Listing verbs in infinitive form

[Stephen Carlson]

We had a discussion on B-Greek about whether to use the Present (παρατατική!) infinitive versus the Aorist. I think the consensus came down on the Aorist Infinitive.

I toyed around with the idea of preferring the aorist, but, as a single citation form I've come down in favor of the present infinitive because it distinguishes better the contract verbs. (It also follows the precedent of those (mainly Germans) who do cite the infinitive.) Of course, I do like the two infinitives (present then aorist) for headwords, but ideally the morphology of verbs is complicated enough that their principal parts (still in the 1st person singular??) ought to be listed in a morphology section.

[RandallButh]

We had a discussion on B-Greek about whether to use the Present (παρατατική!) infinitive versus the Aorist. I think the consensus came down on the Aorist Infinitive.

I toyed around with the idea of preferring the aorist, but, as a single citation form I've come down in favor of the present infinitive because it distinguishes better the contract verbs. (It also follows the precedent of those (mainly Germans) who do cite the infinitive.) Of course, I do like the two infinitives (present then aorist) for headwords, but ideally the morphology of verbs is complicated enough that their principal parts (still in the 1st person singular??) ought to be listed in a morphology section.

I am also happy with the continuative infinitive as a first headword, however the aorist, when existing, needs to be immediately visible because of its centrality for knowing the word prototypically.
Especially for beginning students, it is best if continuative infinitives are not glossed as aorists,
e.g. best practice would be: εὑρίσκειν to be finding, εὑρεῖν to find.

[Alan Bunning]

Nobody has advocated for the 1st person singular form yet which would presumably be the most “backward compatible” with current materials. So if anyone prefers that form, please speak up.

In the meantime, I have been playing around with this idea of using infinitive forms. As I have said before, regardless of what form is chosen for the headword, all alternative spellings and forms will be shown as well as any irregular principal parts of the verbs. So once someone finds the entry, they should have everything they need. For a word like φέρω, I might do something like this:

ἐνεγκεῖν – 3rd principal part of φέρειν
...
ἐνεχθῆναι – 6th principal part of φέρειν
...
οἴσειν – 2nd principal part of φέρειν
...
φέρειν (full entry)

For the see entries, I was planning on listing only the irregular principal parts that actually exist in the NT and they would then be shown again under the full entry. (Any other regular principal parts can presumably be derived by rule). Comments?

[Stephen Hughes]

Nobody has advocated for the 1st person singular form yet which would presumably be the most “backward compatible” with current materials. So if anyone prefers that form, please speak up.

I don't prefer it, but if you do use it, perhaps you could start a trend of accuracy by giving glosses that correspond to the form.

It displays (or encourages) ignorance of Greek grammar to gloss χλευάζω, for example as "mock", or "to mock". If that "backward compatible" form is used, a gloss like "I am mocking" would offer a much better correspdence to the sense of the Greek than construing gloss for χλευάζω as "mock".

On the point of relative morphological complexity of the first person singular present indicative active (or deponent middle) vs. the present infinitive:

• What is the difference between χλευάζ- and χλευάζω?
  The addition of the -ω specifies that the verb is finite and that the syntactic role of the verb is subject, and it grammatically specifies that that subject is first person.
• What is the difference between χλευάζ- and χλευάζειν?
  χλευάζειν specifies that the verb can perform a number of syntactic roles, but doesn't in itself give any extra grammatical information.

On the point of the relative complexity of the present infinitive vs. the aorist infinitive:

• What is the difference between χλευάζ- and χλευάζειν?
  Just what was mentioned above.
• What is the difference between χλευάζ- and χλευάσαι?
  Ditto as for the present, plus the ideas of the aorist.
• What is the difference between βαλ- and βαλειν?
  Syntactic information.
• What is the difference between βαλ- and βαλλειν?
  As above, plus the ideas of the present.

The most morphologically simple forms of verbs sort of depend on whether they are first of second aorists.

In English (the language of the glosses), the infinitive can be constructed using the basic verbal form "mock", like "you mustn't ...", or in some cases "to mock", like "started ...".

Listing the Greek infinitive glossed by one of the forms of the English infinitive, eg. "χλευάζειν, to mock"is at least logical.

[Alan Bunning]

Another question. If a word exists both in a contracted and uncontracted form in the wild, would you rather see the uncontracted form as the headword even if the contracted form is more frequently used?

[RandallButh]

It all depends on your target dialect.

If your target is broad 1st century Koine, then you want to use the contracted forms.

[Alan Bunning]

It all depends on your target dialect.

If your target is broad 1st century Koine, then you want to use the contracted forms.

Is there a good book that explains all the differences between the dialects?

[Stephen Hughes]

It all depends on your target dialect.

If your target is broad 1st century Koine, then you want to use the contracted forms.

Is there a good book that explains all the differences between the dialects?

Buck, Greek dialects. That's the one we worked through when I was an undergraduate in Greek.

[RandallButh]

Studying Buck would be going in the wrong direction.It is looking at the NON-Koine dialects.

The Koine represents a generalized common, post-Alexandrian use of Attic/Ionic Greek throughout the Middle East and around the Mediterranean.
Just talk a look at your Nt or LXX grammars (BDF, Moulton, etal) and you will see what is going on. Running searches on TLG and finding a 5th century Ionic text or form needs to be put in perspective and such a form can not be used as first century koine.

[Stephen Hughes]

I agree with RB. AB, I have probably misunderstood your quierry by referring to Buck.

I now think that what you are asking for is an abstract discussion ofbthe differences between the dialects. Buck is a geographic survey of the dialects in the Classical period. Political developments in the 5th century, that saw the developments of both the Doric and Attic Koines and then the Egyptian and other states use of Greek mercenaries, and finally Alexander's great conquests led to the dominance of the Attic Koine, and to all intents and purposes the ages of dialects was over. All but a few of Modern Greek dialects derive from the Attic Koine.