ζάω and the rules of contraction
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: May 22nd, 2015, 4:52 am
ζάω and the rules of contraction
Why does ζάω frequently break the rules of contraction? For example, ζῇ (pres act ind 3s) and ζῆν (pres act inf). Is there a logical explanation for these exemptions from the rules or is it just an oddity to be accepted and memorized?
Also, are there any other contract verbs used in the New Testament that break the rules of contraction?
Thank you.
Also, are there any other contract verbs used in the New Testament that break the rules of contraction?
Thank you.
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: ζάω and the rules of contraction
According to the rules of contraction that you know, what would happen if the root were ζη-?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Re: ζάω and the rules of contraction
Stephen poses a "what if" question. I'd say that you should assume the root is ζη- and that the contractions of η with the other vowels of the whole ο/ε set of personal endings are the same as those for α + ο/ε personal endings. χρῆσθαι is comparable.Danny King wrote:Why does ζάω frequently break the rules of contraction? For example, ζῇ (pres act ind 3s) and ζῆν (pres act inf). Is there a logical explanation for these exemptions from the rules or is it just an oddity to be accepted and memorized?
Also, are there any other contract verbs used in the New Testament that break the rules of contraction?.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: ζάω and the rules of contraction
*ζάω is a fake form devised by grammarians long ago and should be abandoned. ζῆν is not a true -αω contract verb, so the usual rules for this group of verbs don't apply to it. It's yet another verb you'll have to specially memorize.Danny King wrote:Why does ζάω frequently break the rules of contraction?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am
Re: ζάω and the rules of contraction
A classic rule-breaker are the various words formed on -χε (χεῖν 'pour'). Aorists are typically -έχεεν while imperfect seems to tend toward –έχει.Also, are there any other contract verbs used in the New Testament that break the rules of contraction?
More important to is ask why the aorist *-έχεσε is not used? The answer to this question will be found ἐν τῷ ἀφεδρῶνι.
So these verbs need to be learned in context, maybe as the communicative need arises.
-
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm
Re: ζάω and the rules of contraction
Well, they're not so much rules, you know, as guidelines…
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Re: ζάω and the rules of contraction
Tell me, διδασκαλε.RandallButh wrote:why the aorist *-έχεσε is not used?
I'd say εχειν smells so thoroughly of παρατατική that it resists an ἀόριστον ὄψιν.
Would the linguists call that lexical aspect.
RandallButh wrote:The answer to this question will be found ἐν τῷ ἀφεδρῶνι.
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_e_confused.gif)
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_e_confused.gif)
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_e_confused.gif)
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
Re: ζάω and the rules of contraction
Wonderful root, that: χεϝ/χοϝ/χυ; but there is an aorist, of course: ἔχεα; already found in Homer, as well as ἔχευα and the unaugmented χεῦα.Paul-Nitz wrote:Tell me, διδασκαλε.RandallButh wrote:why the aorist *-έχεσε is not used?
I'd say εχειν smells so thoroughly of παρατατική that it resists an ἀόριστον ὄψιν.
Would the linguists call that lexical aspect.
RandallButh wrote:The answer to this question will be found ἐν τῷ ἀφεδρῶνι.![]()
![]()
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: May 22nd, 2015, 4:52 am
Re: ζάω and the rules of contraction
Yes, ζη does indeed work. Thank you.cwconrad wrote: I'd say that you should assume the root is ζη- and that the contractions of η with the other vowels of the whole ο/ε set of personal endings are the same as those for α + ο/ε personal endings. χρῆσθαι is comparable.
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: May 22nd, 2015, 4:52 am
Re: ζάω and the rules of contraction
But why would grammarians create a fake form? Just so they have a lexical form that fits nicely into a contract verb category? It would have been a lot less deceiving if they had just come up with ζήω and considered it a fourth type of contract verbs.Stephen Carlson wrote: *ζάω is a fake form devised by grammarians long ago and should be abandoned. ζῆν is not a true -αω contract verb, so the usual rules for this group of verbs don't apply to it. It's yet another verb you'll have to specially memorize.
Isn't there some way to study the etymology of the word to see how it came about? I read in, I think, Wallace that some regional dialects of classical Greek used contract verbs in their uncontracted form. If some ancient document could be found where someone used ζάω or some variant in an uncontracted form, we would then know.