ἐγνώκατε vs. ἐγνώκειτε

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

ἐγνώκατε vs. ἐγνώκειτε

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 21st, 2017, 11:12 pm

Is there a significant difference between the forms ἐγνώκατε and ἐγνώκειτε?
What is the morphology of ἐγνώκειτε?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Robert Crowe
Posts: 102
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: ἐγνώκατε vs. ἐγνώκειτε

Post by Robert Crowe » October 22nd, 2017, 7:55 am

Classical perfect v pluperfect.
Tús maith leath na hoibre.

Robert Crowe
Posts: 102
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: ἐγνώκατε vs. ἐγνώκειτε

Post by Robert Crowe » October 22nd, 2017, 11:01 am

Pluperfect ἠγνώκειτε or ἠγνώκετε. Taking ἐγνώκειτε as a possibility.
Tús maith leath na hoibre.

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ἐγνώκατε vs. ἐγνώκειτε

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 22nd, 2017, 12:30 pm

Okay, so it is a past time tense because of the needs of the εἰ ..., ... ἅν formula, but why was it perfect before it was past-ed? Is there a specific meaning for this verb in the perfect?

About the formula ... Is there something modal about the past time tenses - is the quality of the indicative different in these tenses - that makes them more suitable to be used in an uncertain situation?

Verses in question for this verb are:
Matthew 12:7 wrote:Εἰ δὲ ἐγνώκειτε τί ἐστιν, Ἔλεον θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν, οὐκ ἂν κατεδικάσατε τοὺς ἀναιτίους.
John 14:7 wrote:Εἰ ἐγνώκειτέ με, καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου ἐγνώκειτε ἄν· καὶ ἀπ’ ἄρτι γινώσκετε αὐτόν, καὶ ἑωράκατε αὐτόν
Cf. a few other instances of this construction:
Matthew 11:21, 23 wrote:Οὐαί σοι, Χοραζίν, οὐαί σοι, Βηθσαϊδά, ὅτι εἰ ἐν Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἐγένοντο αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν ὑμῖν, πάλαι ἂν ἐν σάκκῳ καὶ σποδῷ μετενόησαν.
Καὶ σύ, Καπερναούμ, ἡ ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθεῖσα, ἕως ᾍδου καταβιβασθήσῃ· ὅτι εἰ ἐν Σοδόμοις ἐγένοντο αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν σοί, ἔμειναν ἂν μέχρι τῆς σήμερον.
Matthew 23:30 wrote:καὶ λέγετε, Εἰ ἦμεν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, οὐκ ἂν ἦμεν κοινωνοὶ αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι τῶν προφητῶν.
Matthew 24:22 wrote:Καὶ εἰ μὴ ἐκολοβώθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι, οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ· διὰ δὲ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς κολοβωθήσονται αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Robert Crowe
Posts: 102
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: ἐγνώκατε vs. ἐγνώκειτε

Post by Robert Crowe » October 22nd, 2017, 9:20 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
October 22nd, 2017, 12:30 pm
Verses in question for this verb are:
Matthew 12:7 wrote:
Εἰ δὲ ἐγνώκειτε τί ἐστιν, Ἔλεον θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν, οὐκ ἂν κατεδικάσατε τοὺς ἀναιτίους.
John 14:7 wrote:
Εἰ ἐγνώκειτέ με, καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου ἐγνώκειτε ἄν· καὶ ἀπ’ ἄρτι γινώσκετε αὐτόν, καὶ ἑωράκατε αὐτόν
An unfulfilled condition about past time was expressed in terms of the aorist or past perfect ind.Footnote: Mod. Gk. no longer has this idiom. It uses ἄν with the past ind. and θά in the apodosis for ἄν.
[A.T. Robertson 'A Grammar of the Greek New Testament' p1013]

There is ongoing debate about the exact semantics. Most of it futile in my opinion. Many idioms defy logical analyses.
In the context one must seek for light and help.
[Idem.]

The past perfect is rare, but has the advantage (for some) of agreeing with the English idiom in the protasis.

The imperfect of εἰμι functions as an aorist in this construction. "You just got to love it." [Not quoted by A.T.R.]
Tús maith leath na hoibre.

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ἐγνώκατε vs. ἐγνώκειτε

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 22nd, 2017, 11:23 pm

Robert Crowe wrote:
October 22nd, 2017, 9:20 pm
Mod. Gk. no longer has this idiom. It uses ἄν with the past ind. and θά in the apodosis for ἄν.
[A.T. Robertson 'A Grammar of the Greek New Testament' p1013]
Did ATR assume a knowledge of Modern Greek on the part of his readers. Without such a background, a casual reader might assume that ἄν had moved from the apodosis to the protasis. In fact, they are homographs. The Modern Greek ἄν is the regularisation (reduction) of the Koine triumvirate of if's (εἰ, ἐάν, and ἄν) to the single form ἄν, while the Classical / Koine ἄν (in this case) is a particle of uncertainty, something like the English "Ummm" ("I suppose"), like as in, "They would ummmm choose the super supreme."
Robert Crowe wrote:
October 22nd, 2017, 9:20 pm
There is ongoing debate about the exact semantics. Most of it futile in my opinion. Many idioms defy logical analyses.
In the context one must seek for light and help.
[Idem.]
To add more opinion to the futility, let me bring up Parmenion's advice about the Persian offer, and Alexander's reply.
Diodorus Siculus, Library, 17.54.4(part)-5(part) wrote:Παρμενίων δὲ πρῶτος εἶπεν, ἐγὼ μὲν ὢν Ἀλέξανδρος ἔλαβον ἂν τὰ διδόμενα καὶ τὴν σύνθεσιν ἐποιησάμην. [5] ὁ δ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρος ὑπολαβὼν εἶπεν, κἀγὼ εἰ Παρμενίων ἦν ἔλαβον ἄν.
I think Alexander is playing (both manipulating and joking) on the similarity of constructions - suggestion and hypothetical - to say, "You're not the leader.", "You are only looking at the short-term benefit, but I need to consider wider things".
Robert Crowe wrote:
October 22nd, 2017, 9:20 pm
The past perfect is rare, but has the advantage (for some) of agreeing with the English idiom in the protasis.
Verbal systems rarely map onto each other across languages. Each side of the north Atlantic seems to see their own version of English mapped onto the perfect.
Robert Crowe wrote:
October 22nd, 2017, 9:20 pm
The imperfect of εἰμι functions as an aorist in this construction. "You just got to love it." [Not quoted by A.T.R.]
Does εἰμι verb enough to even have an aspect system?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ἐγνώκατε vs. ἐγνώκειτε

