Accentuation to show mood

Jason A. Hare language_lover64801 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 11 20:43:19 EST 2000


Michael,

Just looking at the formation of the aorist subjunctive and that of the
aorist imperative clears up this problem, I think.  In Mounce's
_Morphology of Biblical Greek_, he lays out the paradigms.

He has the following for aorist passive subjunctive:

LUQW~
LUQHi~S
LUQHi~

LUQW~MEN
*LUQH~TE*
LUQW~SI(N)

The following is aorist passive imperative:

LU/QHTI
LUQH/TW

*LU/QHTE*
LUQH/TWSAN

Apparently, the same phenomenon that you have pointed out with FOBH/QHTE -
FOBHQH~TE is what distinguishes subjunctive from imperative in this tense.
 Therefore, the ~ (circumflex) and / (acute) are the marks that tell you
which is which, and there is a difference between "Do something" and "You
should do something."

Regards,
Jason Hare

> I wonder if someone can tell me why FOBHQHTE should be accented in two
> different ways: either with an acute on the first eta (aorist imperative) or
> a circumflex over the second eta (aorist subjunctive).
> 
> The two occur next to each other in Luke 12:5
> 
> hUPODEIXW DE hUMIN TINA FOBHQHTE: FOBHQHTE TON META TO APOKTEINAI ECONTA
> EXOUSIAN EMBALEIN EIS THN GEhENNAN
> 
> It seems to me that both forms coalesce to have exactly the same meaning, "I
> will show you someone you should fear: you should fear the one ... "
> 
> Although I could say in English, "I will show you someone you should fear:
> fear the one ... " Greek itself does not seem to make that distinction. This
> would be particularly evident if the same verb were made negative, for
> "Don't be afraid" = "You shouldn't be afraid".  Indeed ALL aorist "negative
> imperatives" are expressed using the subjunctive!
> 
> So why specifically differentiate the forms for this verb?  Is it arbitrary,
> and (if it isn't) what rules apply to make the difference?
> 
> More generally: is this a unique example, or do more otherwise identical
> verbs have different accentuation according to mood?  (I know the present
> and future tense of liquid verbs is differentiated). It would, for example,
> be very useful if second person plural imperatives were differentiated from
> their indicative equivalent ... but they aren't. If this verb can be
> differentiated, why not others?
> 
> Michael Haggett
> London



More information about the B-Greek mailing list