Middle and Passive Aorist and Future forms
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 15 09:01:55 EST 2002
At 4:37 PM +1100 12/15/02, Peter Kirk wrote:
>Thank you, Paul. No, for some reason I didn't get a reply from you
>earlier.
>
>In view of how the discussion is going, I think it is wise both to check
>how others (Friberg and Accordance - are these taggings actually
>independent?) have tagged passive forms and to do our own searches based
>on surface forms. The next step should be a careful analysis of the
>mismatches between these searches, as no doubt many of these mismatches
>are debatable forms.
>
>I think I suggested earlier that some future passives without theta
>result from the loss of the theta for morphophonemic reasons, or to put
>it more simply because it sounds better. For example, I tended to think
>that EGRAFH was a contraction of EGRAFQH, even perhaps that ANAPAHSONTAI
>is a contraction of ANAPAUQHSONTAI. I realise that these are not
>standard contractions. But is there in fact any mileage in this
>argument?
While I won't say it's wrong, I am really wondering what morphophonemic
reasons you can offer for the supposed loss of the theta. The historians of
Greek that I've read all seem to think that EGRAFH and ANAPA(F)HSONAI are
OLDER than EGRAFQH and ANAPAUQHSONTAI.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list