Three conjugations?

B. Ward Powers bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Mon Jun 3 23:10:03 EDT 2002


At 09:30 PM 020602 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>I really don't have much more to say on the question, beyond that "Three
>conjugations" remains for me a question, which is why I have put the
>question-mark back into the subject-header once more. I want to explain 
>why it remains a question for me just why classification of Greek verbs 
>into THREE "conjugations" is helpful or useful to one learning Greek.


I am not really doing the classification of Greek verbs into three 
conjugations. Rather, I am doing a linguistic analysis of Greek to see what 
is actually there in the language. Then I am reporting what I find. I find 
three different patterns of conjugating the aorist active: those for ELUSA, 
EBALON, and ESTHN. So there are three aorists. Anyone can look at these 
differing aorist paradigms and verify this. There are individual 
similarities, but overall they differ: there are three patterns for 
conjugating the singular and plural, with first, second and third person. 
And on the basis of the (pretty widely accepted) definition that 
conjugation means a pattern of conjugating, there are thus and therefore 
three conjugations. (This conclusion is reinforced by other confirmatory 
factors: as my book points out, there are more differences between these 
three conjugations than the patterns for aorist active alone. Some of these 
other distinctives I have canvassed in previous posts. I will not repeat 
them now.)


>it remains a question for me just why classification of Greek verbs into 
>THREE "conjugations" is helpful or useful to one learning Greek.


I do not draw attention to this issue of the three conjugations for the 
reason that it is helpful or useful to one learning Greek. That is a 
secondary consideration: this distinction is not a learning device. Whether 
it is helpful or useful is in one sense irrelevant. I draw attention to it 
because it is THERE. I invite those interested to see for themselves that 
it is a fact. I give this invitation not just to beginners but also to 
those who have passed well beyond the beginners level, to examine the 
evidence and see if this is not so.


>Let me reiterate at the outset that I admit openly that Ward's presentation
>of the Greek verbal system is comprehensive and consistent. The forms and 
>phenomena which I might describe differently are described in a consistent 
>and orderly fashion in his textbook, _Learn to Read the Greek New Testament_.


Actually, many of the differences (not all) between Carl's perspective and 
mine are indeed just in describing things differently. Sometimes it is 
simply a matter of us using different terminology. In a number of areas we 
are in fundamental agreement.


>My own contention has been that
>
>(1) it is imperative for the student of Greek to learn to distinguish two
>fundamentally different types of verbal inflexion: THEMATIC, wherein the
>variable vowel O/E (along with other infixes required to indicate tense,
>voice, mood, etc.) intervenes between verb-stem and pronominal endings, 
>and ATHEMATIC, wherein the pronominal endings are attached directly to the 
>verb-stem enhanced, if need be, by those other required infixes;


I agree completely. But I describe it differently. Carl adopts the term 
THEMATIC - which is a widely used term - in referring to the -O/E-. I 
personally find this a meaningless term for this morph, and therefore I do 
not use it. What exactly does it MEAN? What is the THEME of -O/E-? But I 
note that this morph means that there is a neutral effect on the inherent 
aspect of the word (in contrast to when one of the possible alternative 
morphs is used). Therefore I refer to this as the "neutral morph", as I 
find this a more meaningful term. Another difference: I regard the lexical 
morph of a word (the bit that carries the lexical meaning of that word - I 
call this the "lexal" for short) as the focus of the word, the pivot around 
which the grammatical morphs are placed to fine-tune the grammatical 
meaning of the form. All those morphs which are added IN FRONT OF the lexal 
are prefixes, all those which are added AFTER the lexal are suffixes, and 
the term "infix" is restricted to those which are added INTO the lexal slot 
itself. An example is the iota of EMEINA which in infixed in the lexal in 
compensation for the loss of the sigma which would be affixed in the aorist 
of a non-liquid verb. Another example is the second lambda added into the 
lexal slot for making the present of the second conjugation verb BALLW 
(root BAL).

I consider this use of terminology more helpful, and more linguistically 
sound. But in this instance, the difference is terminology only.


>(2) it is imperative for the student of Greek to learn the principal parts
>of all verbs whereof any other principal part is not predictable from the
>first principal part, i.e. the present indicative first-person singular,
>and a student must also know how to extract from the principal parts the
>stem for each of the "systems" and which endings are to be used with those 
>stems.


I agree completely.

[SNIP]

>And here is where I scratch my head and wonder wherein lies the utility of
>this distinction of "First" and "Second" "conjugations." So far as I can
>see the two differ from each other chiefly in that the "First conjugation"
>has -SA aorists or liquid/nasal variants of -SA aorists, while the "Second
>conjugation" has -ON or -OMHN aorists, which is to say "thematic" aorists.


Exactly. And the -SA- aorists follow one patterns of conjugating in person 
and number, and the -O/E- aorists follow another. Traditionally these are 
called "first aorist" and "second aorist", and I accept these traditional 
terms. I note though that the lexical morph of a first aorist verb is 
inherently durative, and is switched to punctiliar aspect by the suffix 
-SA- replacing the -O/E- in the form, while the inherent aspect of a second 
aorist verb is inherently punctiliar, and the -O/E- neutral morph means "no 
change", i.e. "leave the aspect of this form as punctiliar". I am not 
concerned with the "utility" of recognizing these as respectively "First 
Conjugation" and "Second Conjugation" verbs, but I affirm that 
distinguishing them thus is to recognize these distinctions between them. I 
am speaking here of course of lexical aspect, but I see this as the 
"default" aspect, which will normally be the actual aspect of the form in 
use unless it is modified in use by its context (and it is the exception 
for this to happen).

