[B-Greek] zaw - zww - zhw
Clwinbery at aol.com
Clwinbery at aol.com
Mon Feb 16 12:26:01 EST 2004
In a message dated 2/16/2004 8:44:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:
> At 12:29 PM +0000 2/16/04, D Jongkind wrote:
> >Dear list,
> >
> >A question on the underlying form of the verb ZW.
> >Bauer - Aland's dictionary lists it under ZAW, so does LSJ (simply to refer
> >you to ZW) though the latter mentions that it is a contraction of ZWW.
> >Moulton-Howard, Syntax, lists the verb under ZHW, apparently assuming that H
> >+ W contracts into W (ZW, ZHiS, ZHi etc.).
> >
> >Is ZW a strange -AW verb, or simply irregular throughout or something else?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Dirk Jongkind
>
> The verb is rightly listed in lexicons as ZAW: it is an alpha-contract
> verb, but the alpha in it is originally a LONG-alpha, a vowel that very
> early in Attic and Ionic dialects changed to eta; consequently it is one of
> a very few verbs that really have (in their historical forms) contractions
> from an eta-stem, as if ZHW; another such is CRAOMAI. One actually doesn't
> ever see alpha-stem forms of these verbs. You might like to
> check Smyth
> §641.
> --
I think Carl is right on target with the history of these two verbs. ZHW appears to be the form that can explain all the forms (with contraction) in the NT. It appears that CRAOMAI had largely conformed to the regular AOMAI verbs in the NT. The only occurance where it is better explained as CRH is in 1 Tim 1:8 CRH=TAI. If the stem were CRA the form would be CRA=TAI not CRH=TAI. Otherwise the form CRA can explain the resultant forms.
Carlton Winbery
Louisiana College
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list