Chapter 1 - Introduction
This study utilises a commercially available tagged corpus of ancient Greek to investigate a
group of words that originated in Proto-Indo-European and show a number of interesting and
diverse features in the modern descendants of that language, including Greek and English. I
establish a statistical method for use in a corpus-linguistic, quantitative approach to the
collection and interpretation of data, and use the results to develop and test hypotheses about
the nature and cause of language change and to identify variations possibly unobservable by
other methods, thus making them available for further study.
Why study Greek?
Ancient Greek continues to be learnt and studied because of the importance and prestige of
Classical Greece and its literature, philosophy and polity to the history of western civilisation.
Within Greece it has usually also been a compulsory school subject for reasons of national
consciousness and identity. As long as interest in ancient history and the roots of our culture
continues, it will be desirable for a linguistic approach to the study of the language to be
maintained as one of the necessary tools for understanding ancient documents and culture. But,
like Chinese, Greek is a language with a long and near-continuous recorded history, offering a
unique source for the study of language change in general. At least in its written form, today’s
Greek is recognisable as a version of the language of Homer nearly three thousand years ago.1
This conservatism is unusual in the world’s languages and deserves investigation, but at the
1
Substantial sound changes are obscured by historical spelling, but there is a high degree of retention
of lexical items and of morphology (particularly in the nominal system). Homer is cited as an exemplar of
the oldest known form of Greek because the language of the orally transmitted Homeric poems preserves
many linguistic features that are thought to be more archaic than the language of the earliest Greek
documents, the Linear B tablets dating from approximately 1400 BC.
3
same time Greek has a history of great variation, both diachronic and synchronic, that can
contribute to our knowledge of how and why languages change. The particular group of words
studied in this thesis, which are interesting for their diverse and little understood behaviour in
many of the related languages of Europe, can be traced back through Greek to their common
origins in Proto-Indo-European.
Greek is one of the foundational languages in the history of linguistics. It was the observation of
similarities and of the regularity of differences between Greek, Latin and Sanskrit that led to the
postulation of family relationships between languages and so allowed the development of the
comparative method of historical linguistics. This method has since been profitably applied to
the identification and study of other language families and sub-families. Nineteenth century
linguistic progress both arose from and stimulated further intensive study of Ancient Greek. The
subsequent decline in classical studies does not diminish the importance of Greek, either as a
vehicle for access to the ancient world or as a rich linguistic resource for the study of language
change.
From the perspective of the modern language, the long continuous history and the relative
accessibility of the written Greek of most earlier periods to the speaker of Modern Greek make it
both a natural and useful area of study.2 For Greeks it is also sometimes a matter of national
pride not only to be familiar with what they regard as their own heritage but also to be active
participants in scholarly debate over issues that concern Greece and Greek, such as the
pronunciation of the ancient language by modern scholars.3
2
This accessibility is due to several sociological factors, including a minimum-hours requirement in
school curricula, general familiarity with the conservative language of the Orthodox liturgy, and a long
history of diglossia in which until the 1970s much education and written communication was conducted in
an archaising form of Greek (known as Katharevousa, ‘purifying’).
3
This remains a contentious issue, and practice differs from country to country. The origins of the
reconstruction of the ancient pronunciation and its introduction into teaching practices in England are
4
Apart from general interest in history, culture and language, there is another reason why Greek
has been studied, and outside Greece it is now the principal cause why Ancient Greek is still
learnt: it is the language of the New Testament. This collection of first-century documents, the
earliest extant Christian writings, has been intensively studied since its beginning and has been
hugely influential as the sacred text of a major world religion. The project of translating these
scriptures into the world’s languages began very early4 and is still in progress, with the Summer
Institute of Linguistics the largest and best-known trainer of translators.5 The majority of recent
linguistic studies of Ancient Greek are contributions to the study of the New Testament and the
world of early Christianity and Second Temple Judaism, although Mycenaean Greek and
dialectology are also popular research areas.
