From: Dale M. Wheeler (
Date: Mon Apr 29 1996 - 16:11:45 EDT

At 07:23 PM 4/28/96 -0500, Edgar Krentz wrote:
>Carl Conrad, as usual, gave some interesting and useful notes. I am led
>only to make a couple of footnote additions to Carl's words and Dale's
>Dale wrote:
>>I would guess that BDF followed the same line of thinking (though I doubt
>>they were able to do it off the top of their collective heads as you were,
>>as evidence by the fact that Bauer and his entourage of researchers couldn't)
>I agree that Carl points to some interesting data in diachronic linguistics
>of the Greek language. But please, Dale, do not put down either BAGD or BDF
>as you do in the words above. Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner were
>both master grammarians. Kuehner-Gerth-Blass (4 vols) and
>Schwyzer-DeBrunner (2 large vols in the HAW) are still in many respects the
>standard major grammars of classical Greek--though not the only ones. I
>suspect that both could match Carl's comments off the top of their heads
>[no disrespect to Carl's abilities to say that!]. Debrunner also wrote one
>of the standard histories of ancient Greek.

Isn't email funny; sometimes emphases and inflections get lost in the
transmission. I assure you that denigrating BAGD or BDF was the FURTHEST
thing from my mind; my statement was meant purely as a complement to Carl...
he has from time to time surprised me with his "off the top of his head"
abilities. Your response certainly is appropriate nevertheless; the
statement was poorly was "off the top of my head", something
I try to avoid in email for just this reason. I hold our "forefathers"
in as equal high regard as you. If it weren't for them I wouldn't even
know the little bit that I do about Greek.

>Some respected authorities agree with BAGD! L. R. Palmer, *The Greek
>Language* (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1980) p.283, comments that
>"Most of the noun cases are, fram a syntactical point of view, "adverbial",
>and a number of Greek adverbs are case forms which preserve inflections no
>longer in declensional use, and sometime also stems which have otherwise
>vanished from the inherited stock." He points out that the nominative
>appears in both IQUS (unerring, leading to thke goal) and EUQUS. See also
>W. W. Goodwin and C. B. Gulick, *Greek Grammar* (Boston: Ginn and Co.,
>1930) 90-93, par 412-428.
>Nor is it completely true that it is "normal to build the adverb off of the
>neuter accusative form." That is true, at best, only in some instances. And
>then, is it an adverbial accusative, i.e. a use of the extensive sense of
>the accusative? Bauer's use of the term "movable sigma" in hOUTWS was
>unfortunate, since the suffix *-WS is a standard adverbial suffix. One
>might argue that hOUTW and hOUTWS are two separate formations.
>Carl's memory about Homer and Hesiod is partially correct. They use both
>IQU and IQUS (Ionic forms). Hesiod never uses the term as an adverb, only
>the adjective. Homer uses the term both as an adjective and an adverb. See
>R.J. Cunliffe, *A Lexikon of the Homeric Dialect* (Glasgow: Blackie & Sons,
>1924) 197 and LSJ s.v. IQUS. LSJ slaim that EUQUS is properly used of time,
>EUQU of space! D.B. Munro's old *Grammar of the Homeric Dialect* (Oxford U
>Press,,1891) par 110 claims that IQYS as adverb tends to drop the sigma
>before a noun beginning with a consonant.

So what you're saying is that its possible that BOTH the neut acc and the
masc nom forms were used as adverbs side by side; that does seem to be
the position of L&S (I just checked the article on Perseus; forgot to do
that before). And since we are almost exclusively dealing with time or
manner in the NT use of EUQUS, it probably is the Masc Nom form, rather than
an added movable sigma (though L&S's article on hOUTWS does seem to indicate
that they believe that to be a case of movable sigma). There seem, thus, to
be three different ideas about this word: (1) the basic form is the neut
acc which has a movable sigma, which became standardized, (2) the basic form
is the masc nom which a has movable sigma (Munro ?), and (3) there are two
different forms one arising from the masc nom, and the second arising from
the neut acc. Thus BAGD is probably thinking along the lines of L&S.

Now for the $64,000 question: Which one seems to be correct on this ?

Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:41 EDT