tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7074361.post3121692112373807972..comments2024-01-01T14:54:26.802+01:00Comments on The Commonplace Book of Zadok the Roman: At S.Maria MaggioreZadok the Romanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03264864126510840069noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7074361.post-30604976447065656652008-02-20T02:24:00.000+01:002008-02-20T02:24:00.000+01:00Sorry--now that I've seen the context further down...Sorry--now that I've seen the context further down, what I said is irrelevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7074361.post-45124448401585263512008-02-20T02:00:00.000+01:002008-02-20T02:00:00.000+01:00Could it be the vocative of a name Tharson (omega ...Could it be the vocative of a name Tharson (omega in nominative, omicron in the vocaztive)? Dunno if koine preserves this distinction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7074361.post-76040354956276248602008-02-18T04:37:00.000+01:002008-02-18T04:37:00.000+01:00Gregor:"tharseo:" follows the typical pattern of p...Gregor:<BR/><BR/>"tharseo:" follows the typical pattern of principal parts for epsilon-contracts: "tharseo:, tharse:so:, etharse:sa, tetharse:ka," etc. (In Attic, of course, the "-rs" in the middle becomes "-rr-", so "tharreo:" and so forth.) Thus, the aorist imperative should be "tharse:son".<BR/><BR/>Classical Greek uses only the present imperative ("tharsei"), but in koine the aorist imperative is attested a number of times as "tharse:son". There are no attestations of an imperative "tharson" in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (I checked, just to be sure.) Anyway, I'm willing to write this off as coming from a variant aorist stem ("etharsa" for the regular "etharse:sa"), and just call it a peculiar form of the aorist imperative, since I don't see what else it could be.<BR/><BR/>Sorry to clog up the com-box with all this dreary philology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7074361.post-31135313086617159662008-02-17T23:18:00.000+01:002008-02-17T23:18:00.000+01:00At the risk of demonstrating that my Greek is real...At the risk of demonstrating that my Greek is really rusty: isn't "tharson" the regular imperativus aoristi of "tharseo:"?Gregor Kollmorgenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14337986686754569482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7074361.post-71902378350263675662008-02-17T22:39:00.000+01:002008-02-17T22:39:00.000+01:00One should never exclude the possibility of a spel...One should never exclude the possibility of a spelling mistake. These are, sometimes, immortalised in stone.Zadok the Romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03264864126510840069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7074361.post-90072458436712245322008-02-17T22:37:00.000+01:002008-02-17T22:37:00.000+01:00I largely agree, though I had been taking the "kal...I largely agree, though I had been taking the "kalo:s" with the "tharson" rather than with the "thne:sko:n", thus: "Be of good confidence (that) he who dies is born again." Since the "that" isn't expressed in the Greek, you could take it either way.<BR/><BR/>On a side note, the first word, "tharson," is not a real Greek form, as far as I know. The imperative of "tharseo:" should be "tharsei" or "tharse:son". Perhaps it's a later form, though. (If anyone else has any theories, I'd be happy to hear them.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7074361.post-66516380407724117452008-02-17T14:11:00.000+01:002008-02-17T14:11:00.000+01:00My Greek is a bit rusty, but I would say: "Trust, ...My Greek is a bit rusty, but I would say: "Trust, brother, (that) he who dies well is (born) anew."Gregor Kollmorgenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14337986686754569482noreply@blogger.com