Question about ἀληθής/ἀληθές

[Callaina]

I'm puzzled by something in the declension of the 3rd-declension adjective ἀληθής/ἀληθές. In every single other case when the ultimate syllable is long (e.g. for the masc/fem form, gen/dat/acc/voc singular and nom/gen/acc/voc plural) the acute on the final syllable changes to a circumflex, as makes sense. Why is it not also a circumflex in the m/f nominative singular, since η is long? (Our book mentions that the stem is ἀλεθεσ- -- so presumably the nominative, like the other case endings here, is formed by some kind of contraction, though our book doesn't detail it as it does for the other cases.)

Apologies if I'm missing something obvious; I just would like to understand better how this sort of accent rule works. Thanks.

Tagging Aurifex and Imber Ranae.

 

[Imber Ranae]

The long vowel in the masculine/feminine nominative is due to compensatory lengthening, not contraction. It's contraction that produces the circumflex accent. Also, the vocative singular has an acute accent, not a circumflex.

 

[Callaina]

The long vowel in the masculine/feminine nominative is due to compensatory lengthening, not contraction. It's contraction that produces the circumflex accent.

Can you say more? Our book hasn't explained this (well, it's talked about contraction, but not compensatory lengthening.)

Also, the vocative singular has an acute accent, not a circumflex.

Right, of course; silly mistake on my part.

 

[Imber Ranae]

Can you say more? Our book hasn't explained this (well, it's talked about contraction, but not compensatory lengthening.)

It's caused by the double sigma that would have originally occurred at the end of the word, one of which is in the stem and the other of which serves as the common-gender nominative singular marker (an Indo-European feature also recognizable in Latin). Because Greek doesn't permit geminate consonants at the end of a word one sigma dropped out and lengthened the preceding vowel: ἀληθές + ς > ἀληθέσς > ἀληθής (ε regularly lengthens to η in Attic). This happened long before any of the vowel contractions, by the way.

One should also note that the contraction ε + ε becomes ει in Attic , not η. It's ε + α that becomes η (and of course ε + ο becomes ου). Where the first of these uncontracted letters originally had an acute accent the contracted letter or diphthong will have a circumflex accent: έ + ε > εῖ; έ + α > ῆ;
έ + ο > οῦ.

Compensatory lengthening happens in Latin, too.

 

[Callaina]

It's caused by the double sigma that would have originally occurred at the end of the word, one of which is in the stem and the other of which serves as the common-gender nominative singular marker (an Indo-European feature also recognizable in Latin). Because Greek doesn't permit geminate consonants at the end of a word one sigma dropped out and lengthened the preceding vowel: ἀληθές + ς > ἀληθέσς > ἀληθής (ε regularly lengthens to η in Attic). This happened long before any of the vowel contractions, by the way.

One should also note that the contraction ε + ε becomes ει in Attic , not η. It's ε + α that becomes η (and of course ε + ο becomes ου). Where the first of these uncontracted letters originally had an acute accent the contracted letter or diphthong will have a circumflex accent: έ + ε > εῖ; έ + α > ῆ;
έ + ο > οῦ.

That's all very helpful -- thanks.

Compensatory lengthening happens in Latin, too.

I'm tempted to ask "where?" but I kind of want to see if I can find it first, so I'll see if I can spot an instance. I'm thinking in the third declension in Latin as well (since that seems to be where all the weird stuff happens)?

 

[Imber Ranae]

I'm tempted to ask "where?" but I kind of want to see if I can find it first, so I'll see if I can spot an instance. I'm thinking in the third declension in Latin as well (since that seems to be where all the weird stuff happens)?

Compensatory lengthening in word terminations is often more obscured in Latin, but one example is homo.

nominative: homon + s = *homons > *homōn > homō
genitive: homon + is = *homonis > hominis

for which also cf. homon + culus > homunculus


It doesn't seem to have happened as regularly in this position as in Greek, however.

