From: Carl W. Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2000 - 06:52:02 EST
<x-rich>At 9:34 PM -0500 2/14/00, Mike Sangrey wrote:
>Carl Conrad said:
>> I really am curious as to what forms you are counting as present
>> tense forms of OIDA.
>Whoops. Seems the data I have incorrectly identifies ISQI as Present
>Imperative 2nd person Singular of OIDA!!?! Duh. I suppose that would
>The good news is I probably have ISQI memorized now. :-)
No, in fact I)/SQI is the imperative form for both OIDA and EIMI (to
be)--but technically speaking, it is a present 2 sg. present imperative
for EIMI (the plural is ESTE like the indicative), while the
identically-spelled form is a perfect imperaative 2 sg. for OIDA (the
plural is ISTE in older Greek, but I rather think OIDATE appears as a
plural imptv. as it also appears as a plural indicative in later
Greek). So this is an instance in Greek of identically-spelled and
pronounced forms from originally distinct sources (the root of EIMI is
*ES, the root of OIDA is *FID), with which you might compare, perhaps,
the English "that" which is a demonstrative pronoun, a relative
pronoun, and a conjunction.
>> OIDA, insofar as it actually represents a "completed" action means
>> something like "I have a full-formed mental vision." You might
>> hESTHKA the perfect tense form of hISTAMAI: the present hISTAMAI
>> "I am coming to a standing position"--but the only way to say "I am
>> standing" is hESTHKA, which means "I have reached standing position
>> and am in it."
>*That* is helpful. I was trying to get some sense of the difference
>OIDA and GINWSKW. I now understand OIDA to have the sense of
>mental vision" where GINWSKW is more along the lines of experiential
>(thanks George). The distinctly different morphology of these two
>makes sense to me.
>I Cor. 8:1 is generating my questions:
> PERI DE TWN EIDWLOQUTWN, OIDAMEN hOTI PANTES GNWSIN ECOMEN.
>"Now about food sacrificed to idols, we are convinced we all have
It is not so simple to differentiate the spheres of OIDA and GINWSKW
because they overlap in many usages although one may state that in a
broad general sense they are--or more clearly were in earlier phases of
Greek, akin respectively to German 'wissen' and 'kennen' or French
'savoir' and 'conna”tre'. You would do well to study the entries in
Louw/Nida ## <color><param>0000,7777,0000</param>23.61, 27.2, 27.18,
28.1, 28.74, 31.27, 32.16 for OIDA 28.1, 28.7, 29.6, 32.4,
87.12 for GINWSKW--noting that the semantic domains overlap in #28.1.
These are both very important verbs, and it is worth the effort to
differentiate ways in which they overlap and ways in which they convey
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:57 EDT