[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: More questions...
On Fri, 10 Jun 1994 16:47:22 +0800 (WST) you said:
>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?
I'm responding from home so don't have rfcs handy, but I think that the
answer in this instance is simply a matter of pronunciation affecting the
spelling. Both -I- and -EI- were pronounced in the late Koine like an English
long E. You will find in the lexicon quite a few nouns with variant forms in
-EIA and -IA. It may be a case of dialectal variation in spelling, or it may
be a case of the simpler form of spelling predominating. I don't think the
TLG in this case would be much help because the noun is probably an uncommon
compound (although there may be a number of -patheia/-pathia nouns).
>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).
This is actually several questions; not all of these variants are a matter of
dialect (I think). The alteration of roots in *erxomai/Elthon, according to
Meillet, is a matter of different words for a meaning being orginally attached
to two or more of the three major tense systems (present/aorist/perfect). In
the case of major everyday verbs like "come/go" the variants tend to survive
despite a tendency toward predominance of one of the tense stems. Dialects will
play a role in this, however. In Attic *eimi (surnamed "ibo" by Latinists to
distinguish it from *eimi SUM) functions as the future tense of *erxomai.The
same alternation of tense-stems underlies the alternate forms of *horaw/*eidon/
*opwpa (with the variant also in the perfect of *hewraka).
The case of nom. *thrix with gen. trichos is different. Here the principle is
dissimilation of aspirates. The root has aspirates at both ends: thrich-;
Greek deaspirates the initial aspirate in a syllable, but if the second is
somehow deaspirated--as by the addition of nom. ending -S, then the aspirate
initial consonant re-appears. The same principle explains the initial aspirate
of the future form *hexw (heksw) over against the present-tense form *exw
(ekhw).
Finally the accustive form Kwa. Again I don't know; TLG might be helpful on
this one. I suspect that an accusative form *Kwn is well-attested (I'll check
the TLG disk when I get to the office), but I think this is a long-O stem
with an original digamma consonant that evanesces before another vowel. A
parallel noun is peithw (noun "persuasion"), gen. peithous. The stem of such
nouns alternates between a form -O (omega) before consonants and -OF (omega-
digamma) before vowel endings. The accusative would thus be peithOFa, original-
ly; then the digamma evanesced and the adjacent Oa underwent vocalic metathesis
to become oA (omicron-long-alpha), which in turn contracted into -O (omega).
The declension of Kws, acc. Kw should follow the same pattern (but as I said
previously, I bet you could find accusative forms Kwn).
If you have it available, I would suggest that this is the sort of question
for which Robertson Smith is valuable--the unabridged fat volume rather than
the abridgment which continues to appear in a soft-cover reprint). Robertson
Smith approaches the forms and syntax from a historical perspective, illumina-
ting the apparent anomalies by explaining the linguistic history, often a
matter of the interplay of phonetic rules. Some of what I've offered here is
guesswork, but generally it's a matter of application of those phonetic rules.
CARL W. CONRAD, C25001CC@WUVMD.BITNET OR C25001CC@WUVMD.WUSTL.EDU
Classics, Washington University, One Brookings Dr., St. Louis, MO 63130
Phone: (314) 935-4018