Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post Reply
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Randall's argument is very good and it should settle the question. Another argument is that the accent can retract to the prefix, showing that the prefix is compounded and actually part of the word, not a separate word, e.g. Matt 14:15 ἀπόλυσον τοὺς ὄχλους.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: And nouns, adjectives, adverbs and "improper" prepositio

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Alan Bunning wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:That is to say that if you look for them, you will probably find a complexity of meanings / senses for the adverbial preposions that rivals that of the prepositional prepositions.
I am not sure what I will find, but I expect that it will not be easy. The examples you present are good examples of this, but that does not mean that the conclusion is not valid. I don’t really hear anybody arguing with the evidence I presented which seems clear and compelling. If I start down this road, and there ends up being a ton of hyphenated words, I would see that as a sign that they should remain compound words and will probably give up. Also, if I find that I cannot come up with a consistent set of rules for dividing them, then I will probably give up. If I decide to proceed along these lines, the next thing I would do is classify the 1100+ compound verbs into three categories: ones that can always be split, ones that should never be split, and ones that might have to be represented both ways. It is the third category that I would fear the most. But before I do any of that, I should probably look at prepositions that are attached to nouns and see where that would lead. For some reason, I am thinking that they will have to remain attached.
If you did do that, at the very least, your understanding of Greek would improve.

At a certain point of learning when your Greek lifts off from English and you start to wonder about the relationship between things internal to the language, it is possible to do what you are proposing with some intelligence. But that is from the view-point of already knowing the language to some degree. What I found at that point was that 1) prepositions have a lot of meanings when they are suffixed and often the prepositions have different significances when the verbs have different meanings (polysemy), and 2) the words surrounding the verb, which make up the verbal unit, have as much to bear on things as the prepositions on the front of them. That is to say that things tend to get more complex as your ability to handle complexity improves.

Using this method of breaking things up in the first instance, as most people who use the Greek text do, would be from a different perspective. You might like to make it toggle-able.

The examples that I have presented were mainly to show that the system needs to be proved on the basis of a lot of external evidence, and on an individual basis. The most important thing is that I think your model is too simple.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Alan Bunning »

RandallButh wrote:
There are tons of examples of <preposition> <word> <δε/γαρ/τε/μεν/ουν>. Thus, the pattern of <preposition> <verb> <δε/γαρ/τε/μεν/ουν> also fits that pattern and so that evidence would be ambiguous at best.
But there is a difference.

You get BOTH <preposition> <word> <dε/γαρ/ουν/τε/μεν> AND <preposition> <dε/γαρ/ουν/τε/μεν> <word> .

BUT you only get <"preposition"> <verb> <dε/γαρ/ουν/τε/μεν> NOT <preposition> <dε/γαρ/ουν/τε/μεν> <verb> in prose.

A feature or category of a language does not need to be unambiguous 100% of the time in order to exist. The fact that compound verbs do not allow those clausal particles inside a compound verb but that prepositions allow such positioning, shows that they are different.
There is no dispute that they are different, but the question is, why are they different? Is it because the preposition is “attached” to the verb, or is it because the preposition’s placement is always strongly preferred before the verb – so much so that it cannot be split apart by <dε/γαρ/ουν/τε/μεν>. But still, you are correct that it is a possible explanation and thus could be considered a form of evidence.
Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Alan Bunning »

Stephen Carlson wrote:Another argument is that the accent can retract to the prefix, showing that the prefix is compounded and actually part of the word, not a separate word, e.g. Matt 14:15 ἀπόλυσον τοὺς ὄχλους.
Excellent! I thought I had remembered that from somewhere. I found something on it from Smyth 426b which states “The accent cannot precede the last syllable of the preposition before the simple verb nor move back to the first of two prepositions.” I found this from an old post on B-Greek by Paul-Nitz:
Paul-Nitz wrote:3) An accent never precedes the last syllable of the preposition in a compound verb.
This rule doesn't come into play much because the vast majority of verb forms in Greek are 2 or more syllables. But, what if you have a monosyllabic verb form? If you also have a monosyllabic preposition, the rule won't be broken. E.g. ἔκδος - give (it) up! But if the preposition is 2 or more syllables, it might seem that the accent should recede. E.g .αποδος - give (it) back!. Where should the accent be? ἀπόδος.
[not ἄποδος]
So, when two conditions are met:
a - you have a compound verb that is made up of a polysyllabic preposition(s) (περι, συν+ εν), and
b- the verb form that the preposition(s) is attached to is mono-syllabic (θές, δός, σχές).

the accent will not recede back further than one notch before the verb… επίθες, περίθες, επίσχες.
[not , ἔπιθες, πέριθες, ἔπισχες]
(cf. Smyth 426b)
Of course, there were no accents marks in New Testament Greek, but I have no reason to think that they would have later been placed anywhere else other than how they would have been spoken. Thus, this could be the best evidence yet for not splitting them. But it raises a few questions in my mind: If it really is one compound word, why can’t it move back to the first of the two prepositions? Why is it special? Are there other examples with words other than verbs where this type of thing occurs? Can this be explained by something like enclitics?
Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: And nouns, adjectives, adverbs and "improper" prepositio

