Splitting Compound Verbs?

Post Reply
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)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

A situation in which the preposition may have had extra stre

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Given the context of the appeal for forbearance and unity, this passage may have had special emphasis:
Ephesians 4:16 wrote:ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας, κατ’ ἐνέργειαν ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου μέρους, τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ.
I think that in this verse, the συν- / συμ- elements would have been read as the primary stress of the word. Obviously, having had the creativity and humour of the unschooled driven from my heart by the rigors if a scientific education in Classical Greek, I don't personally agree with the "preachers etymology" implied in my emphatic colouring and up-sizing, but it seems possible, even highly probable that the writer of Ephesians believed that the words with σ_μ/ν were in some small way (at least) related.

I don't think that if stress had been marked in our period, the accent would have been moved here, nor that if spaces were written in the text in our period there would be a space between that preposition and the word. The accent marked in a text is conventional not contextual and the word as a whole is one meaning unit, even though in this case it seems that the preposition part of it could, in a few instances, be the most important element.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: A situation in which the preposition may have had extra

Post by Stephen Hughes »

I realise it might seem narcissistic to quote oneself, but I see that there is something that may not be obvious in what I wrote earlier.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Ephesians 4:16 wrote:ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας, ...
I think that in this verse, the συν- / συμ- elements would have been read as the primary stress of the word. ...

The accent marked in a text is conventional not contextual and the word as a whole is one meaning unit,...
I've emphasised the suffixed preposition in the Ephesians quote, and the words to which the συν- is suffixed in my own writing. That is because the statement in Ephesians is "positive", so the commonality is emphasised, while my own writing was "negative", so the contrastive elements were emphasised.

Sorry about that innconsiderateness in not making that clear in the first place.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Barry Hofstetter

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

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Stephen Hughes wrote: 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.
1. You stated that διαιρεῖν is not used in the NT, and then quoted it's NT usage at 1 Cor 12:11... :o διελεῖν is simply the normal aorist with the verb.

2. I've always explained this by stating that the force of the preposition is added to the verb, and so there is not always a need to repeat the preposition. Often, though, especially in Koine, the preposition is repeated.

3. With regard to your Homeric example, is it really evidence for an adverbial usage, or simply a poetic use of tmesis?
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 »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:1. You stated that διαιρεῖν is not used in the NT, and then quoted it's NT usage at 1 Cor 12:11... διελεῖν is simply the normal aorist with the verb.
I couldn't see it for looking! Jonathan should give an IQ test to aspirants wanting to join B-Greek, so people like me can’t join and dimimish the quality of the discussions with their idiocy.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:2. I've always explained this by stating that the force of the preposition is added to the verb, and so there is not always a need to repeat the preposition. Often, though, especially in Koine, the preposition is repeated.
There is no one single force of a preposition. They have a number of / range of senses, such as can be found in the many meanings that compound verbs can have. There are, on a rough average, three or four times more senses for compound verbs in classical Greek than are found in the New Testament.

Those full-force prepositions are not used with simple verbs as would be expected if the adverbial unit were separated. They are also not used as improper prepositions where the preposition is repeated. Them not being used suggests to me that suffixed prepositions were joined to compound verbs.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:3. With regard to your Homeric example, is it really evidence for an adverbial usage, or simply a poetic use of tmesis?
Isn't tmesis looking at Homeric era Greek from the vantage point of the classical age. In the 5th and 4th century the prepositions were joined to the front of verbs and if authours of that time wanted to emulate an Homeric style, they would have to consciously excise the preposition from off the front of the verb, among other adjustments to vocabulary and the principal parts of verbs and endings.

By "could" I meant that if someone was looking for a type of Greek where prepositions had the possibility of being adverbial, then that would be the place to start looking. In most cases, as you implied, the meaning is standardised - not etymologically derived afresh from the constituent elements each time - no matter where the preposition finds itself.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Barry Hofstetter

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

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:1. You stated that διαιρεῖν is not used in the NT, and then quoted it's NT usage at 1 Cor 12:11... διελεῖν is simply the normal aorist with the verb.
I couldn't see it for looking! Jonathan should give an IQ test to aspirants wanting to join B-Greek, so people like me can’t join and dimimish the quality of the discussions with their idiocy.
Activity on the forum would decrease significantly as many of us would be eliminated.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:2. I've always explained this by stating that the force of the preposition is added to the verb, and so there is not always a need to repeat the preposition. Often, though, especially in Koine, the preposition is repeated.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:3. With regard to your Homeric example, is it really evidence for an adverbial usage, or simply a poetic use of tmesis?
Stephen Hughes wrote:Isn't tmesis looking at Homeric era Greek from the vantage point of the classical age. In the 5th and 4th century the prepositions were joined to the front of verbs and if authours of that time wanted to emulate an Homeric style, they would have to consciously excise the preposition from off the front of the verb, among other adjustments to vocabulary and the principal parts of verbs and endings.