For a number of cultural reasons, then, as well as linguistic ones, study of the Greek language is
rewarding. This study looks at a specific group of words and traces their origin and use in
Homeric and Classical Greek, as detailed in recent studies, with the aim of comparing their use
in the subsequent period of the language known as the Koine, to see whether changes can be
discerned, and if so whether reasons for the changes can be suggested and verified.
outlined by Allen 1987: 140-9. Petrounias 2007: 1266-79 contrasts practices in western countries and in
Greece and lists the advantages and disadvantages of the opposing positions.
4
The first large-scale translation project in history was the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into
Greek, beginning in the early third century BC (Dines 2004). Versions of the New Testament in Latin,
Syriac, Armenian and other languages are known from about AD 180, which is approximately the
beginning of the period of decline of Greek in the western empire (Aland & Aland 1989: 185ff).
5
Many translators work from English or other modern-language versions, but most agencies require
translators to be familiar with Greek; it is also a compulsory subject in many theological colleges.
5
Outline of this study
Chapter 2 surveys the history of the Greek language diachronically from its antecedents in
Proto-Indo-European to the classical period, with particular reference to prepositional and
preverbal particles (‘P-words’).6 After a brief survey of the evidence for Mycenaean Greek, the
earliest attested stage of the language, I review two studies of the P-words in relation to two
synchronic states of the language, Homeric and Classical Greek, and give examples of the
different usages in the two periods.
In Chapter 3 I trace the development of the next stage of the language, the Koine or ‘Common
Language’ of the hellenistic period, and look at the use of prepositions and preverbs in the New
Testament (NT), with particular attention to the problem of developing a method of evaluating
large sets of raw data. Comparisons are made with the data presented in Chapter 2 and in two
other hellenistic Greek corpora, the Septuagint (LXX) and Apostolic Fathers (AF). P-word usage
in the later Koine period, the era of the New Testament writings, is described in the context of
establishing whether significant changes since the classical period can be detected and
accounted for.
(The individual documents comprising the three corpora are described in
Appendix A, along with other data sources referred to.)
In Chapter 4 I review the results of the comparisons and statistical tests made and the success
of the methodologies used, and outline areas for further research.
6
Following O’Dowd’s use of the term for English (1998: passim), I call this group ‘P-words’ as a
convenient superordinate term for the group of adverbs, prepositions and preverbs. They are called
‘particles’ by Luraghi when she wants to leave their lexical class unspecified (2003: 76), but this may be
potentially confusing as the term ‘particle’ is used in Greek grammars for other parts of speech, such as
conjunctions (and appears as ‘PTC’ in Luraghi’s morphemic glosses for some non-P-words). The class of
prepositions that are also P-words is known as ‘proper prepositions’, to be distinguished from ‘improper
prepositions’, which have a more restricted functional range; but this terminology fails to capture their
other functions as preverbs and adverbs.
6
Methodology
The basis of this study is the language of the middle Koine period as realised in the New
Testament. Three corpora are used for a quantitative analysis of the usage of the P-word group,
with a view to establishing the degree of variation, if any, in their usage over time and the
statistical probability that such variation is not due to mere chance or insufficient data. Where a
variation is shown to be statistically significant, grammaticalisation theory is used to suggest
hypotheses about the usage of the P-words and the possible paths of change they could be
expected to undergo.
a.
Corpus linguistics7
The corpora used for this study are grammatically tagged texts available in a database called
Accordance, Version 7.0.3 of August 2006, produced by OakTree Software, Inc, in Florida.8 The
principal corpus used is the group of 27 New Testament documents, in the most recent edition of
Nestle-Aland known as NA27.9
It is fully tagged at the lexicogrammatical level using the
GRAMCORD system developed by The GRAMCORD Institute of Vancouver, Washington.10
Two other corpora are also used: a selection of texts from the Septuagint (LXX),11 Greek
7
General information about the field of corpus linguistics in this section is drawn from O’Donnell 2005,
which applies corpus linguistics to the study of the NT. The history of the field is described in Kennedy
1998: 1-87, mainly with reference to studies of English but also acknowledging the origins of corpusbased research in the development of bible concordances from the 18th century on.
8
http://www.accordancebible.com.