Post by Alan Bunning »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:That is to say that if you look for them, you will probably find a complexity of meanings / senses for the adverbial preposions that rivals that of the prepositional prepositions.
I am not sure what I will find, but I expect that it will not be easy. The examples you present are good examples of this, but that does not mean that the conclusion is not valid. I don’t really hear anybody arguing with the evidence I presented which seems clear and compelling. If I start down this road, and there ends up being a ton of hyphenated words, I would see that as a sign that they should remain compound words and will probably give up. Also, if I find that I cannot come up with a consistent set of rules for dividing them, then I will probably give up. If I decide to proceed along these lines, the next thing I would do is classify the 1100+ compound verbs into three categories: ones that can always be split, ones that should never be split, and ones that might have to be represented both ways. It is the third category that I would fear the most. But before I do any of that, I should probably look at prepositions that are attached to nouns and see where that would lead. For some reason, I am thinking that they will have to remain attached.
If you did do that, at the very least, your understanding of Greek would improve.
That may sound like a good thing, but it is not something I really want to do. It would probably waste my entire summer, and then again, I am not sure yet if it will be of any benefit.
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by cwconrad »

I thought it might be at least amusing, even if not very helpful, to call to attention the possible usefulness of this note in the introduction to E.A. Sophocles' Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods:
A number of words compounded with κατά, περί, πρό, πρός, σύν, ὑπέρ, and ὑπό, are left undefined. The proper directions with regard to them are given under each of these prepositions. The same remark applies to words whose first component part is φιλο-, ψευδο-. The reader is of course supposed to know the meaning of the second component part. This retrenchment is to be attributed to absolute necessity, the alternative being to give up the intention of publishing the book.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Od.20, 280-1 διελεῖν "to separate" an essential working

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Alan Bunning wrote:There is no dispute that they are different, but the question is, why are they different? Is it because the preposition is “attached” to the verb, or is it because the preposition’s placement is always strongly preferred before the verb – so much so that it cannot be split apart by <dε/γαρ/ουν/τε/μεν>.
It might be instructive to look at a word as it is used in Homer compared to how it is used in the New Testament.

To be topical, let's take for example διελεῖν "to divide (something that is an essential, workable whole) into parts". (διαιρεῖν is not used in the New Testament, but it is used on the LXX). There are only two New Testament examples.
Luke 15:12 wrote:καὶ εἶπεν ὁ νεώτερος αὐτῶν τῷ πατρί, Πάτερ, δός μοι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας. Καὶ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον.
1 Corinthians 12:11 wrote:πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ καθὼς βούλεται.
The preposition is to all intents and purposes in front of the verb.
Od. 20.280-1 wrote:διὰ δ' ἀμφοτέρους ἕλε κύκλους 280
ἀσπίδος ἀμφιβρότης
Here it us clearly separated. So it could be thought of as adverbial.

During our period there are adverbs corresponding to the prepositions. πέριξ is used as both an adverb and improper preposition corresponding to to περί. άνω / κάτω / -θεν / έξω also, so to call the currently sufficed prepositions adverbs, you might like to call them weak adverb, or prepositional adverbs.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Alan Bunning »

Alan Bunning wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Another argument is that the accent can retract to the prefix, showing that the prefix is compounded and actually part of the word, not a separate word, e.g. Matt 14:15 ἀπόλυσον τοὺς ὄχλους.
Excellent! I thought I had remembered that from somewhere. I found something on it from Smyth 426b which states “The accent cannot precede the last syllable of the preposition before the simple verb nor move back to the first of two prepositions.” I found this from an old post on B-Greek by Paul-Nitz:
Paul-Nitz wrote:3) An accent never precedes the last syllable of the preposition in a compound verb.
This rule doesn't come into play much because the vast majority of verb forms in Greek are 2 or more syllables. But, what if you have a monosyllabic verb form? If you also have a monosyllabic preposition, the rule won't be broken. E.g. ἔκδος - give (it) up! But if the preposition is 2 or more syllables, it might seem that the accent should recede. E.g .αποδος - give (it) back!. Where should the accent be? ἀπόδος.
[not ἄποδος]
So, when two conditions are met:
a - you have a compound verb that is made up of a polysyllabic preposition(s) (περι, συν+ εν), and
b- the verb form that the preposition(s) is attached to is mono-syllabic (θές, δός, σχές).

the accent will not recede back further than one notch before the verb… επίθες, περίθες, επίσχες.
[not , ἔπιθες, πέριθες, ἔπισχες]
(cf. Smyth 426b)
Of course, there were no accents marks in New Testament Greek, but I have no reason to think that they would have later been placed anywhere else other than how they would have been spoken. Thus, this could be the best evidence yet for not splitting them. But it raises a few questions in my mind: If it really is one compound word, why can’t it move back to the first of the two prepositions? Why is it special? Are there other examples with words other than verbs where this type of thing occurs? Can this be explained by something like enclitics?
In trying to answer my questions, I was looking for comparable accents on other compound words to see how they work. But trying to figure out where accents are supposed to be placed does not come easy for me. So with compound words αὐτόχειρ and κατάρα would the accent have normally been expected to recede back into the previous word, but did not progress beyond the last vowel similar to compound verbs? And with ἄντικρυ and ἄντικρυς did the accent recede back into the previous prepositions?
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Alan Bunning wrote:In trying to answer my questions, I was looking for comparable accents on other compound words to see how they work. But trying to figure out where accents are supposed to be placed does not come easy for me. So with compound words αὐτόχειρ and κατάρα would the accent have normally been expected to recede back into the previous word, but did not progress beyond the last vowel similar to compound verbs? And with ἄντικρυ and ἄντικρυς did the accent recede back into the previous prepositions?
You have to take into account the Law of Limitation. The accent of αὐτόχειρ and κατάρα cannot fall on the antepenult because their ultima is heavy (there is an exception that does not apply here). In ἄντικρυ(ς), the ultima is light, so the accent can fall on the antepenult.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

I know the accent as ἀντικρύ

Post by Stephen Hughes »

So far as I know, the accent of ἀντικρύ isἀντικρύ. It is possible that the accent is different to indicate to the ear more clearly the word is ἀντικρύ, not ἄντικρυς.

Perhaps like βαλεῖν and βάλλειν.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”