By "could" I meant that if someone was looking for a type of Greek where prepositions had the possibility of being adverbial, then that would be the place to start looking. In most cases, as you implied, the meaning is standardised - not etymologically derived afresh from the constituent elements each time - no matter where the preposition finds itself.
How do we know that in the 8th century BC Greek speakers weren't using compound verbs just as later Greek and Homer wasn't doing the tmesis thing? What was the non-literary Greek of the Homeric period like? Does Linear B offer any insights here (understanding that Linear B is a thousand years earlier than Homeric Greek)?
Alan Bunning
Posts: 303
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

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

Post by Alan Bunning »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:How do we know that in the 8th century BC Greek speakers weren't using compound verbs just as later Greek and Homer wasn't doing the tmesis thing? What was the non-literary Greek of the Homeric period like? Does Linear B offer any insights here (understanding that Linear B is a thousand years earlier than Homeric Greek)?
I found this unreferenced blurb on Wikipedia:
Tmesis in Ancient Greek is something of a misnomer, since there is not necessarily a splitting of the prefix from the verb; rather the consensus now seems to be that the separate prefix or pre-verb reflects a stage in the language where the prefix had not yet joined onto the verb. There are many examples in Homer's epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, both of which preserve archaic features. One common and oft-cited example is κατὰ δάκρυα λείβων kata dakrua leibōn "shedding tears", in which the pre-verb κατά kata "down" has not yet joined the verbal participle λείβων leibōn "shedding". In later Greek, these would combine to form the compound verb καταλείβων kataleibōn "shedding (in a downwards direction)".

And then I later found this: http://books.google.com/books?id=ELwzAQ ... &lpg=PA341

I remember reading something from more than one source that said something like "The Greek language was in a period of change during the Koine period, and the prepositional prefixes were beginning to attach to verbs to form compound verbs." I have looked for that quote recently and could not find it anywhere. I thought AT Robertson might have said something like that, but I couldn't find a direct reference to it in there either. Does anybody know where something like that has explicitly been said?
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

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

Post by cwconrad »

Alan Bunning wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:How do we know that in the 8th century BC Greek speakers weren't using compound verbs just as later Greek and Homer wasn't doing the tmesis thing? What was the non-literary Greek of the Homeric period like? Does Linear B offer any insights here (understanding that Linear B is a thousand years earlier than Homeric Greek)?
I found this unreferenced blurb on Wikipedia:
Tmesis in Ancient Greek is something of a misnomer, since there is not necessarily a splitting of the prefix from the verb; rather the consensus now seems to be that the separate prefix or pre-verb reflects a stage in the language where the prefix had not yet joined onto the verb. There are many examples in Homer's epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, both of which preserve archaic features. One common and oft-cited example is κατὰ δάκρυα λείβων kata dakrua leibōn "shedding tears", in which the pre-verb κατά kata "down" has not yet joined the verbal participle λείβων leibōn "shedding". In later Greek, these would combine to form the compound verb καταλείβων kataleibōn "shedding (in a downwards direction)".

And then I later found this: http://books.google.com/books?id=ELwzAQ ... &lpg=PA341

I remember reading something from more than one source that said something like "The Greek language was in a period of change during the Koine period, and the prepositional prefixes were beginning to attach to verbs to form compound verbs." I have looked for that quote recently and could not find it anywhere. I thought AT Robertson might have said something like that, but I couldn't find a direct reference to it in there either. Does anybody know where something like that has explicitly been said?
I think the Wiki article cited is quite right in asserting that "tmesis" is inaccurate as a term for Homeric practice, -- that the elements shaping the verbal conception as a whole had not yet coalesced into a single unit. But there's something comparable, as I suggested back in the early stages of this thread, in the modern German usage of so-called "separable-prefix-verbs," as in the simple differentiation between the infinitive annehmen or anzunehmen, "to assume", and usage in an independent clause, e.g. ich nehme an, "I assume". In the case of these German verbs, there's no question but that the adverbial/prepositional elements are authentic parts of the verb, although idiomatic usage separates them in an independent clause.
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: Summary of Evidence

Post by Alan Bunning »

To summarize where this issue now stands, it seems that there is evidence both for and against splitting compound verbs, so it is a mixed bag. I would appreciate some help in making some sense of the evidence.

