Where is the sigma in διδάσκειν from?
Posted: February 20th, 2016, 6:25 am
Is there an explanation from historical linguistic or comparative philology for the sigma in the present of διδάσκειν / διδάξαι ?
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3598
Root διδαχ- + ιnceptive formative in -σκ-ο/ε- with simplification of the consonant sequence acc. to rulesStephen Hughes wrote:Is there an explanation from historical linguistic or comparative philology for the sigma in the present of διδάσκειν / διδάξαι ?
Linkage of the root of διδάσκειν to δα- is not something that I recognize (is it more than guesswork?). If I recall rightly, I have seen it linked to the root of δείκνύναι/δεῖξαι, but I wouldn't vouch for it. The guttural seems to belong to the root.Stephen Hughes wrote:Presumably the word at the start of the derivational morpholgy is δάω.
How did the χ get in and why is the reduplication and σκ both retained in the derived nominal forms διδάσκαλος / διδαχή etc. ?
[My guess is that those modifications to the verb marked that shift the meaning from "learn" to "teach" and so they needed to be retained.]
Perhaps it is, or perhaps assumption.cwconrad wrote:Linkage of the root of διδάσκειν to δα- is not something that I recognize (is it more than guesswork?).
Beekes 2010:330 wrote:Reduplicated σκ-present of δαῆναι with factitive meaning < *δαh-ῆναι. Since the root was obscured, the reduplication (and partly also the σκ-suffIx) spread to the non-presentic forms. See Debrunner 1937: 251ff.
What's odd here is the persistence of boththe δι- reduplication throughout the entire conjugation of the verb and the guttural -κ/γ/χ- with the δα- root. Chantraine's older etymological dictionary (1970) is in agreement with Beekes' account and points to an article by Debrunner on the matter that might be interesting to look at: it's in a volume entitled Mélanges Boisac 1, 251-256. Suggestions of linkage with Latin docere and discere (di-dc-sc-) don't seem to be convincing.Stephen Hughes wrote:Within that analysis διδαχή seems different. How is the chi a formative unit in διδαχή in Breekes's analysis?
It's an iterative/durative/inchoative verbal formative. Compare Lat. no-sc-ere with Gr. γι(γ(νώ-σκ-ειν; Lat. cre-sc-ere "grow", Lat. albe-sc-ere "become white", etc.Stephen Hughes wrote:Is the -sc- in Latin part of derivational morphology (as in Koine) or part of inflectional pattern (as Homer uses it)?