Three conjugations
B. Ward Powers
bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Sun Jun 2 06:55:22 EDT 2002
Many b-greekers may be becoming bored with the discussion between Carl and
me about elements of Greek morphology. I would hope not. I would hope it is
of value to see the differing viewpoints which are being presented by Carl
and me as we allow you to see our thinking.
[Lots of bits snipped to shorten this post.]
At 09:41 AM 020531 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>In the present instance I am defending a more
>traditional approach to the characterization of Greek verbal categories
>while Ward is presenting/defending what he thinks is a reasonable use of
>linguistic terminology which I have called "idiosyncratic." Here I am
>myself applying to the charting of the Greek verbal system the proverbial
>dictum: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I am asserting that in some areas the "traditional approach" (when assessed
by modern linguistic criteria) is in fact in error. I am affirming that
teachers of Greek (and students) have some things to learn from the
analysis provided by linguistics.
An easily recognizable instance is the "-SA-" morph in the first aorist.
More on this below.
>First let me say that this is once again a matter of HOW a teacher
>(whether in the classroom or in a textbook) prefers to set forth the
>essential facts about Greek verb morphology. Ward's definition of
>"conjugation" above: "a pattern of conjugating verb forms" could be
>stretched to include a considerable variety of classifications of the very
>considerable variety of patterns in which ancient Greek verbs are conjugated.
Not really. The "pattern" is a paradigm, covering singular and plural, and
three persons, and extending to include voice. My contention is that there
are only three such patterns in total, and not a "very considerable variety of
patterns in which ancient Greek verbs are conjugated". They are exemplified
by ELUSA, EBALON, and ESTHN in the aorist active, and LUW (and BALLW -
identical with LUW) and hISTHMI in the present active. My "patterns of
conjugating" cannot be stretched or extended beyond these three exemplar verbs.
>Ward's own characterization of his three conjugations, which I cite from
>page 45, #3.67 of his textbook, is as follows:
>
>"Families of verbs are called _conjugations._ There are three verb
>'families' or conjugations in New Testament Greek. Verbs which possess
>second aorist forms comprise the _Second Conjugation_ (C2); verbs which
>have third aorist forms and/or a lexical form ending in -MI comprise the
>_Third Conjugation_ (C3); all other verbs have first aorist forms,
>conjugate their flexions like LUW, and comprise the _First Conjugation_
>(C1)."
>
>My objection is not that Ward uses this distinction between his three
>"conjugations" inconsistently; it is rather that it isn't, in my opinion,
>really very useful.
How I consider it useful is that students know that they are to recognize
the existence of these three patterns (which include tense and voice
indications) and will only ever find one or other of these three. It is
thus a pretty simple matter for them to work back from the form they have
encountered to the first person singular form (if they need to take this
intermediate step) and thence identify the present active lexical form, and
the meaning. It's useful to know that there are three patterns to be
learnt, and only three, and that a verb form will definitely belong to one
or other of these patterns.
>Ultimately those who successfully learn to read the Greek New Testament
>(i.e., without relying upon some sort of "trot" or "interlinear" parsing
>guide) are going to have to acquire the ability to recognize verb-forms
>that DO NOT follow the comfortable and familiar complete set of
>morphoparadigms of LUW or PAIDEUW or whichever vowel-stem verb one chooses
>to exemplify what is deemed the "standard" or "normal" pattern of Greek
>verb inflection. The problem is precisely that one can hardly read a
>single page of the Greek NT without encountering at least one--more likely
>several--verb that doesn't conform to that "standard" or "normal"
>"pattern." So how is a student to be prepared to recognize the value (or at
>least parse correctly so as to be able to resolve the value) of these
>non-conforming verb-forms?
Remember that in talking of conjugating we are talking exclusively of
patterns of endings. That is where conjugating takes place. In addition to
LUW forms there are of course Second and Third Conjugation forms. And no
others. Just these three paradigm patterns.
>The "traditional" primers and reference works (by which I mean those that
>make no claim to base their presentation upon 'scientific linguistic'
>principles) and even one or more not-so-traditional primers that do take
>such principles into consideration (e.g. Funk's _Beginning-Intermediate
>Grammar of Hellenistic Greek_) advise students to master or commit to
>memory a list of "principal parts of irregular verbs." Thus did I, when I
>first began Greek back in 1952, begin learning principal parts of some 50+
>verbs that follow a distinct pattern--different from the "standard"
>pattern--of conjugation in one or more of the six "systems" of the Greek,
>and thus did I advise my own students to do.
This has got nothing to do with conjugating. We are talking about two
totally different and distinct issues here. The first issue is: how do we
conjugate the pronoun endings for a given tense, voice, etc. My contention
is that there are three (and only three) patterns for doing this. I have
called them "First Conjugation", "Second Conjugation", and "Third
Conjugation", because "patterns of conjugating" is what "conjugation" means.
