[B-Greek] STHKW e.g. Philippians 1:27

Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 13 12:39:18 EDT 2010



Hi, Carl,



<I'm only repeating in a different form what I said

 in my earlier comment on this matter...>



This reminds me of what Freud said in Wit and Its

Relation to the Unconscious.  He pointed out

that there are a limited number of jokes--I think

the figure is 17--but there are an infinite number of

ways to tell them.  The same is true of language in

general.  In any language, there is a finite number of

things you can say--a little over a thousand, I think--

but because every language has so many words and so

many grammatical constructions, there is an infinite

number of ways you can say them.  This fact is the

mother's milk of B-Greek, really.



Carl wrote:

<The ordinary way to say "I
am standing" (e.g. Luther,

"Here I stand, I can do no other") in ordinary ancient Greek 

is hESTHKA. This is a perfect-tense verb form

used with a present-tense meaning.



What is so strange about turning this into a present-tense stem: STHKW?>



It's strange because this is the only time it ever happens.



For that matter, is there another verb where the perfect is

used essentially as the passive?  Where the Second Aorist

is used essentially as the passive?  Those strange facts are

what makes the semantic strangeness of STHKW possible, but it is

the morphological strangeness of STHKW that intrigues Stephen

and I.

 

By the way, I think the Luther quote
is very helpful in understanding

what Paul means by STHKW.



Mark L



               

FWSFOROS MARKOS

--- On Tue, 4/13/10, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:

From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] STHKW e.g. Philippians 1:27
To: "Mark Lightman" <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
Cc: "B- Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>, "Stephen Baldwin" <stbaldwi at hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 6:04 AM

I'm only repeating in a different form what I said in my earlier comment on this matter:

The ordinary way to say "I am standing" (e.g. Luther, "Here I stand, I can do no other") in ordinary ancient Greek is hESTHKA. This is a perfect-tense verb form
used with a present-tense meaning.

What is so strange about turning this into a present-tense stem: STHKW?

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

On Apr 13, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Mark Lightman wrote:
> 
> 
> John Sanders wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> <There is only one verb here.  English does not have
> 
>  an equivalent verb used in the same way, so it may lead
> 
>  one to think that this verb is a strange animal of some kind.  It is
> not.>
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, John, and Hi, Stephen again,
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm inclined to think that a very strange animal is
> 
> exactly what STHKW is.  I might even call it a freak of
> 
> nature.  I think Stephen may have isolated a verb which
> 
> is absolutely unique in the Greek language in a pretty
> 
> fundamental way.  It is such a simple idea, to form a new
> 
> verb from the perfect, that I really expected there to be
> 
> more examples.  If you have STHKW you should have γνωκω
> 
> GNWKW.   You should have  βηκω (BHKW)  You should
> 
> even maybe have παιδευκω (PAIDEUKW)  Homer does
> 
> so many strange things to verbs that I would have
> 
> expected him to take a perfect and form a new verb
> 
> from it.  He does not, as far as I can tell, nor is there
> 
> any other example.  If I missed one, let me know. 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, in a sense, John is correct that STHKW is
> 
> not a new verb, but is just a form of hISTHMI.  But
> 
> what kind of a form?  What do we call it?  Bauer
> 
> calls it a "new creation from hESTHKA."  Thayer
> 
> calls it an "inferior Greek word."  Grundmann in
> 
> TDNT implies cryptically that it is derived from a non-
> 
> Attic dialect.  
> 
> 
> 
> In a sense you could just say that hISTHMI has
> 
> two different perfect forms, but (1) is there any other
> 
> verb that has two different perfect forms? and
> 
> (b) is there any other perfect with no reduplication?
> 
> and (c) is there any other perfect which has
> 
> the standard present endings?  That seems pretty
> 
> unique to me.  And is this a Second Perfect?  A Third?
> 
> It  looks  nothing like
> a  Second Perfect  (GEGRAFA)
> 
> and there is no Third Perfect,
> unless STHKW is the
> 
> only example of a  Third
> Perfect, in which case
> 
> this verb is even more of an odd
> duck.
> 
>  
> 
> As to what the verb means,  I
> like very much
> 
> what Grundmann says, whether it is true or not:
> 
> 
> 
> "The word STHKW seems to be preferred by Paul.
> 
> It is linked by him with the theological point...
> 
> that in faith man attains to a standing which
> 
> is not grounded in the world and in which he is set
> 
> by the Lord and will be upheld by Him, which gives
> 
> him freedom from the destructive powers of the
> 
> world, and which aims at fellowship in one spirit."
> 
>  
> 
> TDNT VII p. 638.
> 
> 
> 
> hISTHMI has to be the strangest verb in the Greek
> 
> NT.  If STHKW is merely a form of this verb,
> 
> alongside hESTHKA and ESTHN and ESTHSA, it is part of what
> 
> makes it so strange.  If STHKW is a different verb, it
> 
> is the second strangest verb in the Greek NT.
> 
> 
> 
> Carl has said that if you really want to understand
> 
> Greek verbs, you have to look at them as if they
> 
> were people, idiosyncratic members of an
> 
> extended, dysfunctional family.  If this is true,
> 
> hISTHMI/STHKW is like your crazy aunt that lives
> 
> in the basement. 
> 
> 
> 
> Grundmann notes that the verb survives in
> 
> Modern Greek as STEKW.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark L
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWSFOROS MARKOS
> 
> --- On Sun, 4/11/10, Stephen Baldwin <stbaldwi at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> From: Stephen Baldwin <stbaldwi at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [B-Greek] STHKW e.g. Philippians 1:27
> To: "B- Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Date: Sunday, April 11, 2010, 9:21 PM
> 
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen:
> I was intrigued by the verb STHKW as found e.g. in Philippians 1:27.
> BDAG, BDF etc note that it is based on the perfect of hISTHMI -- which even a novice can at least detect ;-)
> 
> I would like to know how a verb like this is to be understood -- what nuances does such a verb bring, given that it is based on another verb, indeed how such verbs arise. It appears that the first occurrences of STHKW are in the NT.
> I did a brief comparison of hISTHMI versus STHKW in BDAG and to me, from the range of definitions given, that hISTHMI seems to carry "ingressive" nuances -- the initialisation of a state of standing etc. whereas STHKW seems to imply stative overtones -- that is, we are already in the state of standing or being committed.
> Is this a correct view of approaching the matter? It would seem to be at least from my example from Philippians -- that whether Paul comes or does not come to see them, that he might hear that they are [already] standing as/in one spirit etc.
> 
> How common is it to have a verb based off a particular stem of a [more common] verb? To the best of my recollection, this is the first time I have come across such a verb.
> I'm always a trifle disappointed that the more advanced commentaries that claim to focus more on the Greek [eg New International Greek Testament] more often than not, do not expound on these matters...
> 
> Stephen Baldwin
> stbaldwi at hotmail.com







      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list