9
Two editions were produced by identical editorial committees headed by Kurt Aland for different
institutions. The texts are identical, but the punctuation and apparatus are different because UBS4 is
produced by the United Bible Societies for the use of translators, while NA27 (1991) is a critical edition
with a full apparatus for textual criticism. For the history of editions see Aland & Aland 1987, and for a
critique of UBS4 and its apparatus see Clarke 1997.
10
http://www.gramcord.org
11
The text used in the database is that of Rahlfs 1935.
7
translations of Hebrew scriptures made from the mid-second century BC, and the Apostolic
Fathers,12 a collection of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament. Both these
sets of documents are available in searchable tagged form from Accordance. The approximate
time periods of the three corpora are: 3rd to first century BC (LXX), second half of first century
AD (NT) and first half of second century AD (AF).
Statistical information about earlier periods of Greek is much more difficult to obtain. Indexes
and concordances to some classical authors exist, but in book form with data obtained without
computer assistance. A searchable electronic archive of all Greek writing from the earliest
documents and inscriptions to the end of the Byzantine period, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae
(TLG),13 returns unreliable information for some kinds of search, because it is not grammatically
tagged or even lemmatised (coded so that inflected forms can be retrieved by a search for the
citation form). The online version of the standard lexicon of Ancient Greek, known as LSJ, gives
word counts which sometimes do not resemble those obtained from TLG.14 Online LSJ through
12
The text used is the edition of Holmes 1999.
13
The TLG databank is available to subscribers as a CD and now also online. A free trial version is
available at http://www.tlg.uci.edu/demo.html. The version I have used is the CD, Version E (February
2000). The TLG project is based at the University of California, Irvine; information about the development
of the data bank is given on the project’s website (http://www.tlg.uci.edu) and in Berkowitz & Squitier
1986, which is a list of the authors and works in TLG (a later edition of this reference tool is available with
free search access on the TLG website). Unfortunately the search programs developed to assist users of
TLG have to be acquired separately. The best one is Pandora, for Macintosh, but Fisher Library has a
more primitive search facility and TLG is not available on Macintosh there.
14
The usage counts which LSJ online provides are based on the bank of citations it uses in its
definitions, not on whole texts; sometimes the usage rates may be similar to those obtained by token
counts in TLG (difficult as they are to achieve), but there is no way to guarantee commensurability of the
two sets of results. As an indication of the difficulties of using the LSJ site, consider this comment at
http://www.greek-language.com/lexical.aids: ‘You may access the Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon at the
Perseus site. (If response is slow, try the mirror site.) While this electronic edition of LSJ is tremendously
useful, it is not as up-to-date as the ninth edition. For serious lexical study it is still necessary to consult
the paper-and-ink version.’ The site is slow (as is the mirror site!) and cumbersome to use, and certain
words simply do not appear to be retrievable (for example, the preposition katav kata). The Perseus
8
the Perseus Project also offers a collocation tool, and lists words with similar definitions to the
headwords being consulted.
Many older grammars and other studies provide quantitative information, and some of the early
counts, made without the aid of computers, are surprisingly accurate. It is common to find
comments in grammars that presuppose a statistical study of the phenomenon being discussed,
but the actual data is rarely given.15 A partial exception is the vibrant tradition of concordances:
data is presented in such a way that the user can, with some effort, extract quantitative
information as required. For example, a Greek concordance to the New Testament lists every
occurrence of a particular word, and the user can manually retrieve whatever information is
wanted, such as the number of times a given preposition is followed by a particular case.
However, this procedure is very laborious and liable to error. And a concordance is arranged by
words, like a dictionary, so it does not enable the user to retrieve, for example, every instance of
the use of a particular case or tense.
O’Donnell defines corpus linguistics as ‘a series of methodological and theoretical characteristics
guiding the computational investigation of examples of naturally occurring language’ (2005: 1).
The major preliminary requirement is the construction of a representative corpus. The issue is
complicated for the study of any past period of a language by the lack of samples of speech, the
Project, which runs the online LSJ site, is described at www.perseus.tufts.edu and on Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_Project).
