Why are there 6 principal parts instead of only 5?

MAubrey
Posts: 1095
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Why are there 6 principal parts instead of only 5?

Post by MAubrey »

Stephen Carlson wrote:Usually they are, but there are a few pesky exceptions.

For γράφω, you have γέγραμμαι and ἐγράφθην, but for κόπτω, it's κέκομμαι and ἐκόπην. In one case the -μμ- corresponds to -φθη-, but in the other the -μμ- corresponds to -θη-. So the 6th PP is not predictable from the 5th; you may have to memorize the root too and have therefore not reduced what is needed to memorize.

In the other direction, take the verbs στέφω and στρέφω. Their 6th PPs are ἐστέφθην and ἐστρέφθην, respectively, but their 5th PPs are ἔστεμμαι and ἔστραμμαι, with different vowels. So the 5th PP is not predictable from the 6th PP. I don't know if memorizing the root even helps this example.
Sure, but isn't that begging the question--assuming that principle parts actually exist to begin with? I'm not talking about predicting the 5th principle part from the 6th. I'm talking about predicting the perfect middle from a root and an agreement paradigm. Then φ changing to μ is nothing more than morphophonological nasalization.
Phonological Rule wrote:[+stop] --> [+nasal] / _ [+nasal]
This happens at morpheme boundaries all the time.

(Note for Randall: I'm not saying anyone should be teaching formal mophophonological rules. I'm just saying the the structure of words is constructional...just like, well, everything else)
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Why are there 6 principal parts instead of only 5?

Post by RandallButh »

MAubrey egrapsen:
This happens at morpheme boundaries all the time.

(Note for Randall: I'm not saying anyone should be teaching formal mophophonological rules. I'm just saying the the structure of words is constructional...just like, well, everything else)
Note taken, with agreement.

meself I don't mind the rules, like when αν-*ηοιξεν --> ανέῳξεν through metathesis of length. They are fun to teach/discuss/learn for some.
That is just linguistics. You are aware that that is outside the language-use loop, but many students keep intuiting an unintended message that that is the doorway to learning a language and lit. It probably has something to do with how the students are tested and graded.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Why are there 6 principal parts instead of only 5?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

MAubrey wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:For γράφω, you have γέγραμμαι and ἐγράφθην, but for κόπτω, it's κέκομμαι and ἐκόπην. In one case the -μμ- corresponds to -φθη-, but in the other the -μμ- corresponds to -θη-. So the 6th PP is not predictable from the 5th; you may have to memorize the root too and have therefore not reduced what is needed to memorize.

In the other direction, take the verbs στέφω and στρέφω. Their 6th PPs are ἐστέφθην and ἐστρέφθην, respectively, but their 5th PPs are ἔστεμμαι and ἔστραμμαι, with different vowels. So the 5th PP is not predictable from the 6th PP. I don't know if memorizing the root even helps this example.
Sure, but isn't that begging the question--assuming that principle parts actually exist to begin with? I'm not talking about predicting the 5th principle part from the 6th.
Well, it's not my question. Alan Bunning was the one proposing to simplify the principal parts by getting rid of the 6th one and keeping the others with some notion of a root. My response to him is that his proposal doesn't really simplify things.

If you want to ditch principal parts entirely, fine, go ahead. I'd like to see how that works out, but it's not really what Alan and I were discussing as I understood it.
MAubrey wrote: I'm talking about predicting the perfect middle from a root and an agreement paradigm. Then φ changing to μ is nothing more than morphophonological nasalization.
Phonological Rule wrote:[+stop] --> [+nasal] / _ [+nasal]
This happens at morpheme boundaries all the time.
In the part quoted above, I was explicitly talking about predicting the vowel, but you're talking about predicting the nasal. Yeah, that's more predicable, but not really to the point at hand.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Why are there 6 principal parts instead of only 5?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

RandallButh wrote:Stephen Carlson--I'm glad that you appreciate real words. That is what students need.
However, I am not so sure that the '6 principal parts' are a balanced learning mode.
I'm not surprised. It's probably too tied to the old grammar-translation approach to be something that you'd be enthusiastic about.
RandallButh wrote:Say it isn't so. :o What you say is a nightmare, although I acknowledge that it is widely practiced. Imagine if French or German teachers were picked like this :lol: :shock: :oops: :!:
Actually had a French teacher like this.... All learned from her was how to spell.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Why are there 6 principal parts instead of only 5?