But it's a general phenomenon in both Greek and Latin, not limited to word endings. In Latin one of the most obvious examples of the phenomenon is the preverb dĭs- becoming dī- before the letters b, d, g, l, m, n, r and v (and sometimes j), e.g. dīrigere from dis + regere (not to be confused with, for example, dĭrimere, which is from dis + emere).

 

[Callaina]

I wish my university had a course in this -- it's quite fascinating (and I learn things about ten times more easily if I can understand why they work the way they do.)

Can you recommend a book on how all these sound changes, etc. happened in Greek? Part of what's frustrated me about the language is its seeming randomness, and I'd like to try to get to the bottom of why it works the way it does.

 

[Callaina]

Another question. The 1st/3rd declension adjective ταχύς/ταχεῖα/ταχύ was introduced in the same chapter. I understand the feminine forms well enough, but the masculine/neuter mystify me. To be precise:

- why does it have two different stems (one with υ and one with ε)?
- why does it contract in some cases (e.g. dative singular) but not others (e.g. genitive singular)?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Imber Ranae]

I wish my university had a course in this -- it's quite fascinating (and I learn things about ten times more easily if I can understand why they work the way they do.)

Can you recommend a book on how all these sound changes, etc. happened in Greek? Part of what's frustrated me about the language is its seeming randomness, and I'd like to try to get to the bottom of why it works the way it does.

I don't have anything specific to recommend off hand, other than perhaps a good grammar like Smyth which should cover the basics. A comparative grammar of Greek and Latin might also be particularly suitable for this purpose, but before purchasing anything you'll probably want to peruse it first in your university's library.

What textbook are you using, btw? I remember suggesting Groton to you in the past, but I think that was before you decided to return to university. I recommended it to you precisely because it goes into a lot of depth for an introductory textbook, which is something I know you appreciate. I get the sense, judging by what you've said so far, that your current textbook is somewhat lacking in this regard, which is unfortunate.

Another question. The 1st/3rd declension adjective ταχύς/ταχεῖα/ταχύ was introduced in the same chapter. I understand the feminine forms well enough, but the masculine/neuter mystify me. To be precise:

- why does it have two different stems (one with υ and one with ε)?

I'm not sure exactly, but it seems it had something to do with an original digamma in the stem, which was maybe originally just a vocalization of υ into a semivowel, making it either ταχέϝ- or ταχύ-. Of course the digamma was later lost, but it seems to have prevented contraction even after its loss in some cases, probably because most such contractions happened before its disappearance.

- why does it contract in some cases (e.g. dative singular) but not others (e.g. genitive singular)?

I imagine it's just because the contraction of ε + ι to ει was more straightforward than the other kind of contractions in Attic. I believe the dative could be εϊ in Epic, so there's that.

 

[Callaina]

I don't have anything specific to recommend off hand, other than perhaps a good grammar like Smyth which should cover the basics. A comparative grammar of Greek and Latin might also be particularly suitable for this purpose, but before purchasing anything you'll probably want to peruse it first in your university's library.

What textbook are you using, btw? I remember suggesting Groton to you in the past, but I think that was before you decided to return to university. I recommended it to you precisely because it goes into a lot of depth for an introductory textbook, which is something I know you appreciate. I get the sense, judging by what you've said so far, that your current textbook is somewhat lacking in this regard, which is unfortunate.

We're using Athenaze. It's not bad (and has a lot of reading practice, which is helpful) but it tends to ration out information in a rather odd way, giving it to us in little bits rather than just showing us why things work the way they do. I suppose it's geared to the needs/learning approach of the average undergraduate student.

A prof recommended this book to me last week and it looks quite helpful and thorough, so I've ordered it. Hopefully that will give me some of the detail that Athenaze is lacking.

I'm not sure exactly, but it seems it had something to do with an original digamma in the stem, which was maybe originally just a vocalization of υ into a semivowel, making it either ταχέϝ- or ταχύ-. Of course the digamma was later lost, but it seems to have prevented contraction even after its loss in some cases, probably because most such contractions happened before its disappearance.

I imagine it's just because the contraction of ε + ι to ει was more straightforward than the other kind of contractions in Attic. I believe the dative could be εϊ in Epic, so there's that.

