Splitting Compound Verbs?

Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: One of the middling chapters of Moule Idiom

Post by Alan Bunning »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Alan wrote:This is not helpimg my cause at all to try to avoid doing further work!
...
I checked and there are over 1100 compound verbs in the New Testament and going through all of the examples of usage for each verb would indeed be a daunting task.
Perhaps more daunting than you imagine

Many of those verbs occur too rarely for the results of a search confined to the New Testament to have any real meaning. It would be like watching people pass in the street, seeing who is wearing blue shoes, and then concluding that those wearing blue shoes didn't own red shoes. In different contexts they might wear that colour.
Yes, of course. I would have to depend heavily on Perseus, LSJ, and Bauer to know how the words functioned outside of the New Testament. I was merely pointing out that I would only do that for the words used in the New Testament, not that I was going to limit myself to only looking at the New Testament.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Even if what you are doing is methodologically sound, language is not an exact science. All you can do is the best that you can.
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:

Summary of Evidence

Post by Alan Bunning »

I have finished compiling evidence for my research into when compound verbs should be split apart and propose this update (http://bunning.gweb.io/CNTR/downloads/worddivisions.pdf) to the corresponding section in the CNTR Manuscript Standards document (http://bunning.gweb.io/CNTR/downloads/manuscripts.pdf). From what originally started out as a question, and then a curiosity, has now turned into a moral imperative for me. The evidence I have discovered is clear and compelling. It appears to me that the rules of linguistics demand that most compound verbs should be split in order to properly represent the diversity of syntax in Koine Greek. I realize that most people have been teaching the word divisions of Middle Ages Greek, which were artificially influenced by Latin and now mimicked by English conventions. But then again, some people are still teaching deponent verbs and Erasmian pronunciation, so I understand that this will not be of interest to them.

But for those who are interested in depicting New Testament Greek in the most accurate manner possible, I don’t see any other alternative. I still plead for people to provide any evidence to the contrary, which would save me from having to undergo a monumental task that I really, really don’t want to have to do. This would also mean that I would have to redo all of my parsings. All of the CNTR texts already use the normal word divisions, but I was foolish enough to ask the question “why?” I also have not looked into prepositional prefixes regarding word divisions with nouns yet. Am I going to find the same thing there? Has anyone done anything like this before? Unless some can come up with a satisfying alternative, my next question is, is anyone willing to help?
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by RandallButh »

If you think that the preverbal items are adverbs, have you found good evidence where the majority of these compound verbs can be split by words like δέ, τε, γάρ, οὖν? If not, why not?
Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by Alan Bunning »

RandallButh wrote:If you think that the preverbal items are adverbs, have you found good evidence where the majority of these compound verbs can be split by words like δέ, τε, γάρ, οὖν? If not, why not?
Well actually, I took a look at that yesterday if I am following your question correctly. I initially got excited thinking I was on to something, since words like δέ and γάρ are normally positioned as the second word of a sentence. Indeed, I observed that many compound verbs came before δέ and γάρ thinking that might provide evidence that they should be considered as compound words. Thus, you would not see δέ or γάρ coming between the preposition and the verb and so presumably the compound verb should be considered to be one word as the first word in the sentence. But alas, I discovered that words like δέ and γάρ also appear frequently as the third word of a sentence, and when then do, it is often because the first word is precisely a preposition! Thus, my joy turned to gloom for it led nowhere.
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by RandallButh »

Just screw your head back on and look again, your gloom can change to joy.

there are lots of examples of prepositions immediately followed by de, gar, oyn, te, men, ktl.
Hundreds of examples.

So how many verbs allow de, gar, oyn, te, men, ktl., into their midst?

Frankly, I think it's a non-issue for Greek verbs, though in linguistics and orthography it is true that words are a convention and can rarely be neatly defined.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

And nouns, adjectives, adverbs and "improper" prepositions?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

If you go to the ball with top hat and tails, but don't wear your trousers, you would turn a few heads and raise a few noses.

That is to say, there are many "compound" nouns, adjectives and adverbs, and a very few improper prepositions that are made up using a suffixed preposition.