The evidence for splitting some compound verbs:

1. The syntax of verb conjugation clearly shows that they were treated as separate words because augmentation/reduplication occurs on the root verb after the preposition, not on the preposition. For example, when “απολυω” is augment it is “απελυσα” not “ηπολυσα”. Notice that the principal parts are also the same for the root verb as they are for the alleged compound verbs, indicating that the preposition was merely moved in front of the verb, not attached to form a new compound verb.
2. The fact that the prepositions can be separated from the verbs in the majority of cases with no loss in meaning establishes a secondary semantical basis for dividing the words in the same place confirmed by the syntax. For example, the meaning of the separate words “κατα” and “λαμβανω” covers the same range of meanings that have been ascribed to “καταλαμβανω”. This even applies to more diverse meanings of other compound verbs, since the prepositions themselves carry a wide range of meanings not limited to direction.
3. When verbs are prefixed with two prepositions, the prepositions don’t always appear in the same order which would be expected if they were randomly placed before the verb. For example, there are over 20 examples where the prepositions “επι” and “συν” have been reversed in alleged compound verbs, resulting in no difference in meaning in most cases. Thus, there is “επισυντιθημι” and “συνεπιτιθημι”, “επισυνμειγνυμι” and “συνεπιμειγνυμι”, “επισυνδεσμεω” and “συνεπιδεσμεω”, etc. This occurs with other combinations of prepositions as well.
4. In the area of textual criticism, there are many instances where the only textual difference between manuscripts is the addition of a preposition before the verb in one of the texts. There are over 20 cases like this just in the book of Matthew alone (Matt. 4:7, 5:24, 8:2, 9:18,22,28, 12:36, 14:25, 16:23, 17:25, 19:5,6,24, 21:6,7,10,24,28, 22:13, 26:17, 27:44,46). If the preposition were really attached to the verb as a compound word, then the scribe would be specifying a completely different word, when in reality an adverb was merely interjected. In Matthew 19:24, did the camel “go” (“ελθειν” 032), “go through” (“διελθειν” 03/05), or “go into” (“ειϲελθιν” 01) the eye of the needle? [Yes, that is one explanation, but that is not conclusive evidence that they were not substituting different words.]
5. Other words that are not prepositions have also been included as prefixes in a similar manner. For example, “ευ”, which can stand alone as a separate word, appears detached before some verbs (“ευ ποιησαι” Mark 14:7, “ευ πραζετε” Acts 15:29), but attached to other verbs (“ευαγγελιζω”, “ευλαβεομαι”, etc.). And in the case of “προευαγγελιζομαι”, it is placed between the preposition and the verb!
6. In many cases, the preposition simply could not be attached to the verb, because it is stilled need to function as the preposition in a prepositional phrase. For example, there is “απολελυσαι” (Luke 13:12), “εναρξαμενοι” (Gal. 3:3), “εξεπεσατε” (Gal. 5:4), and many more. If these prepositions were merely prefixes of these compound verbs, then there would be no preposition for the prepositional phrase! Grammarians may not like that the Greeks moved the preposition before the verb in these cases, but they did!
7. Artificially forcing all prepositions to be attached to the verbs has needlessly created over 1100 more lexical entries for students to learn just for the New Testament. Every time an author chose to place a new prepositional combination in front of a verb, he did not realize he was coining a brand new lexical entry for all eternity! Thus, it is not surprising that out of the 602 hepax legomenon (words only used a single time) that are New Testament verbs, over 63% of them are these alleged compound verbs. Many lexicons don’t even bother to record all of these compound words. For example, is “προεπροφητευϲεν” from Codex Sinaiticus (Jude 1:14) addressed by your lexicon? [Yes, but while it may be a stretch, it is possible that the Greeks were merely prolific at coining new words.]

The evidence for keeping compound verbs joined:

1. The prepositional prefixes of compound verbs are never separated by words such as δε, γαρ, τε, μεν, ουν, while these words do come after prepositions in other contexts. [While that is probably the best explanation, it is still possible that when used as adverbs they are merely strongly preferred to be placed in that position, but not necessarily attached.]
2. The augment can recede back to the last vowel of the prepositional prefix, indicating that they should be treated as one word. [Yes, but for some reason, it does not recede any farther back than that, when in some cases it should if they were truly joined as one word. I still don’t know why that is.]

Obviously, I have selfish reasons for wanting the compound verbs to remain joined (because that is what I have already done), but intellectually I am conflicted and cannot resolve the apparent contradictions in the evidence. I have added some arguments in brackets [] that could be made against these different points, but I am having trouble coming up with good arguments against the evidence for splitting them. I think arguments #1, 3, 6 are particularly strong in favor of splitting with #7 being probable, and argument #2 is the strongest for keeping them joined with #1 being probable. Can you think of some good arguments to refute the evidence presented for splitting them?
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

φιλοπρωτεύειν said mawkishly

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Another place that I think the suffixed element needs different stress is φιλοπρωτεύειν "to prance about like he's in charge". The φιλο means something like "in his own mind", if it is said mawkishly.
3 John 9 wrote:φίλο-πρωτεύων αὐτῶν Διοτρεφὴς οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται ἡμᾶς.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”