From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 19 1995 - 07:09:35 EST
At 8:11 AM 12/18/95, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>In Acts 24:21 Paul said PERI MIAS TAUTHS FWNHS hHS _EKEKRAXA_ EN AUTOIS
>"concerning this cry which _I cried out_ among them . . ." My question is
>this. Could EKEKRAXA be from a verb spelled EGKRAZW instead of being an
>irregular form of the verb KRAZW as it is given in BAGD, Thayer, Louw &
>Nida, etc.? In the morphology (Brooks and Winbery, p. 425) we followed
>BAGD and listed two forms of the 3rd principal part of KRAZW. Could this
>not be a compound with the prep. EK added to the front of the verb without
>changing its essential meaning, only intensifying it? I do not have L&S
>here at home to check it, but does anyone know of any non-NT use of such a
>word outside the 3rd pp.?
I don't have a NT lexicon handy away from my office, but it looks to me
like this may be a reduplicated aorist stem KEKRAXA. When I first looked at
it, I was thinking that it must be pluperfect of KRAZW, but it can't be
with that ending, nor can it be a perfect 1 sg. either. The normal form of
an augmented aorist from EKKRAZW would be EXEKRAX-; the normal form of an
augmented aorist from EGKRAZW (EN-KRAZW) would be ENEKRAX-. It is a
peculiar form indeed, reminiscent of Aristophanes' Frogs: BREKEKEKEX KOAX
KOAX.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:34 EDT