>Interesting all the more in the light of this citation from LSJ (presumably
>from Perseus web site? Maybe not). It would appear there's at least one
>Septuagint citation (Gen. 42:10) giving a First/Sigmatic aorist infinitive
>form: PRIASASQAI. Since the form cited by Chris above is from Gen. 43:2, it
>may very well be from the same translator who gave the imperative form
>PRIASQE, which is thus all the more probably a present middle imperative.
>
>ON THE OTHER HAND, PRIAMAI is an athematic verb even in the presumably
>present-tense form: the contracted thematic verb would be PRIWMAI. So the
>question arises regarding the aorist form cited by LSJ, EPRIAMHN: is it a
>First Aorist alpha form without a sigma? Or is it an Athematic Aorist (3rd
>aorist!) form with long-alpha stem? There's no way of being sure about
>this, since alpha doesn't show long or short quantity in the spelling, but
>I'm inclined to think it may very well be athematic. I only know of two
>verbs that have alpha aorists without a sigma in Homer (HNEGKA from FERW
>and EXEA from XEW) although there may be more; it strikes me that EPRIAMHN
>just may be a long-alpha athematic stem that doesn't change to eta because
>it is preceded by an iota. If that's the case, then PRIASQE could
>conceivably be a 3rd aorist form parallel to, let's say, GNWSQE, as 2 pl.
>aor. mid. imptv. Not that I think it is in the Genesis text, but
>theoretically, at least, it could be.
>
I would tend to agree that this is indeed a non-thematic aorist. I did not
read LSJ (from Perseus) carefully.
> Ain't theory wunnerful?
I remember in the early 60's in N.O., La two radio nuts who used to say
that a female ostrich could run 37 mph and a male ostrich could run 38 mph.
Ain't nature wunnerful? Did that stick back there somewhere?
Carlton
--
Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu Fax (318) 442-4996 Phone (318) 487-7241