15
An exception is Moulton, whose qualitative judgments, as for example on the increasing use of
prepositions and the relationship between changing uses of ejn en and eijV eis (1908: 62-3), are based on
his tables in Moulton & Geden 1897. Another exception is Turner 1963, who gives a lot of frequency data
but often in a misleading way: although continuing the descriptive syntax project of Moulton, he has
reversed Moulton’s emphasis on the evidence for NT Greek as normal hellenistic Greek. Turner’s primary
concern is to demonstrate that NT Greek is a peculiar Jewish Greek variety suffering the influence of
Hebrew and Aramaic. See note 19 below for references to this debate.
The fact that older grammars are based on different editions from those regarded as standard today
makes some of the detailed information incompatible with computer-aided searches.
9
frequent lack of situational clues and the impossibility of consulting native-speaker
competence.16 It has to be immediately recognised that any corpus of a dead language will be
limited to written language samples and that production errors and other such phenomena of
natural language may be unidentifiable.17 Ancient Greek is in a more fortunate position than
many other epigraphic languages (such as Latin and Old English) in having a large body of
surviving material, but the texts are neither random nor representative in the sense desired for
corpus study. That is, they survive as accidents of copying and preservation, and some genres
are over-represented (for example, historical narrative) while others may not have survived at all.
Further, our incomplete knowledge of the situations and cultures in which documents were
produced means that some of the social-context-based tools of discourse analysis may be
unavailable.
Criteria for selecting representative corpora depend partly on the use to which they are to be put.
In the case of Ancient Greek, only written texts are available so there is no opportunity to include
samples of spoken language; and we have to make do with a further limitation: the texts are
overwhelmingly the products of rich men and professional scribes.
However, a variety of
registers of the written language can be identified and should be included. For the purposes of
linguistic analysis a corpus must be representative in some way relevant to what is being
investigated: representative of the language of the period studied, of different genres and
16
The evaluation of grammaticality of a small group of sentences, as an analytical procedure such as is
usual in generative grammar, would therefore seem to be very difficult for ‘dead’ languages.
Nevertheless, attempts have been made to apply Chomskyan analysis to NT Greek, for example Schmidt
1981.
Schmidt 1985 mentions other generative work on the NT and proposes a transformational
grammar. However, the overwhelming majority of recent linguistic work on the NT takes a functionalbased perspective, particularly Hallidayan grammar and systemic discourse analysis.
17
Some corpus-based studies of Greek have treated drama and philosophical dialogue texts as samples
of spoken language (eg Duhoux 1997). While the studies are valid in seeking to compare the usage of
different genres, it cannot be assumed that any such written evidence preserves spoken language in a
way comparable to the data in modern corpora like Cobuild and the British National Corpus (described by
Kennedy 1998: 46-48 and 50-54 respectively) .
10
registers, of different social occasions for writing etc. Data banks like TLG are not corpora in this
sense: they are digital archives from which users can compile corpora according to their own
criteria.18
Small sample sizes are adequate for some kinds of investigation, but in general larger sizes are
preferable, especially for reliable investigations of authorship. Lexical studies require very large
corpora, because significant vocabulary need not have high frequency; morphological
phenomena recur at a much higher rate, allowing use of smaller samples. It is also desirable to
include whole texts and not just extracts, particularly for study of discourse features.
Porter gives the following reasons for regarding the NT as a suitable corpus for linguistic study
(1989: 1):
*
It includes a set of texts by at least 8 authors and of several genres.
*
It is large enough to compare favourably with corpora used for analysis by others, being
similar in size, for example, to the Iliad and Thucydides (Romans is similar in size to
Plato’s Apology).
*
Its language gives a fair representation of the common language variety of the hellenistic
world.19
*
Little modern syntactic work has been done on it.
From the perspective of most work on hellenistic Greek, the NT (or NT and LXX) is the focus of
study and other documents are examined for the light they throw on the language of the NT.20
18
Such compilation is facilitated by TLG’s classification scheme, which identifies the genre, date and
geographical location of each text (Berkowitz & Squitier 1986: xiv ff).
19
The long-held and still occasionally repeated belief that the Greek of the NT was a creation of the early
church, influenced by the Semitic background of its authors, resulted from the unrepresentativeness of the
classical corpus being used to assess it. Once the contemporary papyrological evidence was known, it
became clear that the language of the NT was the normal written language of literate speakers of the
time. For evidence and discussions of this debate, see Horsley 1984, Porter 1989: 111-156, Porter 1991
and Horrocks 1997: 92-97. ON LXX Greek as vernacular Koine see Silva 1980 and Lee 1983: 1-30.