Huh, ok. Good to know.

While we're on the topic of contractions: why does the intervocalic sigma of the second-person singular endings vanish (and cause contraction) for most verbs, but not for verbs like δύναμαι, which keeps it (well, in the present and imperfect at least; we haven't learned other tenses for this group of verbs yet)?

 

[Callaina]

Oh, wait, I suppose it must be because there's no thematic vowel; the endings are just attached to the stem. So they can't contract with a stem vowel for some reason?

 

[Imber Ranae]

Oh, wait, I suppose it must be because there's no thematic vowel; the endings are just attached to the stem. So they can't contract with a stem vowel for some reason?

Yes, that's it, which is the same reason why they aren't ever contracted in the perfect middle/passive. To be honest I'm not sure what the principle behind it is, whether there's something special about thematic vowels, or whether it was usual for intervocalic sigma simply to be retained at morpheme boundaries, or something else altogether. However, this is apparently only the case in the present stem of -μι verbs (as well as the perfect obviously). I'm not sure why the sigma is dropped in the aorist as well, despite the lack of thematic vowel. Maybe Aurifex knows.

 

[Aurifex]

I'm not sure why the sigma is dropped in the aorist as well, despite the lack of thematic vowel. Maybe Aurifex knows.

Sorry, I don't know the answer.
On a more general note, there's a useful looking bit of info here:
http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/miverbs.htm

 

[Callaina]

Sorry, I don't know the answer.
On a more general note, there's a useful looking bit of info here:
http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/miverbs.htm

Thanks -- this does look helpful (and thorough). I'm a bit puzzled as to what the author means by 3rd conjugation, though. Our book doesn't classify them this way -- we've only learned about omega verbs (including contract verbs) and mi-verbs (though only a few forms of these so far.) Do you know what it's referring to here? I searched around on the website, but didn't find an explanation of this.

 

[Aurifex]

Thanks -- this does look helpful (and thorough). I'm a bit puzzled as to what the author means by 3rd conjugation, though. Our book doesn't classify them this way -- we've only learned about omega verbs (including contract verbs) and mi-verbs (though only a few forms of these so far.) Do you know what it's referring to here? I searched around on the website, but didn't find an explanation of this.

It just looks like they're splitting -ω verbs into two conjugations, the first containing verbs with weak aorist forms and the second those with strong aorists. Presumably root aorists also belong to the second conjugation according to this scheme of things.

 

[Callaina]

On a more general note, there's a useful looking bit of info here:
http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/miverbs.htm

Oh my goodness -- this author actually makes the Greek verbal system make sense. e.g.:

"The 3rd conjugation's present stem normally will have a durative morph (i.e., durative reduplication and/or an infix). So the present stem differs from the aorist stem, and the aorist stem is the root stem used by all forms other than the durative tenses (i.e., other than the present and imperfect tenses). Thus, the system of the 3rd conjugation flexions is based on the aorist stem.

This is much like the verbs in the 2nd conjugation — where the present stem is also modified by a durative morph and the aorist stem is the root stem. The only difference is that a neutral morph (a vowel) is added onto the 2nd aorist stem before joining the personal ending to it. The 1st conjugation differs from both the 1st and 2nd conjugations because the 1st conjugation bases its whole system of flexions on an unmodified present stem, then adds a punctiliar morph (σα or α) to the same stem, together with a pronoun ending, in order to construct its aorist forms."

It seems so obvious now! I wish our textbook laid things out like this.

 

[Callaina]

Oh, and this section: http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/vrbmorph.htm

How beautiful! I mean, it's still ridiculously complex and rather chaotic, but at least I can see a cause for all the apparent chaos now (these morphs interacting in various ways...) Sure, they do some weird (even seemingly random) things, but at least there's a method behind the madness.

Thanks for pointing me to this, Aurifex!

 

[Imber Ranae]

Further examples of Latin compensatory lengthening can be found in the monosyllables lār, lăris; mās, măris; pār, păris; and sāl, sălis (cf. Greek ἅλς, ἁλός).