Martin Z Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Hello, I have a question concerning εἶμι and εἰμί. They seem to be from different roots. εἰμί is from *εσ. I have not been able to find the root for εἶμι. BADG also has a separate entry for εἶμι: εἶμι (Hom.+ in pres. w. pres. mng. ‘I go’) in Att. used as fut. of ἔρχομαι=I shall go (rare in H. Gk.) J 7:34 v.l., cp. 36; 12:26; 14:3; 17:24 where εἰμί may also be read as εἶμι (B-D-F §99, 1).—DELG. Mounce's MBG also lists both on p.316. And footnote 4 on the same page says: σύνειμι can be from εἰμί and εἶμι. σύνειμι from εἰμί means “to be with” (Lk 9:18; Acts 22:11). σύνειμι from εἶμι means “to come together” (Lk 8:4). But Accordance database do not have εἶμι in the database. I can't search for =εἶμι or "=εἶμι", even though I set the search domain as "Greek content" for MBG, and MBG definitely has εἶμι in the book (quote above). Does anyone have any more resource that I can consult for εἶμι? I've read BDF §99. It does not seem to help much on it either. Thanks! Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ιακοβ Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I used to get all concerned about this kind of detail, but then I learn't that these types of things are not in the oldest/original manuscripts. Consider reading it as if there were no accents or breathings and decide for yourself how it should be read (perhaps cross referencing with other verses that use the same word) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarcher Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 (edited) I don't see separate entries for these in either Mounce or BDAG. Weird. I need to learn to scroll. Edited November 16, 2017 by jarcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I usually look at LSJ after BDAG if there appears to be a question. If the context is LXX I then go to Muraoka (not in Acc alas). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Z Posted November 16, 2017 Author Share Posted November 16, 2017 Hello Ιακοβ, Thank you for your comment. I totally understand your point. It sometimes depends on what purpose we have when we read the text. For some, polysemy and homograph are completely different categories, though the case is not always clear. In some cases, the accent is the only way to distinguish the meanings, though in the original manuscript, the accent did not exist. My point is, if it is homograph, it deserves separate entries in lexicons, but if it is a case of polysemy, then no extra entry is needed. This will also affect how Bible softwares operate. If it is a case of homograph (we have quite a few in Hebrew), then the database will also have two entries, either using the accent marks to mark them, or to use ***-1, ***-2 to distinguish them. I just want to understand the situation better. From what I see, it looks like a case of homograph can be well made here. But I also understand if it is treated as polysemy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Z Posted November 16, 2017 Author Share Posted November 16, 2017 Hello Daniel, Thank you for your tips! I did find separate entries in the online LSJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 This turns out to be rather interesting. BDAG, LSJ and Muraoka all report both forms. Now it's not really attested in the NT though there is a vl in Jn 7:34 that they mentioned in BDAG above as you found. But it is in Josephus with some 54 occurrences. Of course ειμι (to be) also occurs a lot there. Now I don't know but if you do a root search on the eimi-2 (the to go) form as in +eimi-2 you get the same number and the same hits as you do doing +eimi search. I don't know if you can assume that means they are assumed in Acc tagging to have the same root but it looks like it. Philo also attests the "to go" form, again vastly outnumbered by the "to be" form - 60 vs 7058. I cannot find anything that suggests a root really. My first thought was that it might begin with ι and perhaps ιε. But that's an utter guess and largely based on the infinitive (and the non-indicative forms) which really isn't enough. The two words simply look like homographs so if I had to guess, like in an exam I'd be toast ! One for Dr. Kovisto I think. I'd be interested to hear the outcome. thx D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Z Posted November 17, 2017 Author Share Posted November 17, 2017 Thank you very much, Daniel! A friend help me find the section in Smyth. Here is a screenshot of the paradigm: This word occurs more often in compound forms in the NT. For instance, ἔξειμι. Here is a quote from Mounce's Greek dictionary. GK G1996 | S G1826 ἔξειμι exeimi 4x to go out or forth, Acts 13:42; to depart, Acts 17:15; 20:7; ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, to get to land, from the water, Acts 27:43 Here is the ID shows for the form in Acts 13:42: Ἐξιόντων Exiontōn ἔξειμι_2 (ἐκ, εἶμι_2) exeimi—2 (ek, eimi—2) Verb pres act part masc plur gen to go out, go away (ibo) I know that some forms are attested only in compound forms in the NT. But the issue is, other Greek grammar books, lexicons, as well as classic Greek works have them non-compound forms. I'm just wondering, if this is the case, will we be able to search for these words in other books that contains those non-attested-in-the-NT words? Because I believe this is the exact case in my first post. While the NT may arguably not have εἶμι_2, Mounce's MBG does mention it. And now, I am not able to search for the form. I believe the database of Accordance is larger than the NT words. But I'm just curious what it consists of (screenshot below)? Is there a place to look for? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Ok in Acc when you have the Philo or Josephus modules then the select words dialog shows both : Of course, there has been a long standing desire to get Smyth but again he doesn't comment on the root. The more I think about it the more I suspect a straightforward homograph with differing pronunciation (at one time, and probably only slight then) as indicated by the diacritics. Thx D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Z Posted November 17, 2017 Author Share Posted November 17, 2017 Hey Daniel, You've been so helpful to me! Thanks a lot! Now we at least know that Accordance has different database for different works. So it all depend on whether they have identified those as the attested roots or not. If they add εἶμι_2 to MBG, then it will have it. Smyth seems to give a root right after the word in parenthesis: ι- and ει-. Blessings, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Oh ok. I'm not familiar with Smyth to be honest - I've never seen a copy. So if that's the root that's good. And my initial guess was apparently not so far off which is perhaps the most amazing thing of all Looks like I need to get a copy of Smyth. Oh I meant to check Robertson - hang on.... ok Robertson has a number of comments about it. And that is in Accordance and some on roots but seems not to actually get to the root itself. Thx D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbjohnston Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 I used to get all concerned about this kind of detail, but then I learn't that these types of things are not in the oldest/original manuscripts. Consider reading it as if there were no accents or breathings and decide for yourself how it should be read (perhaps cross referencing with other verses that use the same word) Just for what it's worth, you're right about this in general, but in the case of εἶμι and εἰμί it's a real difference, in the sense that the letters of the paradigms are different, even in the present indicative—just not in the first-person singular present indicative, so not in the lexical forms. See paradigms for εἶμι and εἰμί. So if you read ιτε it's not the same as εστε, with or without accents. The difference here is really just that εἶμι declined in use from Classical to Hellenistic Greek in favor of compounds and ἔρχομαι, and that it's only present in the NT in compound forms (as has already been noted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. Smith Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 I've said it before. We've all said it before. But I'll say it again. We need a Smyth module. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 I picked up a copy of Goodwin and Gulick for a few bucks (well 7 actually) the other day. He has paradigm's for both now I come to look at it. Also got a copy of Dana and Mantey - they mention it also. Need to get Smyth. These older grammars still have their value. So I certainly agree with Anthony, Smyth would be good. Thx D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. Smith Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 Smyth is available in pdf if you like that. I picked up a used copy under $20 a few years ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. Smith Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 You're not going to see the word in most NT oriented lit because it doesn't occur in the NT except as a v.l. So it's not going to be an option for searching a NT tagged text. But it is in various extra biblical lit, as Daniel has shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fabian Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Maybe a help. http://www.logosconjugator.org/item/143959/ http://www.logosconjugator.org/item/143960/ Greetings Fabian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now