11
From a general linguistic perspective, the NT is still an important body of texts representing the
ordinary language of the period and should be incorporated into any large corpus used to
investigate that language. The difference in approach is apparent when compiling the corpus: a
general-purpose corpus need not include the whole NT and might dispense with the shorter
letters as too small to provide reliable results for some purposes. But even within NT studies
some quantitative or stylometric work compiles figures based on larger sections of text and
occasionally ignores or aggregates the smaller documents.21
Computational investigation of language usage has obvious benefits where large data sets are
available. An additional reason for a corpus-linguistic approach to hellenistic Greek is that it can
help to identify patterns and trends that are imperceptible even to close reading.22
This is
particularly important for study of texts produced in bilingual and diglossic situations, as in the
case of Greek, where frequency alone is sometimes the only indication of interference from
another language or of departure from previous usage.23
20
For example, this is the rationale behind the publication of papyrus letters from Egypt in White 1986:
‘The primary purpose of this collection of letters ... is to provide a comparative body of texts for assessing
the epistolary character of the early Christian letter tradition found in the New Testament and the Early
Church Fathers’ (3). Similar statements are found throughtout the book of the same title by Meecham
(1923).
21
For example, Kenny in some tables omits Jude and 1-3 John (eg Table 8.1, 1986: 50), but more often
adds them to James and 1-2 Peter as ‘Catholic Epistles’ (eg Table 5.2, 1986: 26). In my use of the NT as
a corpus I have divided the text into author-groups (with no implication of acceptance or otherwise of the
traditional ascriptions of authorship) for the purpose of creating manageable samples for statistical
analysis.
22
For instance, corpus-linguistic research has been able to identify differences in the practice of native-
and non-native English student writing, so as to help second language learners avoid unnatural-sounding
English; the features so identified are generated subconsciously and are not visible to readers except as
vague impressions. See for example Berglund & Mason 2003 on the successful use of such parameters
as frequency of pronoun use to identify subconscious stylistic features.
23
Hebrew influence on the Jewish and Christian Greek of the hellenistic period may be detected, for
instance, in an increased use of parataxis, which is a natural phenomenon of spoken language but may
also be a result of literal translation of the Hebrew ‘waw-consecutive’ construction (in which the particle
12
The present study is based on the NT as a corpus, totalling 138,167 words. As it is not my
purpose to consider issues of authorship, I have for convenience divided the 27 NT books
according to traditional author, giving 9 samples of varying size. The two other corpora used
have been similarly divided into unequal sized samples. The AF corpus is made up of 8
samples by traditional author, consisting of letters, narrative accounts and theological treatises
similar in genre to the NT writings; its total size is 64,640 words. For the much larger group of
writings in the LXX, I have extracted a corpus of 5 samples of different sizes but comparable
generic features, totalling 204,929 words. For descriptions of the individual texts, including their
date, genre and linguistic register, see Appendix A.
In addition to the generally reliable data extracted from Accordance, I have obtained frequency
counts of some prepositions from TLG and LSJ. Although they return different raw numbers, the
relative figures are in most cases similar, and may be useful where other data is unavailable.
b.
Grammaticalisation
The term ‘grammaticalisation’’24 refers to processes of syntactic change and to observed
tendencies of language variation over time. In recent usage it describes not only how lexical
items become grammatical morphemes but more generally how grammatical encoding of
meaning ‘and’ is part of the verb), or in extended use of prepositions in permissible but rare meanings
(such as ejn en used in instrumental PPs). These may be what Moulton calls ‘secondary Semitisms’, the
over-use of good Greek expressions under the influence of Hebrew and Aramaic usage (vol II, p 15).