If you are to hypjhenate παρα-τίθεναι when it means "entrust" (τι / τίνα <something> τινί <to somebody> for their care expecting to get it back (αποδόναι) later) [it seem to me that if repayment a socially (rather than legally) agreed "in kind" then its repayment would be expressed by ανταποδόναι], which in the Koine has the corresponding noun παρα-θήκη "a deposit" (something entrusted with someone which one expects to get back later)", then perhaps you could consider this...

If you consider the word παρά in the dictionary has a meaning with the genitive and another with the accusative. What you have sort of recognised here is that "entrust" doesn't have the spatial reference that "set meal on the table for somebody else" has.

That is to say that I am suggesting that you are (exclusively) preferring the spatial meaning that as a preposition would be governed by the accusative. In creating your pre-Mediaeval scholarship theory of word division, you will probably find that it will be as complex as every other aspect of the language is. 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. Looking at it simplisticly you will get simple answers.

If we look at παρα- from the placer's point of view, it is like παρά + genitive "from" a person. And from the object being placed point of view, παρά + accusative talks about the position that something ends up in.

Adverbial to my the thinking means that the adverbial preposition should affect the way that the subject performs the action of the verb. Here logically, that would be that the παρά would be in effect with the subject of the verb, "from" them. By choosimg "beside" you are assuming that the preposition goes with the person beside whom the "deposit" is entrusted. In that way you are using the preposition prepositionally not adverbially, and arguing against your own point.

Anyway, let's follow with the same παρατίθεναι example that we were duscussing, and which you included in your paper...

Κατατίθεναι which you see in the New Testament as "to lay down", "to grant" (a favour χάριν), also had in the Classcal period the more general meaning, "give up from your possession" or "to deposit".

In that "deposit" meaning, it doesn't have the corresponding noun καταθήκη* "deposit", but it is used with the classical Attic word παρακαταθήκη "a deposit". Putting those two words together as καταθέναι παρακαταθήκην you end up with two of one preposition and one of the other. There is also a corresponding Attic verb παρακατατίθεναι meaning deposit (perhaps "place out of one's control - where you can't pick it back up -with others for safe keeping.)

The "normal" way this would be constructed in our era would be as παραθέναι παραθήκην (τινί). [Modern Greek uses κατάθεση (κατάθεσις) which is emerging in the papyri in our period] These two words with the dame structure might make sense with your hyphenation idea, but when παρθέναι παρακαταθήκην were written, the κατα in the middle is "redundant". The verb παρακατατίθεναι was no longer in common use. That is to say that since the verb παρακατατίθεναι was not dynamicly created on the same pattern as the noun παρακαταθήκη, it is probable that the κατα element wasn't thought of as having independent potency.

As far as I understand your hyphenation proposal παρα would need to be joined to the θήκη. But in tbe archaic "fossilised" form it is separated by the κατα.

The interpretation of παρακαταθήκη will depend on the educational level and reading experience of the language user. I'm suggesting that for most people, they would say, "Oh that equals παραθήκη" but more educated users would understand a relationship with the verbal form and know that it was not in active use. In either case, people don't have time to think about word formation while they are communicating.

Another thing... In an education system based on rote learning none of this deducing meaning from elements makes sense. It requires a level of analytical thinking that not everyone would have been trained in.
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 lots of examples of prepositions immediately followed by de, gar, oyn, te, men, ktl.
Hundreds of examples.

So how many verbs allow de, gar, oyn, te, men, ktl., into their midst?
Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. 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. The “placement” of the prepositional adverb before the verb is clearly preferred, that they are “attached” as a single word is not. I would not have expected δε/γαρ/τε/μεν/ουν to come between the preposition and the verb, for the same reason that the prepositional adverb almost never comes after the verb. The position before the verb is just the place that it became to be preferred. I did point out one example where ευ came between the preposition and the verb, but that is also rare. If there were no cases of <word> <word> <δε/γαρ/τε/μεν/ουν>, that would have been all the proof I needed, since the compound verb would have to count as one word, but that is not the case. The cloud of gloom remains.
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: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.
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post by RandallButh »

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. Word integrity for compound verbs is a nice way to treat this.

Iin languages that allow neologisms through prefixes, something less nice or elegant is the multiplicity of vocabulary that can be generated when every occurrence and innovation gets listed.
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”