From: Michael Haggett (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Nov 11 2000 - 19:49:57 EST
I wonder if someone can tell me why FOBHQHTE should be accented in two
different ways: either with an acute on the first eta (aorist imperative) or
a circumflex over the second eta (aorist subjunctive).
The two occur next to each other in Luke 12:5
hUPODEIXW DE hUMIN TINA FOBHQHTE: FOBHQHTE TON META TO APOKTEINAI ECONTA
EXOUSIAN EMBALEIN EIS THN GEhENNAN
It seems to me that both forms coalesce to have exactly the same meaning, "I
will show you someone you should fear: you should fear the one ... "
Although I could say in English, "I will show you someone you should fear:
fear the one ... " Greek itself does not seem to make that distinction. This
would be particularly evident if the same verb were made negative, for
"Don't be afraid" = "You shouldn't be afraid". Indeed ALL aorist "negative
imperatives" are expressed using the subjunctive!
So why specifically differentiate the forms for this verb? Is it arbitrary,
and (if it isn't) what rules apply to make the difference?
More generally: is this a unique example, or do more otherwise identical
verbs have different accentuation according to mood? (I know the present
and future tense of liquid verbs is differentiated). It would, for example,
be very useful if second person plural imperatives were differentiated from
their indicative equivalent ... but they aren't. If this verb can be
differentiated, why not others?
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:41 EDT