24
Also know as ‘grammaticisation, ‘grammatisation’, ‘syntacticisation’ and ‘morphologisation’ (each of
these having a variant spelling with ‘z’). In recent publications ‘grammaticalization’ has become the most
common term. The invention of the term is attributed to Antoine Meillet, who defined it as ‘the attribution
of grammatical character to a previously autonomous word’ (Meillet 1912; 385, translated in Brinton &
Traugott 2005: 24). Surveys of recent work on grammaticalisation are provided in Harris & Campbell
1995, Heine 2003 and Hopper & Traugott 2003.
13
meaning emerges from lexical and collocational meanings. Metaphors like bleaching, fading,
weakening and erosion are used to describe processes of change, but without any implication
that language change represents degeneration; it is emphasised that loss in one area through a
grammaticalisation process is always offset by gain in another.
For example, in the
development of adpositions from adverbial particles, the loss of lexical content is offset by a gain
in the argument structure of the adpositional phrase.25
Grammaticalisation is often a result of pragmatic inferencing and is typically accompanied by
semantic reduction, phonetic reduction or generalisation of the context in which a meaning can
occur. At the morphosyntactic level the processes of grammaticalisation are reanalysis and
analogy. Reanalysis is the reinterpretation of a surface form that is capable of more than one
analysis. It changes the underlying syntactic structure so that the surface form is understood
differently even though it has not changed. The textbook example of this is the development in
English of ‘be going to’ from a verb expressing directional motion to one expressing purposive
motion and then to an auxiliary verb expressing futurity. These developments are possible
because the pragmatic implications of utterances in context allow the same surface structure to
carry extra meaning, which is reanalysed as inherent in the structure rather than in the context.
In this case, as often, the reanalysis is accompanied by wider contexts of use (for example, ‘be
going to’ is no longer obligatorily accompanied by a locative expression) and phonetic reduction
(‘gonna’ is possible for the auxiliary but not for the motion sense). This process of generalising a
word or rule so that it can be used in more contexts than before is analogy. It involves the
removal of limitations on the environments in which a word or construction can occur. Often
reanalysis and analogy operate together. In the ‘be going to’ development, the extension of the
meaning of the construction was possible because after reanalysis of the surface form, to
include purposive and not simply directional meaning, the environment in which it could occur
25
Vincent 1999.
14
was generalised to include contexts in which no direction was expressed.
Reanalysis
reinterprets ambiguous forms, and analogy regularises existing structures.
In Greek the adverbial particles, which originally had full lexical value and unrestricted word
order, came to be reanalysed as grammatical words, through the reinterpretation of surface
structures in which they frequently co-occurred with other content words, particularly nouns and
verbs. This led to their becoming fixed as either prefixes or prepositions. In the case of
prepositions a further development led to their association with one or more case and to the
preposition being eventually interpreted as the determiner of the case of its noun phrase, instead
of the inherent meaning of the case being independent as previously. (For example, the use of
the genitive case to express ablative meaning was replaced by a prepositional phrase: the caseonly means was no longer available. But the two parallel means of expressing locative meaning,
by a noun phrase in the dative case or by a prepositional phrase, co-existed as alternatives
much longer.)
It has long been noticed that there are trends in language change, such that certain types of
development occur often and in unrelated languages. For instance, English is one of many
languages that have formed future markers from a verb of motion.26 The development of IndoEuropean adverbial particles to adpositions, apparently independently in its daughter languages,
results from reanalysis of underlying structures and is a very early development of
configurational syntax in the language family.27
Grammaticalisation theory is weakly predictive, in that it suggests possible paths of change
without prescribing which paths a particular language will take or how far along the path a
change will go. In this paper I will bring quantitative data to bear on hypotheses thrown up by
26
Bybee et al 1994.
27
Hewson & Bubenik 2006: 1-27.
15
known trends in grammaticalisation and developments in earlier forms of Greek, in the
expectation that large data samples will reveal trends not visible to the ordinary reading of texts.
c.
Statistical analysis28
Much of the quantitative data compiled in this study is in the form of word counts or ratios of
usage (for example, number of preverb forms as a percentage of all verbs). However, for largescale comparison of different sample sizes it is desirable to provide more elaborate calculations,
to ensure that differences in raw number counts are really statistically significant and not merely
the result of normal variations in the samples. Significance, as used in this technical sense, is
an indication that the difference or relationship postulated between the samples is not due to
chance.
