From: Jim Beale (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 17 1997 - 07:06:33 EDT
At 8:23 AM -0400 5/17/97, BTHURMAN@unca.edu wrote:
>sense in which one meant to aduvatov =to adynaton to be 'cognate'
>with a form of ac0evew = astheneo? don't get it. wouldn't it be
>cognate with aduvatew?
Hello Bearded Bill ;-),
I think that there are different classes of cognates. There is the
cognate of form, and the cognate of substance. Robertson distinguishes
between formal cognate and "quasi-cognate":
It may be either that of inner content, ..., objective result
..., or even a kindred word in idea but a different root, as
DARHSETAI OLIGAS (PLHRAS, Lu. 12:48). Considerable freedom
must thus be given the term 'cognate' as to both form and idea.
... The quasi-cognate is due to analogy where the idea, not the
form, is cognate.
(Long Grammar, pg. 477)
I see no reason why two words which are not derived from the same
root cannot be "substantial" or "conceptual" cognates, since they
express the same concept, though in different forms. Indeed, one
might be deceived if two words were formally cognates, but were
not intended to convey similar ideas. In this case, the cognate
accusative would not be appropriate, though it might appear as if
it should be (I can't think of any examples of this, so it is purely
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:15 EDT