I think work like that could be extremely valuable for understanding word meanings (see the quotes below), but at this point, I don’t think I can use that for a basis for word divisions because I can’t get passed the accent arguments (#2 and #3) for keeping them joined. I think the inevitable conclusion is that if compound verbs can be split, then there has to be evidence that the accents changed from the 1st century until they became visible in the texts a few centuries later. Someone could try to claim that all the prepositional prefixes were proclitics (noting that εισ, εκ, and εν are already in the list) in the case of verbs, but even that does not seem to work when the accent can be placed on the last vowel of the preposition (but I am still not sure why it cannot recede further back then that). I am not sure if an alternative theory on accents could explain all of that away, but that is what would have to happen to be plausible.Stephen Hughes wrote:If you like we could work through all the Pi words together. (Para, Peri, Pro and Pros). I working in the Pi’s now for something else, so if your hitching a ride, it’s on my way anyway.
Otherwise, the only other alternative would be to claim that the accents changed from the 1st century until they became visible in the texts a few centuries later. In order for that to be plausible, there would have to be evidence to that effect and that is not likely, because we don’t see the accents in the manuscripts! It just doesn’t seem likely that accents could change that radically in only a few centuries, and there would be no reason to postulate that without evidence. I know of no such evidence. Does anybody else?
My take is that the accent evidence should trump all of the other pro-splitting arguments because it is structural to the language, even though it could not be seen in the language until a few centuries later. That said, there seems to be merit in taking a deeper look at the meanings of these compound verbs, and why it seems that the meanings of many could be represented by their constituent elements.
1814 – “The negligence and inconsideration, with which lexicographers and grammarians in general have proceeded in assigning the force and significancy of the Greek particles, cannot have escaped the notice of any correct Greek scholar; and in no species of particles, perhaps, have these faults been more frequently conspicuous, than in respect to the prepositions.” (On the Force of the Greek Prepositions in Compound Verbs, as employed in the New Testament, J. A. H. Tittmann)
1840 – “The full import of the compound verbs in the N.T., and the extent to which they can assume place of simple verbs, has not yet been sufficiently investigated on rational principles...” (A grammar of the idioms of the Greek language of the New Testament, Georg Benedikt Winer)
2011 – “The lack of a scholarly examination towards prepositions led to an almost schizophrenic attitude with some either denying any emphasis while others seeing too much.” “...an attempt to handle the issue of prepositions in compound verbs, an issue that still is seemingly not settled, even among Greek scholars.” (Those pesky prepositions in compound verbs, Dan Fabricatore)