From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat Apr 29 2000 - 09:26:14 EDT
At 10:05 PM +1200 4/29/00, Eddie Van Gent wrote:
>Thanks for your reply
>
>You have brought up the subject of weak & strong tenses.
>Second tenses seem to be shorter words that the 1st tenses.
>In my opinion this might make them "short & to the point " and give the
>words more "punch"- a bit like our slang words.
>
>What do your studies reveal to date ?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
>Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 2:39 PM
>Subject: Re: AKHKOOTAS
>
>>
>> I sometimes wonder whether it's really appropriate to call such a form
>> "irregular"--although I know we apply that to any verb that doesn't follow
>> the pattern which (by default) has become default. But of course these
>> "second perfects"--just like the "second aorists" and "second passives"
>are
>> really the archaic types that have never gone out of currency because they
>> are the standard forms of verbs that are used frequently enough that they
>> haven't undergone the leveling process which reduces verbs less-frequently
>> used to the standard default pattern. Perhaps we should go back to the old
>> fashioned way of distinguishing between "weak" and "strong" forms of the
>> verb morphology, although, of course, terminology won't do much to help
>> learn things unless the reason for the difference in morphologies is
>> understood.
I think I was misunderstood. This is strictly a matter of terminology and
has nothing to do with any difference of meaning between "strong" and
"weak" verbs (it's NOT like Paul's differentiation between the "strong in
faith" and the "weak in faith"). As designations for morphological types,
"strong" and "second" are alternative terms to characterize those older
types of verb conjugation that have survived in everyday usage (i.e. that
have NOT shifted into the default pattern of conjugation used for the great
majority of verbs. There are a few verbs for which both "strong" and "weak"
forms have survived, and there is no difference in meaning for these forms:
e.g. the "weak" or "first" perfect 1 sg. hESTHKA means exactly the same as
the "strong" or "second" perfect 1 sg. hESTAA. I don't know for sure why
the terms "strong" and "weak" were applied, but I would hazard a guess that
it's because the "strong" forms 'resisted' the tendency of most verbs to
take the default "weak" conjugational forms.
--Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics/Washington University One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018 Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649 cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:41:07 EDT