[B-Greek] PAROUSIA as a "back-formation"
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Jan 17 15:05:33 EST 2011
On Jan 17, 2011, at 2:50 PM, wheat92 at aol.com wrote:
>
> 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?
Without question.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
> -----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.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list