Page 1 of 1

Why no contraction in ποιεω

Posted: August 1st, 2011, 12:02 pm
by Chris Engelsma
The rules for contraction puzzle me. Take ποιεω.

The stem is ποιε-
Add the connecting vowel to make ποιεο
There is no ending in first singular. The omicron lengthens to an omega which gives ποιεω.

My question is...why (according to the rules of contraction) doesn't the omega swallow the preceding epsilon?

Re: Why no contraction in ποιεω

Posted: August 1st, 2011, 1:36 pm
by Stephen Carlson
Chris Engelsma wrote:My question is...why (according to the rules of contraction) doesn't the omega swallow the preceding epsilon?
Actually, it does contract. The contracted form ποιῶ is indeed the standard form of the New Testament: Matt 21:24, 27, 26:18; Mark 11:29, 33; Luke 20:8; John 5:36, 6:38, 8:28, 29, 10:35, 37, 38; 13:7, 14:12, 31; Rom 7:15, 16, 19, 20; 1 Cor 9:23; 2 Cor 11:12; and Rev 21:5.

The uncontracted form ποιέω is mainly found in Herodotus, Greek grammatical writers, and your NT lexicon.

Stephen

Re: Why no contraction in ποιεω

Posted: August 6th, 2011, 8:30 am
by Jason Hare
Chris Engelsma wrote:The rules for contraction puzzle me. Take ποιεω.

The stem is ποιε-
Add the connecting vowel to make ποιεο
There is no ending in first singular. The omicron lengthens to an omega which gives ποιεω.

My question is...why (according to the rules of contraction) doesn't the omega swallow the preceding epsilon?
All contract verbs are listed like this in lexica and word lists. This way, you don't lose track of the fact that it's a contract and can easily see what the vowel is (whether -ε- or -α- or -ο-).

ὁράω (in the lexicon) becomes ὁρῶ in the texts.
δηλόω (in the lexicon) becomes δηλῶ in the texts.
ἐράω (in the lexicon) becomes ἐρῶ in the texts.

Re: Why no contraction in ποιεω

Posted: August 6th, 2011, 9:57 am
by Stephen Carlson
Jason Hare wrote:All contract verbs are listed like this in lexica and word lists.
As far as I can tell, this has been the practice at least since the dawn of printing. I don't like it because the lexicon forces the user to use artificial forms. Present infinitives would be better (aorist infinitives don't distinguish alpha and epsilon contracted verbs). Another proposal I read suggested that second person singular imperatives should be the lemma.

Stephen

Re: Why no contraction in ποιεω

Posted: August 6th, 2011, 10:15 am
by Jason Hare
sccarlson wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:All contract verbs are listed like this in lexica and word lists.
As far as I can tell, this has been the practice at least since the dawn of printing. I don't like it because the lexicon forces the user to use artificial forms. Present infinitives would be better (aorist infinitives don't distinguish alpha and epsilon contracted verbs). Another proposal I read suggested that second person singular imperatives should be the lemma.

Stephen
In most Hebrew dictionaries, entries are made based on the third-person singular perfect ("past"). For example, you look up עשה ("he did, made") rather than either לעשות ("to do, make") or עשיתי ("I did, made"). Generally, that form bears the closest form to the stem in a given verbal structure (binyan), or it makes it easier to work back into the root.

It might not be a bad idea to use the second-person singular present to represent verbs in the dictionary. What would be a drawback of this idea?