[B-Greek] PAROUSIA as a "back-formation"

wheat92 at aol.com wheat92 at aol.com
Mon Jan 17 14:50:17 EST 2011


Thank you for your quick and thorough response. I need to "think" through the morphology here, but it is terribly exciting to see a detailed and rational explanation. This eliminates the back-formation theory, does it not?
thank again,
Rick   






-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: wheat92 <wheat92 at aol.com>
Cc: b-greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Mon, Jan 17, 2011 1:45 pm
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] PAROUSIA as a "back-formation"



n Jan 17, 2011, at 1:06 PM, wheat92 at aol.com wrote:
> 
 
 Gentlemen,
 After spending some time in the archives on the subject of the derivation and 
roper translation of the word "PAROUSIA", I have a question regarding its 
erivation. Most argue it is from PAREINI (feminine present participle). Mr. 
onrad (Wed. Aug.30, 1995) correctly pointed out that would be "PAROUSA" . The 
ifficulty seems to be in morphologically explaining the "i" (iota). Mr. Krentz 
same thread)further identified the word as a back-formation of the participial 
orm. My question is, if it were a back-formation would it not be more accurate 
o say it is from PAROUSIAZW (Liddell Scott, under PAROUSIA, II.2., quoting 
non.in EN. 438.6) Since back formations are typically "shortening" of words, 
his would seem to resolve the matter without having to do any morphological 
ymnastics to account for that pesky iota.
 Thank you for your help. My concern really is in finding the quote listed in 
iddell Scott. I checked Perseus with no luck, but found a hard copy in a 
niversity library about 2 hours away(CAG). If anyone knows if that quote can be 
ound online anywhere, I would greatly appreciate it.
 I have lurked here for along time. Keep up the great work. This is truly an 
ncredible resource, particularly for non-linguists and non-scholars, such as 
yself.
 
 Rick Glau
 Arcadia, Fla. 
Wow! Into the archives of 1995!
The word παρουσία (PAROUSIA) doesn't really present a problem. It derives from 
he verb πάρειμι [PAREIMI], which is itself a compound of παρά [PARA] and εἰμί 
EIMI].  This noun doesn't derive from the participle itself but rather from the 
articipial root of the primary verb εἰμί [EIMI], that root being οντ- [ONT-]. 
bstract nouns are regularly formed from adjectival roots with the ending -ία 
-IA] -- see Smyth, §859 Vowel suffixes 6 (http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.9:5:3:1.perseusmonographs), 
o that here we'd have  ὀντία [ONTIA]. But here phonetic factors enter in: T 
ollowed by I shifts to S, yielding ONSIA; then the -N- between O- and -S- 
vanesces and the O lengthens by compensation to OU, The end-result is OUSIA. 
ou might note that there is a noun OUSIA derived directly from the verb EIMI 
nd that it has a number of different meanings, "being," "substance," "essence" 
n philosophical usage, and "property" in terms of real estate. There are other 
ouns derived from compounds of EIMI also SUNOUSIA from SUNEIMI, EXOUSIA from 
XESTI.
Rather than assuming that PAROUSIAZW derives from PAROUSIA, it's surely simpler 
nd more accurate to say that PAROUSIAZW derives from the noun PAROUSIA. -AZW 
erbs are ordinarily "denominatives' -- derived from nominal stems.
Carl W. Conrad
epartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list