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 23rd, 2017, 12:15 am

Chariton, De Chaerea et Callirhoe, 5.7.2 wrote:Ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τὸν ἄλλον βίον ἔζησα σωφρόνως καὶ πρώτην ταύτην ἔσχηκα διαβολήν: εἰ δέ γε καὶ ἀκόλαστος καὶ ἀσελγὴς ἐτύγχανον, ἐποίησεν ἄν με βελτίω τὸ παρὰ σοῦ τοσαύτας πόλεις πεπιστεῦσθαι.
This is perhaps closer to the quality of a saying, as in the Matthean example.
Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon, 1.8.4 wrote:Ἀλλ̓ εἰ μὲν ἰδιώτης ἦσθα μουσικῆς, ἠγνόεις ἂν τὰ τῶν γυναικῶν δράματα: νῦν δὲ κἂν ἄλλοις λέγοις ὅσων ἐνέπλησαν μύθων γυναῖκες τὴν σκηνήν.
The μέν ... δέ ... construction seems to be contracting and imagined scenario (pun on the Greek intended) with what is actually (punn on the German intended).
Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon, 5.26.4 wrote:Εἰ μὲν γὰρ καὶ συνοικεῖν ἤθελες, ὥσπερ ὤμοσας, οὐκ ἂν ἐφρόντισα Θερσάνδρων μυρίων: ἐπεὶ δὲ Λευκίππην εὑρόντι σοι γάμος ἀδύνατος ἄλλης γυναικός, ἑκοῦσά σοι τοῦτο παραχωρῶ:
I think the tension contradiction between the previous "pillow talk" and the fact that he is still married to another woman is brought out by this construction.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3135
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: ἐγνώκατε vs. ἐγνώκειτε

Post by Jonathan Robie » October 23rd, 2017, 2:28 pm

Is that last post still about ἐγνώκατε vs. ἐγνώκειτε? I'm not sure what it is meant to address.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ἐγνώκατε vs. ἐγνώκειτε

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 23rd, 2017, 4:36 pm

Perhaps another example which illustrates the type (or sense) of the aorist / pluperfect is at:
Μαρτυρῶ γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι, εἰ δυνατόν, τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν ἐξορύξαντες ἂν ἐδώκατέ μοι.
Following the pattern of the structure, I assume that δυνατόν has an understood aorist (imperfect) with it. There are also medical constraints on organ transplantation before the late 20th century, so ἐδώκατε is a non-past perhaps a clearly unreal grammatical meaning of the aorist too.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Robert Crowe
Posts: 102
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: ἐγνώκατε vs. ἐγνώκειτε

Post by Robert Crowe » October 23rd, 2017, 7:21 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
October 22nd, 2017, 11:23 pm
Robert Crowe wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2017, 2:20 am
Mod. Gk. no longer has this idiom. It uses ἄν with the past ind. and θά in the apodosis for ἄν.
[A.T. Robertson 'A Grammar of the Greek New Testament' p1013]
Did ATR assume a knowledge of Modern Greek on the part of his readers. Without such a background, a casual reader might assume that ἄν had moved from the apodosis to the protasis. In fact, they are homographs. The Modern Greek ἄν is the regularisation (reduction) of the Koine triumvirate of if's (εἰ, ἐάν, and ἄν) to the single form ἄν, while the Classical / Koine ἄν (in this case) is a particle of uncertainty, something like the English "Ummm" ("I suppose"), like as in, "They would ummmm choose the super supreme."
Yes amusing. The essential difference with regard to our discussion is that in the modern language the pluperfect is the norm in both protasis and apodosis. In the NT we see the beginning of this intrusion. But irrespective of the tense used, the construction can still be identified as a past unfulfilled conditional.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
October 23rd, 2017, 12:15 am
Robert Crowe wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2017, 2:20 am
There is ongoing debate about the exact semantics. Most of it futile in my opinion. Many idioms defy logical analyses.
In the context one must seek for light and help.
[Idem.]
To add more opinion to the futility, let me bring up Parmenion's advice about the Persian offer, and Alexander's reply.
Diodorus Siculus, Library, 17.54.4(part)-5(part) wrote:
Παρμενίων δὲ πρῶτος εἶπεν, ἐγὼ μὲν ὢν Ἀλέξανδρος ἔλαβον ἂν τὰ διδόμενα καὶ τὴν σύνθεσιν ἐποιησάμην. [5] ὁ δ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρος ὑπολαβὼν εἶπεν, κἀγὼ εἰ Παρμενίων ἦν ἔλαβον ἄν.
I think Alexander is playing (both manipulating and joking) on the similarity of constructions - suggestion and hypothetical - to say, "You're not the leader.", "You are only looking at the short-term benefit, but I need to consider wider things".
Yes the constructions are similar at the pragmatic level. But have different forms. Only by taking the context into consideration can the participle ὤν contribute to the sense.
Tús maith leath na hoibre.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest