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.