At 12:58 PM -0400 7/15/97, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>Carl Conrad wrote;
>>>>(b) yes, it conforms [to the rules of morphology]
>>to the morphology of alpha contract verbs--BUT it is somewhat anomalous in
>>TWO ways: (1) the lengthening of the Iota in the initial vowel is not
>>signaled in the spelling of the Greek word, although it must be lengthened
>>(augment in place of reduplication) if this is in fact a perfect passive
>>(cf. ERWTATAI, HRWTHTAI);
>
>I take it as lengthened like hIMATISMENOS from hIMATIZW
>
> (2) the Alpha of the stem IA should lengthen and
>>the lengthened Alpha should become Eta, BUT that vocalic change from Alpha
>>to Eta is INHIBITED (in Attic, at least, although not in older Ionic) when
>>the Alpha is immediately preceded by Epsilon, Iota, or Rho (again, cf.
>>ERWTATAI, HRWTHTAI, whereas, if IATAI in Mk 5:29 is in fact a perfect
>>passive, then that pattern would be orthographically uncontrasting: present
>>I)A=TAI, perfect I)/ATAI). Which is to say: Yes, "it's the correct form
>>according to the morphology of alpha contract verbs," but in a curiously
>>anomalous fashion.
>
>Like TEQEAMAI from QEAOMAI. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "anomalous."
I meant simply that the normal patterns of morphology of perfect tenses for
contract verbs will result in orthographically unambiguous and clearly
differentiated stems for the present and perfect stems. Although the same
patterns are said to apply here, the fact that the stem in question, IA-,
begins with a vowel and has an Alpha for present-stem vowel, the change of
which to Eta is inhibited by that initial Iota, means that we have an
extraordinary instance of a verb which is said to have orthographically
identical forms in the present 3d singular and in the perfect 3d
singular--the usual clear indicators of a perfect tense: reduplication,
augment serving for reduplication, lengthening of stem-vowel do not in this
instance show up orthographically although they are said to be present. The
only other instance of this sort of ambiguity that comes to my mind is
curious contract futures one finds in certain verbs: MENW for example,
where the 1st sg. MENW, when unaccented, could be either present or future,
although the accents are different (ME'/NW present, MENW= future) and the
3d plural MENOUSIN could be present (ME'NOUSIN) or future (MENOU=SIN). That
sort of ambiguity is rather rare in Greek, and if we recollect that accents
are a late and secondary development intended to show how Greek USED TO BE
PRONOUNCED prior to the time when the accents were invented, then one is
left with some degree of discomfort about words said to be morphologically
distinct although identical in spelling. I think there's a tendency in
language formation toward clear differentiation of distinct forms bearing
distinct meanings, as in our different spellings of TO, TWO, AND TOO, which
are pronounced alike. Yet obviously such differentiation breaks down,
probably in every language at one or more points, and if the perfect
passive IATAI really existed in ancient Greek, this would be one of those
points at which the differentiation broke down. That's a rather long-winded
explanation of what I meant by anomaly: the patterns of alteration have
been observed, but owing to phonological rules, the patterns of alteration
haven't resulted in distinct forms.
>>>But it is pervasive, even in the authorial comments and connecting
>>>summaries (see esp. 8:14-21).
>>
>>I don't quite understand this. Do you mean that BAD GREEK is pervasive in
>>Mark, even in his redaction? Frankly I think Mk 8:14-21 is pretty good
>>Greek. Seriously, what would you fault in it?
>>
>Not just grammar but rough transitions. Vs. 15 comes out of the blue and
>seems not to tie into 14 or 16.
Oh, I think that happens elsewhere also; there's an awkwardness in what I
take to be the redactional sequence of 2:1-12 where it would appear that
5b-10 have been inserted between an original 2:5a and an immediately
sequential 2:11; similar awkwardness at 2:17 and 2:27-28, where one might
think the linkage capable of being improved. But this is a matter of
stylistic awkwardness rather than questionable Greek composition or
grammar. At any rate, I don't find the Greek of Mk 8:14-21 in itself
objectionable.
Enough already. I doubt whether the editorial committees will ever take
note of the questionability of understanding IATAI in Mk 5:29 as a perfect
passive. There's nothing in the MS tradition that's likely to change their
minds. For that matter, UBS4 and N/A27 still spell Junia's name IOUNIA=N,
but at least there's a footnote; I wish there were one at Mk 5:29 as well.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/