Thus the FORM of ELUOMEN (imperfect) and EBALOMEN (aorist) is the same. 
Wherein then lies the difference between them? Both have the past time 
morph E-, both have the neutral morph -O- and end with the pronoun morph. 
The difference is that the lexical morph -LU- (in ELUOMEN) is inherently 
durative, and the -O- says "leave it there", so the form is durative, i.e. 
in this example, imperfect. In contrast, the lexical morph -BAL- is 
inherently punctiliar (by definition, for the verb is Second Conjugation), 
and the -O- says "leave it there", so EBALOMEN is punctiliar. In the form 
ELUSAMEN, the -LU- is inherently durative (which by definition is the 
lexical aspect of all First Conjugation verbs), and then the -SA- replaces 
the neutral morph, so the neutral morph idea "leave it there" is replaced 
by "switch the aspect to punctiliar". Which is why the -SA- can be 
described functionally as "the punctiliar morph".


>If LUW is conjugated in the present tense exactly the same way
>as BALLW is conjugated, why should LUW with its aorist in ELUSA be
>segregated in a separate class from BALLW with its aorist EBALON,


It is to be recognized that there is no difference between the way First 
and Second conjugation verbs are conjugated in the present tense (or the 
imperfect, for that matter). The difference lies in how the tense stem is 
formed. The present tense stem of Second Conjugation verbs is formed in 
almost all verbs (the only exceptions are ANAKRAZW, AGW and ECW) by adding 
a durative infix (e.g., the second lambda in BALLW). There are several of 
these infixes, taken by different verbs - in fact, Second Conjugation verbs 
(as also Third Conjugation verbs) can be sub-classified in accordance with 
which infixes they take (pages 231ff.). In their aorists, of course, the 
first and second aorists conjugate according to different patterns.


>or from ERCOMAI with its aorist HLQON, which often enough in the GNT 
>appears as HLQA? That BALLW and ERCOMAI have thematic aorists is clear 
>already from the memorized principal parts.


There are in the GNT seven "suppletive" verbs - verbs which have one or 
more principal parts which are unrelated etymologically to the present root 
(page 233). In all seven instances, the aorist form (e.g. HLQON suppletive 
to ERCOMAI) is initially second aorist and in five of these seven verbs 
systems there are variants in use which are in the process of assimilating 
towards the first aorist pattern of endings, reflecting the fact that koine 
Greek was in a situation of flux (as both Carl and I have mentioned). In 
addition to the ELQA variant mentioned by Carl, there are hEILA, EIPA, 
EIDA, and HNEGKA. When these variants occur, they take the same pronoun 
endings as ELUSA. No problem.


>So I continue to think that what one needs to learn is (a) the fundamental
>distinction between THEMATIC and ATHEMATIC verbal inflection, and (b) how 
>to derive stems from the principal parts of irregular verbs in order to
>associate them with the endings appropriate to their types.


I agree. However, I reject the terms THEMATIC and ATHEMATIC. I consider 
these terms have no inherent meaning. Carl is using the term THEMATIC in 
reference to verbs with -O/E-, what I call the neutral morph. If these 
verbs have a first aorist, I call them First Conjugation; if a second 
aorist, then Second Conjugation. (And I recognize their lexical morphs as 
having a different inherent aspect.) there are 930 First Conjugation verbs 
in the GNT, and 34 Second Conjugation verbs. Carl is using ATHEMATIC in 
reference to verbs which do not have either this -SA- or -O/E- in their 
aorist active.  These are the 32 -MI verbs in the GNT (which also lack the 
-O/E- in the present) plus 4 verbs in -W which are First Conjugation in the 
present and Third Conjugation in their aorist, total 36 (pages 235ff.). 
Most of these verbs have assimilated to First Conjugation in the aorist, 
taking -SA- (e.g. EDEIXA, from DEIKNUMI).


>Finally I'd like to call attention to two very interesting irregular verbs
>that appear in the NT and that happen to illustrate one of the more
>fascinating elements of the history of past-tense verbal inflection: EKCEW
>and FERW. Both these verbs show aorists in -A as far back as the Homeric
>poems: EKCEW has only the form EXECEA, but FERW has an -A form (HNEGKA) as 
>well as a regular second-aorist form (HNEGKON). The persistence of both 
>HNEGKA and HNEGKON as equivalent forms throughout the classical era gives 
>way in the Hellenistic era to the survival of HNEGKA only.
>
>I don't know whether these verbs--either or both--fit into Ward's "First"
>or into his "Second" conjugation; I would have thought that all "First
>conjugation" verbs are regular but both of these must surely be classified
>as "irregular" verbs.


Lots of First Conjugation verbs are irregular in how they form their tense 
stems (hence the importance of principal parts). I have regarded -CEW as a 
digamma verb, with original root CEV. For me this explains aorist -ECEA. Is 
there evidence for this, Carl? It is all First Conjugation, and conjugates 
with the same pronoun endings as ELUSA. HNEGKON is basically Second 
Conjugation, but like HLQA and the other suppletives noted above, is 
assimilating to first aorist endings in the aorist. To the extent that it 
does this it also takes the pattern of endings of ELUSA.

Like Carl, I think I am about coming to the end right now of what I can say 
about the verb forms. Those of you with a copy of my book can look up the 
details there for my conclusions. My thanks to those who have written 
off-list to express interest in reading this discussion with Carl. I 
consider these discussions are always useful: they help to clarify 
differences of approach. My approach (as with that of any linguist) is 
pretty pragmatic: the language exists, and one tries to analyze it and make 
sense of what is there, looking for patterns and consistencies which enable 
one to formulate explanatory rules describing how the language is operating.

Let the study of Greek continue to flourish!

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