Why is κεκοπίακες v.rai.2s?

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
Post Reply
GlennDean
Posts: 77
Joined: March 3rd, 2012, 11:06 pm

Why is κεκοπίακες v.rai.2s?

Post by GlennDean » September 13th, 2014, 8:36 am

Hi:

My question is on κεκοπίακες in Rev 2:3

Rev 2:3: καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες

For the v.rai.2s form I would of expected κεκοπίακας (which is κε + κοπία + κα + ς)

Why is the "alpha" an "epsilon" in the word?

Thank-you,

Glenn
0 x



Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Why is κεκοπίακες v.rai.2s?

Post by Stephen Hughes » September 13th, 2014, 9:49 am

Glen, your question could be extended to include the ἀφῆκες in the following verse too.
Revelations 2:4 wrote:Ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ, ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες.
Could you explain what the "rai" in v.rai.2s means, please.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Why is κεκοπίακες v.rai.2s?

Post by cwconrad » September 13th, 2014, 9:53 am

GlennDean wrote:Hi:

My question is on κεκοπίακες in Rev 2:3

Rev 2:3: καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες

For the v.rai.2s form I would of expected κεκοπίακας (which is κε + κοπία + κα + ς)

Why is the "alpha" an "epsilon" in the word?
I'm guessing that "v.rai.2s" means "verb regular aorist indicative 2 singular, but you've evidently used a parser or interlinear, and the problem is that each such uses its own identification code.

In response to the question, one thing that needs to be said is that the author of Revelation writes intelligible Greek but by no means Greek that conforms constantly to what we might think is standard practice. This author is notorious for "solecisms" -- one might think that "he ain't got no larnin'", when it is really quite clear that he is very learned indeed, but his grammatical usage is either "creative" or "not according to Hoyle" -- or however you'd prefer to express it.

In this instance, the form κεκοπίακες is representative of a gradual replacement of the conjugational pattern of imperfect, aorist, and perfect endings to a standard sequence of -α, -ες, -ε, -εμεν, -ετε, -αν.

From BDF on verb-endings, you might note, in particular:
83. Second aorist and first aorist-perfect. (1) In the NT -αν for -ασι in the perfect is sometimes well attested; it appears also in the inscriptions and papyri beginning in ii BC (Wackernagel, Homer 191; Mayser I2 2, 84f.; Kapsomenakis 75 n. 1). (2) The NT MSS exhibit extremely weak evidence for the penetration of -ες and -ετε into the first aorist, clearer evidence for -ες into the perfect.

(1) Ἑώρακαν (ἑορ-) Lk 9:36 p45BC2LX, C 2:1 p46S*ABCD*P, τετήρηκαν Jn 17:6 BDLW (ἐτήρησαν S), ἔγνωκαν 7 ABCD al. (ἔγνων S), ἀπέσταλκαν A 16:36 p45SAB, εἰσελήλυθαν Ja 5:4 BP, γέγοναν R 16:7 SAB (-εν p46), Rev 21:6 ScA (-α S*P 046), πέπ(τ)ωκαν 18:3 AC, εἴρηκαν 19:3 SAP. In the LXX -αν is confined to a few late instances, Thack. 212.
(2) Ἀπεκάλυψες Mt 11:25 D; into κ- aorist: ἔδωκες Jn 17:7 SB, 8 B, ἀφῆκες Rev 2:4 SC, ἀφήκετε Mt 23:23 B*. Into the perf.: κεκοπίακες Rev 2:3 AC, πέπτωκες 5 S, ἐλήλυθες A 21:22 B, ἑώρακες Jn 8:57 B*W, εἴληφες Rev 11:17 C, etc. S. Rudberg 20 on D. The oldest examples of -ες appear to be ἔγραφες PSI VI 567.2 (254 BC) and εἴωθες in the Hyperides pap. (Phil. col. 4.20 ii/i BC [its pre-Christian date is now being challenged]); in any case these instances remain isolated for a long time (Mayser I2 2, 81f.). Apollonius Dysc. (Synt. I 10 p. 37, 36 p. 71) testifies that εἴρηκες ἔγραψες γραψέτω are forms disputed by grammarians; MGr impera. γράψε, γράψετε; γράψε seldom in the pap. (Mayser I2 2, 89). Ἐξέθρεψες, ἐφίλησες, ἕστηκες (in epigrams) Michaïlov2 158. Very little and nothing certain in the LXX, Thack. 215f.


Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (p. 44). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Why is κεκοπίακες v.rai.2s?

Post by cwconrad » September 13th, 2014, 10:01 am

GlennDean wrote:Hi:

My question is on κεκοπίακες in Rev 2:3

Rev 2:3: καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες
À propos of nothing in the question raised, I would just interject here that I suffer an instinctive reaction whenever I encounter forms of the verb βαστάζειν in a Greek text. I just want to cry out, "Basta, basta, abbastanza!" Enough already with that ugly-sounding verb!"
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1873
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Why is κεκοπίακες v.rai.2s?

Post by Barry Hofstetter » September 13th, 2014, 10:55 am

Carl, I'm not sure I can bear your hatred of βαστάζω...

But to the point, your answer is of course spot on. One might also note the use of first aorist endings for second aorist stems, even to the point of having such a stem with a second aorist ending and another (or even the same) verb with a first aorist ending in the same passage.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

GlennDean
Posts: 77
Joined: March 3rd, 2012, 11:06 pm

Re: Why is κεκοπίακες v.rai.2s?

Post by GlennDean » September 13th, 2014, 1:16 pm

Thanxs everyone for the replies and information.

I'm using Mounce's parsing codes, so "rai" is "perfect active indicative".

Stephen, that was my next question, which was "in Rev 2:4 why does ἀφῆκες have the epsilon?", but thanxs Carl for the info and your explanation explains the "abnormality" in Rev 2:4.

Glenn
0 x

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: Why is κεκοπίακες v.rai.2s?

Post by Wes Wood » September 13th, 2014, 1:34 pm

This is something that his Basics of Biblical Morphology does not discuss, to my knowledge. I say this because I had an identical question about this ending on another second person perfect a few years ago and did not find a satisfactory answer there. I believe I must have just thought "it happens" and moved on. I had forgotten about it until your post. I fear I have become less and less aware of these types of "discrepancies."
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Why is κεκοπίακες v.rai.2s?

Post by cwconrad » September 13th, 2014, 3:48 pm

GlennDean wrote:Thanxs everyone for the replies and information.

I'm using Mounce's parsing codes, so "rai" is "perfect active indicative".
Of course! Perfectly intuitive, isn't it? :D In fact, it was the referencing of the form by
a less-than-obvious tag that made it clear you were using a parser.
Wes Wood wrote:This is something that his Basics of Biblical Morphology does not discuss, to my knowledge. I say this because I had an identical question about this ending on another second person perfect a few years ago and did not find a satisfactory answer there. I believe I must have just thought "it happens" and moved on. I had forgotten about it until your post. I fear I have become less and less aware of these types of "discrepancies."
My inclination is to blame Zondervan for this; they want to market Biblical Greek pedagogical books under the sure-sell title, "Basics of ... (X, Y, or Z)" -- and hopeful students will purchase them, find (later, rather than sooner) that the books are less helpful than they'd hoped; then they can move on to the books titled "(X,Y, or Z) Beyond the Basics," fondly hoping that all their questions about arcane Greek forms and constructions will be resolved. I'm here to tell you that those unresolved questions about arcane Greek forms and constructions are still coming at me well over 50 years since I began studying Greek.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1873
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Why is κεκοπίακες v.rai.2s?

Post by Barry Hofstetter » September 13th, 2014, 5:28 pm

Wes Wood wrote:This is something that his Basics of Biblical Morphology does not discuss, to my knowledge. I say this because I had an identical question about this ending on another second person perfect a few years ago and did not find a satisfactory answer there. I believe I must have just thought "it happens" and moved on. I had forgotten about it until your post. I fear I have become less and less aware of these types of "discrepancies."
"It happens" is the true essence of all linguistic theory on language change... :lol:
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

RandallButh
Posts: 1054
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Why is κεκοπίακες v.rai.2s?

Post by RandallButh » September 14th, 2014, 3:50 am

cwconrad
I'm here to tell you that those unresolved questions about arcane Greek forms and constructions are still coming at me well over 50 years since I began studying Greek.
Over πεντήκοντα, huh? well then I'm only at Jack's τριάκοντα ἐννέα.
At least the funny forms have a place to sit between the regular ones, after all of the regular slots get filled in.
And the funny forms often have some kind of simplification analogy going on.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Grammar Questions”