Some morphology questions...
A couple of questions I'm hoping you can shed some light on...
1) Why do grammars (LaSor, Mounce and I presume Smyth) take the Feminine
Accusative Plural ending to be -S *or* -AS depending on the declension?
Why not just make it -AS for all declensions? The second declension would
then form O+AS -> OUS by the same contraction rule as the -OW verbs.
eta+alpha is not allowed so that would explain H+AS -> AS. alpha+alpha is
likewise not allowed (except in a handful of hebrew loan words and some
compound words) and this would explain A+AS -> AS. What do people think
2) How is E)SQH/SESI (Acts 1.10) derived from E)SQH/S? (Q=theta)
The stem is clearly E)SQH/T (as the dative singular is E)SQH=TI) so why
isn't the dative plural E)SQH/SI[N]?
James K. Tauber, Undergraduate Student ``Perplexed but not
Centre for Linguistics, UWA, Australia despairing''
E-mail: email@example.com - Paul (2 Cor 4.8)