Gentlemen,
After spending some time in the archives on the subject of the derivation and proper translation of the word “PAROUSIA”, I have a question regarding its derivation. Most argue it is from PAREINI (feminine present participle). Mr. Conrad (Wed. Aug.30, 1995) correctly pointed out that would be “PAROUSA” . The difficulty seems to be in morphologically explaining the “i” (iota). Mr. Krentz (same thread)further identified the word as a back-formation of the participial form. My question is, if it were a back-formation would it not be more accurate to say it is from PAROUSIAZW (Liddell Scott, under PAROUSIA, II.2., quoting Anon.in EN. 438.6) Since back formations are typically “shortening” of words, this would seem to resolve the matter without having to do any morphological gymnastics to account for that pesky iota.
Thank you for your help. My concern really is in finding the quote listed in Liddell Scott. I checked Perseus with no luck, but found a hard copy in a university library about 2 hours away(CAG). If anyone knows if that quote can be found online anywhere, I would greatly appreciate it.
I have lurked here for along time. Keep up the great work. This is truly an incredible resource, particularly for non-linguists and non-scholars, such as myself.
Rick Glau
Arcadia, Fla.
—
On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:06 PM,
Wow! Into the archives of 1995!
The word παρουσία (PAROUSIA) doesn’t really present a problem. It derives from the verb πάρειμι [PAREIMI], which is itself a compound of παρά [PARA] and εἰμί [EIMI]. This noun doesn’t derive from the participle itself but rather from the participial root of the primary verb εἰμί [EIMI], that root being οντ- [ONT-]. Abstract nouns are regularly formed from adjectival roots with the ending -ία [-IA] — see Smyth, §859 Vowel suffixes 6 (http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.9:5:3:1.perseusmonographs), so that here we’d have ὀντία [ONTIA]. But here phonetic factors enter in: T followed by I shifts to S, yielding ONSIA; then the -N- between O- and -S- evanesces and the O lengthens by compensation to OU, The end-result is OUSIA. You might note that there is a noun OUSIA derived directly from the verb EIMI and that it has a number of different meanings, “being,” “substance,” “essence” in philosophical usage, and “property” in terms of real estate. There are other nouns derived from compounds of EIMI also SUNOUSIA from SUNEIMI, EXOUSIA from EXESTI.
Rather than assuming that PAROUSIAZW derives from PAROUSIA, it’s surely simpler and more accurate to say that PAROUSIAZW derives from the noun PAROUSIA. -AZW verbs are ordinarily “denominatives’ — derived from nominal stems.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
—
On Jan 17, 2011, at 2:50 PM,
Without question.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
href=”mailto:wheat92@aol.com”>wheat92@aol.com wrote:
—
On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:06 PM,
Wow! Into the archives of 1995!
The word παρουσία (PAROUSIA) doesn’t really present a problem. It derives from the verb πάρειμι [PAREIMI], which is itself a compound of παρά [PARA] and εἰμί [EIMI]. This noun doesn’t derive from the participle itself but rather from the participial root of the primary verb εἰμί [EIMI], that root being οντ- [ONT-]. Abstract nouns are regularly formed from adjectival roots with the ending -ία [-IA] — see Smyth, §859 Vowel suffixes 6 (http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.9:5:3:1.perseusmonographs), so that here we’d have ὀντία [ONTIA]. But here phonetic factors enter in: T followed by I shifts to S, yielding ONSIA; then the -N- between O- and -S- evanesces and the O lengthens by compensation to OU, The end-result is OUSIA. You might note that there is a noun OUSIA derived directly from the verb EIMI and that it has a number of different meanings, “being,” “substance,” “essence” in philosophical usage, and “property” in terms of real estate. There are other nouns derived from compounds of EIMI also SUNOUSIA from SUNEIMI, EXOUSIA from EXESTI.
Rather than assuming that PAROUSIAZW derives from PAROUSIA, it’s surely simpler and more accurate to say that PAROUSIAZW derives from the noun PAROUSIA. -AZW verbs are ordinarily “denominatives’ — derived from nominal stems.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
—
On Jan 17, 2011, at 2:50 PM,
Without question.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
href=”mailto:wheat92@aol.com”>wheat92@aol.com wrote:
—
Thank you for your quick and thorough response. I need to “think” through the morphology here, but it is terribly exciting to see a detailed and rational explanation. This eliminates the back-formation theory, does it not?
thank again,
Rick
Thank you for your quick and thorough response. I need to “think” through the morphology here, but it is terribly exciting to see a detailed and rational explanation. This eliminates the back-formation theory, does it not?
thank again,
Rick
Ricky Grimsley The word παρουσία (PAROUSIA) doesn’t really present a problem. It derives from the verb πάρειμι [PAREIMI], which is itself a compound of παρά [PARA] and εἰμί [EIMI]. This noun doesn’t derive from the participle itself but rather from the participial root of the primary verb εἰμί [EIMI], that root being οντ- [ONT-]. Abstract nouns are regularly formed from adjectival roots with the ending -ία [-IA] —
Ricky Grimsley The word παρουσία (PAROUSIA) doesn’t really present a problem. It derives from the verb πάρειμι [PAREIMI], which is itself a compound of παρά [PARA] and εἰμί [EIMI]. This noun doesn’t derive from the participle itself but rather from the participial root of the primary verb εἰμί [EIMI], that root being οντ- [ONT-]. Abstract nouns are regularly formed from adjectival roots with the ending -ία [-IA] —