce the other principle parts from the 1st. person sg. act. ind. form listed first in the dictionary. LSJ is a good source then, since it lists the other forms as well, if they occur. It's not always easy to know which forms would be used in Biblical Greek, but sometimes it is stated, and usually it is the main forms listed.

So here's the first part of the header for the definition of πάσχω:

πάσχω, Il.20.297, etc. : impf. ἔπασχον 17.375, etc.: fut. πείσομαι Od.2.134, etc.; Dor. 3sg. παισεῖται Abh.Berl.Akad.1925(5).21 (Cyrene, iii B.C.): aor. ἔπᾰθον Il.9.492, etc.: pf. πέπονθα Od.13.6, etc.: plpf. ἐπεπόνθειν ib.92, etc.; Att. ἐπεπόνθη Pl.Smp.198c (all the above tenses in Hom., pres. and aor. only in Hes.).

Notice that there is no active form for the future, and that it is the same as the fut. mid. of πείθω, which can sometimes be confusing.

[Jonathan Robie]

When a form is actually used in the GNT or LXX, you can find it at lexicon.katabiblon.com.

This one isn't, though. Robert's suggestion to use LSJ is great, but as he points out, it doesn't always tell you which forms are used in the Hellenistic period. As Funk points out, παθεῖται is the form used in 1 Clement, and mentioned in Bauer:

3762. The verbs χέω and πάσχω also show 'contract' futures: χέω, -χεῶ (χῶ is present, -χεῶ future); πάσχω, παθεῖται (only third singular appears in Bauer; the aorist is ἔπαθον).

BDAG adds παθοῦνται, saying (I think) that it is used in Hermas.

I highly recommend Rod Decker's morphology catalog for questions like this, he lists this verb and describes it well.

[Douglas Nast]

I am thankful for the pointer to the LSJ which will likely forestall other questions. Let me see if I understand your comment and the thinking that goes with it.

First, you are saying that because the only future tense reference in the main LSJ entry for this verb says "fut. πείσομαι", and because you know this to be a suffix associated with future middle, you conclude that there is no future active for pascho.

Second, you note in passing that the principle part for the future middle of pascho "to suffer" as given by the LSJ header happens to be the same as the future middle of peíthō, "to persuade". You note that this introduces some confusion, but that is life.

If I have this correct, then I am satisfied and offer my heartfelt thanks. In passing then....

I find it interesting that there is an active voice for the present, but none for the future, and wonder if it is related to the type of action here...that is, it might say something that this is true for "to suffer" and not true for "to kill", for example. Giving this cursory thought it would seem more consistent to me for "to suffer" to have no active voice at all, regardless of aspect or time sense, since this is something at is "Experienced", not something that is "Done"

[Douglas Nast]

When I posted my last response I had not seen Jonathan's answer and his reference to Decker, for which I am again grateful. I am quickly realizing that the simple rules I am absorbing from Black's "Learn to Read New Testament Greek" are guidelines rather than rules. The plot thickens and I am loving it.

[Jonathan Robie]

When I posted my last response I had not seen Jonathan's answer and his reference to Decker, for which I am again grateful. I am quickly realizing that the simple rules I am absorbing from Black's "Learn to Read New Testament Greek" are guidelines rather than rules. The plot thickens and I am loving it.

Yes. The explanations in a beginning grammar are oversimplifications. Necessarily.

[cwconrad]

When I posted my last response I had not seen Jonathan's answer and his reference to Decker, for which I am again grateful. I am quickly realizing that the simple rules I am absorbing from Black's "Learn to Read New Testament Greek" are guidelines rather than rules. The plot thickens and I am loving it.

This particular verb is in several ways emblematic of how complex the Greek verb can be. Here there are two important oddities:

1. Its root has three forms in vowel-gradation< an E form πενθ-, an O form πονθ-, and a zero-grade form πνθ-, where the medial Nu vocalizes to A so that the resultant form is παθ- Appreciating how the tense-stems of this verb derive from these alternative forms of the root requires some appreciation of principles of ancient Greek phonology. The present-tense is formed by combination of the zero-grade root παθ- with the formative element -σκ-: παθ-σκ-becomes πάσχω. The future-tense stems is formed by combination of the E-grade form of the root with the future-marker: πενθ/σ- and is middle, πένθσομαι becomes πείσομαι. The second-aorist is formed with the zero-grade root παθ-: ἔπαθον. The perfect-tense stem is formed from the O-grade form of the root πονθ= reduplicated:πέπονθα.

2. Conjugation of this verb is further complicated by the fact that it is essentially a subject-affected verb; like verbs of perception the verbal process indicated involves the subject experiencing the action as a "patient"; the verb πάσχειν, although active in form (meaning not transitive active but unmarked for subject-affectedness) functions as a "passive" for ποιέω/ποιεῖν (if ποιεῖν means "do" then πάσχειν means "have something done to oneself"). In the future tense, as is the case with several verbs that are inherently subject=affected in meaning, this verb actually takes the subject-affected middle conjugation: πένθσομαι (the putative original form before phonological changes) becomes in actual usage πείσομαι.

Another way to describe the seemingly odd morphology and usage of this verb is to say: first-year Greek students learn what's regular about Greek morphology and usage; progression beyond the first year involves becoming aware that the rules one has been taught in the first year are very much oversimplified and that the facts about Greek forms and usage are much more complex.

[Robert Emil Berge]

I am thankful for the pointer to the LSJ which will likely forestall other questions. Let me see if I understand your comment and the thinking that goes with it.
If I have this correct, then I am satisfied and offer my heartfelt thanks. In passing then....

Yes, you've got it right, and I would like to add a small modifier to cwconrad's quite overwhelming (but beautiful, I think) example of complex sound transformations: Greek is oversimplified for beginners, and when you realize how complex it actually is it can be somewhat disheartening, so even if you say you love it when it gets hard, I want to reassure you that most verbs follow the quite simple rules you learned in the beginning most of the time, and with a finite amount of work you will learn to recognize them. The really crazy verbs, like πάσχω, are few, and most of them you will meet quite often, so you will learn them quite fast as well.