The second issue (completely different) is: how do we form a particular
tense stem for a given verb? Regular verbs are predictable as to what the
tense stems for their various tenses etc. will be. (That is what "regular"
means.) There are lots of Greek verbs which have irregular (i.e.
unpredictable) ways of forming at least some of their tense stems. Learning
the principal parts of irregular verbs give you the tense stem information
for these verbs.
Once a person knows the tense stem for a particular tense (plus voice,
etc.) for a given verb, that verb will conjugate (i.e., have a paradigm for
singular and plural, and the three persons) in a way which follows one of
three patterns, either the First, the Second, or the Third. Now, with these
patterns you have to take contraction into account (e.g. for verbs
following AGAPAW, LALEW, and PLHROW respectively), but this is not a set of
new conjugations - this is simply applying contraction to the pattern we know).
I only know of one verb in NT Greek which does not conjugate regularly,
following one of these three patterns, once you are given the first person
singular tense form. That verb is ZAW. (And there are rare irregulars: e.g.
the future of EIMI.) But I am under the definite impression that
(acknowledging these), Greek verbs follow one of three patterns of
conjugating once the first person singular of a tense is known.
[Carl next sets out in fair detail his approach in teaching students how to
handle the learning of verbs, especially including irregular verbs. My
comment here is that basically my approach is similar in all material
facets to Carl's. I do not differ from him in principle.]
I am wondering whether much of our difference flows from a differing
understanding of terminology. In particular: conjugation for me means a
pattern of conjugating, and this relates exclusively to changes made in a
paradigm to a verb's endings to indicate differences person, number, voice,
and sometimes tense. Carl appears to me to use this word in a different sense.
>I am not arguing that the facts about Greek verb morphoparadigms
>structured as I have laid them out above are different from the Geek verb
>morphoparadigms structured as Ward lays them out in his three
>"conjugations." I simply would say that the student of Greek needs to
>become aware of ALL these variations that may be displayed in Greek verbs
>in order to make use of the lexical data--the listing in a lexicon of
>principal parts or at least of those parts which do not conform to a
>"standard" or "normal" thematic conjugational pattern. I simply do not
>think that the process of learning what one must learn about the Greek
>verb is significantly or usefully improved by postulating the "three
>conjugations."
My three conjugations are related to and determined exclusively be having a
differing patterns of endings. And those three patterns of endings are what
are involved in conjugating verbs. All else is related to how you arrive at
the first person singular form for a verb, which you then must conjugate in
(a maximum of) one of three ways. And it's useful for students if they know
this.
But one place where Carl and I do differ is regarding the aorist "-SA-".
Carl traces its origin diachronically. My approach: Think of if a linguist
came upon Greek as an unknown language somewhere, but he could get
information about it from an informant. A linguist thinks in terms of
"minimal pairs" or "triplets". He sees ELUOMEN, ELUSAMEN and LELUKAMEN,
differing only in -O-, -SA-, and -KA- (plus reduplication, in the latter
case). He identifies the differences in meaning. He will see -SA- and -KA-
as switching respectively to "punctiliar" and "perfective" (to use BDF's
terminology). His initial expectation will be that the -O- identifies the
"durative" aspect. But then he will encounter the future, the second
aorist, and the subjunctive. Reflection upon these forms will indicate to
him that while this -O- (and its equivalent -E-) is an alternative to the
punctiliar and perfective aspect morphs (and occurs in the same slot) it
cannot be equated with durative aspect. It is the bearer of the subjunctive
(which requires its lengthening, a process morph) and it means "leave
things as they are". A verb root has inherent aspect. This aspect is
durative in First Conjugation verbs. So in the present and imperfect this
-O- or -E- has a neutral effect on that. Second Conjugation verb roots are
inherently punctiliar. The -O/E- in the second aorist leaves that
unchanged. Its presence in the future also has a neutral effect there.
The pattern ELUOMEN, ELUSAMEN, LELUKAMEN (and all the various other forms),
when analyzed morphologically, shows that the punctiliar morph
is -SA-, not just -S- as sometimes thought. (Because -SA-, not just -S-,
has replaced the -O/E.) Similarly the perfective active morph is
reduplication plus -KA- (what is technically described as a discontinuous
morph, i.e. it is in two non-contiguous parts).
Similar analysis will show that -SA- and -KA- become -S- and -K- in front
of vowels, while -O/E- disappears (I call this "elision"). Linguists look
for meaningful patterns in language. There is one in the third person
singular active ELUE(N), ELUSE(N), LELUKE(N). The pattern is a correlation
between -E(N) and third person singular active meaning. So we can see that
-E(N) here is the ending for third person singular active. And the vowel of
the aspect morph has disappeared in front of it each time. Similarly we
have the disappearance (that is, the elision) of the vowel of -SA- and -KA-
in the aorist subjunctive (active and middle), and LUSON, LUSAI,
(E)LELUKEIN (and the rest of the pluperfect), and some other forms. Greek
is a pretty regular language. Not totally by any means, but pretty regular
all the same, from a morphological perspective.
>Carl W. Conrad
>Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
>Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Regards,
Ward
http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowers
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255
259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255
PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
AUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list