[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