[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
More questions...
It's me again with my two questions for today:
1) 1 Tim 6.11 contains the word: PRAU+PAQIAN (+ = diaresis, Q = theta)
which is accusative feminine singular. According to both
Mounce and CCAT's lemmatization, the lemma is PRAU+PAQEIA.
Now, Mounce says this is a regular 1st decl feminine noun with an
IA/EA/RA stem (class 1a in his system).
Why, then, isn't the accusative PRAU+PAQEIAN? From the CCAT data
I counted 48 feminine nouns ending in -EIA with the accusative
singular appearing in the GNT. 47 of them just add -N. Why
is PRAU+PAQEIA the exception?
Perhaps somebody with TLG could tell me more of PRAU+PAQEIA's paradigm.
Mind you, if it's not a class 1a noun, I don't know what it
could be! Is it another case of a word's paradigm coming from
two or more separate dialects?
2) Is dialect mixing in a paradigm the reason for the accusative of Kws being
Kw? Is there a correct term for what I have called `dialect mixing
in a paradigm'? Or mixing in general? (Like in ERXOMAI, LEGW,
O(RAW, etc. as well as English GO & WENT)
It appears that `dialect' mixing would explain conflict between stems
that are obviously cognate (TRIC/QRIC) and a more general mixing
of synonymous stems would explain conflict where there is not
an obvious cognate. I wonder if this latter non-cognate stem
mixing occurs amongst nouns as much as it does verbs. I can't
think of *any* noun examples. (ZEUS/DIA are cognate for example).
As usual, this young undergrad is always grateful for the wisdom of Greek
scholars out there. (Esp. Carl Conrad whose prompt replies are always
very helpful!)
James K. Tauber, Undergraduate Student ``Perplexed but not
Centre for Linguistics, UWA, Australia despairing''
E-mail: jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au - Paul (2 Cor 4.8)
WWW: ftp://tartarus.uwa.edu.au/pub/jtauber/main.html