Post by RandallButh »

stephen Carlson egrapsen:
Actually had a French teacher like this.... All learned from her was how to spell.
C'est domage [sic]. Hopefully, this was accomplished without creating an "Erasmian French".

FTR, I had a highschool German teacher with the same problem. It seemed normal at the time because my Latin teacher couldn't speak Latin, but she actually took us to hear tapes in a language lab. "bibite Cocam Colam, etc.," which no one liked.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Why are there 6 principal parts instead of only 5?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

RandallButh wrote:
stephen Carlson egrapsen:
Actually had a French teacher like this.... All learned from her was how to spell.
C'est domage [sic]. Hopefully, this was accomplished without creating an "Erasmian French".
Unfortunately, not. She intentionally mispronounced the imparfait to distinguish it from the past participle.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Why are there 6 principal parts instead of only 5?

Post by cwconrad »

Since we're telling tales out of school ...

I learned French in high school from a Creole woman who grew up in the Vieux Carré in New Orleans; we called her "la cache" ...

I once (1958!) taught French in a junior college; in my class was an older German-born woman who had lived in Paris for 20 years and spoken good French for all that time, but she couldn't write it or relate the spoken language to the written. She told me that she learned an immense amount in my class that year. When you realize that four of the six conjugational forms of the present indicative active of parler sound alike but are spelled differently, it becomes evident how considerably a spoken language may differ from the written form of the same language.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Why are there 6 principal parts instead of only 5?

Post by Alan Bunning »

Stephen Carlson wrote:One of the purposes of memorizing principal parts is to memorize "real" words and not abstract roots that one manipulates with morpho-phonetic rules that have exceptions.
Oh, you mean like those rules you use when you have to make the imperfect form from the 1st PP? No, the rules still apply and yes, there are exceptions to those rules.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Of course, in the privacy of your own home you are free to learn Greek however you want, but this advocacy of a proposed change in pedagogical practice is not likely to convince those teachers who see the value in principal parts.
Who said anything about getting rid of principal parts? I am just wondering if I can get by with 5 instead of 6. But for sure, I have no intention of trying to change the current establishment that is still teaching MiddleAges Greek instead of New Testament Greek by using character sets that did not exist, marked up with diacriticals that did not exist, in order to pronounce the words in a way that they were not pronounced. But I believe all of those horses have been beaten before. I am, however, persuaded by evidence (such as I have asked for) and have no interest in “that is they way we always do things here”.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Alan Bunning was the one proposing to simplify the principal parts by getting rid of the 6th one and keeping the others with some notion of a root. My response to him is that his proposal doesn't really simplify things.
No I said I would get rid of the 5th and keep the 6th. And unless someone else can provide other exceptions to the rule, that is what I will probably begin to reflect in my materials. There is already more than 1 exception to almost all the other principal parts, so this would not be any different. Another piece of evidence that would sway me is historical evidence where the ancient Greeks spoke of 6 principal parts. Otherwise, I would just assume that the whole scheme was made up by yet another educator who made his own observations, and if so I think it might be improved upon. I am open to all ideas at this point.

Alan Bunning
Wes Wood
Posts: 693
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: Good enough (and a game for learning principal parts)

Post by Wes Wood »

Stephen Hughes wrote:But what will you be teaching?
This is a good question, though forgive me for being off topic. Alan, I am also curious about what you are intending/wanting/thinking about doing and what your motives are for desiring to do so. You seem to have no qualms denigrating a system that has at the very least been up to the task of leading others to proficiency, so I suppose that is a partial reason.
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Why are there 6 principal parts instead of only 5?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Alan Bunning wrote:Who said anything about getting rid of principal parts? I am just wondering if I can get by with 5 instead of 6.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "get by." If you want to compose Greek and generate any conjugated forms, you're probably going to need all six and then be aware for the exceptions. If it's just reading Greek, then it might be possible to "get away" with just 1, 3, and 6, as long as you're willing to look up strange futures and perfects if you can't discern the root.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”