Because I have used corpora of different sizes, consisting of populations with different numbers
of samples, it is necessary to adjust the counts to allow for the variations caused by these
differences. The procedure I have used to test for significance first calculates the mean and
standard deviation of the samples and uses these to characterise a population of occurrences
that one would normally expect to observe.
The mean and standard deviation for each
population are then used to calculate the probability that differences between the two
populations are due to chance. Where more than two populations are being compared, this
calculation has to be made for each pair of populations. The resulting p-value (probability value)
is used to determine which differences can reliably be considered significant. In the physical
sciences a p-value of 0.02 or under is considered conclusive; for most purposes 0.05 or under is
conclusive, 0.10 is reliable and 0.15 is still likely to be significant. Setting the significance level is
a necessary preliminary to reading a p-value. For this study I have chosen the conservative
28
For information on the choice of an appropriate statistical method I am indebted to Dr Simon Angus,
School of Economics, University of NSW (personal communication).
16
option of 0.05; this means that a result is considered significant if there is at least 95%
probability that it is not due to chance.
The t-stat is calculated from the deviations of the samples from the mean and tells how many
standard errors the sample mean (X- bar) is from the hypothesised value for the mean. The
formula for the t-value is Xbar1 - Xbar2 / standard error of the difference among the means:
where Xbar is the mean of the samples and S is the standard deviation, calculated as:
S = square root of the sum of the squares of the deviations from the mean divided by the
number of samples minus one.
The p-value is the area in the two tails that is outside t-stat and minus-t-stat. Where the direction
of divergence of the hypothesised relation is known, a one-tailed test is conducted. (The ‘tail’ is
the portion of the distribution which in a bell curve graph appears as the narrow section to the
right and left of the area of normal distribution.) If the hypothesis merely suggests a difference
without predicting whether it is greater or less than the population being treated as the norm, a
2-tailed test for p-value is used: this divides the p-value between the two tails.
The p-value is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true, but only that obtaining a result
as extreme as the one being considered is the result of chance alone. It is used to test
hypotheses: that is, it calculates the probability that a hypothesised relation is due to chance,
17
with a p-value below the agreed significance level being interpreted as confirming the hypothesis
that the relation is not due to chance.
An example of testing a hypothesis using the t-test and p-value:
Null hypothesis: that the 3 populations LXX, NT and AF are the same with respect to preverb
frequency.
Hypothesis A: that the frequency of preverbs in NT and AF is greater than in LXX
This hypothesis is based on comments by Morgenthaler, cited by Kenny,29 that the absence of
preverbation in Hebrew and Aramaic suggests the possibility of using frequency of preverbation
in individual writers as a diagnostic of their familiarity with Greek.
An implication of this
suggestion is that translations from Hebrew to Greek might be likely to show less preverbation
than independent compositions in Greek by native speakers. (This is just a test hypothesis; the
assumption of a relation between the Greek of native-speakers or bilinguals writing translations
and that of writers in Greek with a poor grasp of the language due to their Semitic background is
not a necessary one; nor has it been established that any of the writers of the NT were not
Greek-speakers (whether as first language or not).)
We begin with raw percentages (word counts are unsuitable because the sample sizes are very
different).
Table 1.1: Preverbs as percentage of verbs
Jude
38.82
Clement
Martyrdom
36.40
Matthew
Pentateuch
35.34
Diognetus
Polycarp
35.00
Pauline
Proverbs
33.93
Ignatius
Luke-Acts
33.56
Shepherd
Hebrews
32.68
James
Chronicles
31.58
Barnabas
Mark
31.08
Ecclesiastes
Peter
30.40
Didache
Isaiah
30.17
Johannine
29
Kenny 1986: 49.
18
29.53
27.50
27.37
26.93
25.08
24.98
24.65
23.44
19.31
19.29
15.59
These counts need to be arranged into the populations which are being compared to each other.
To test the hypothesis, we list the percentage of preverbs to verbs in each sample of each
population, then calculate the mean and the standard deviation within each population.
Table 1.2 - LXX
All PVs
Pentateuch
Chronicles
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Isaiah
n=5
m
SD
A: PV % verbs
35.34
31.58
33.93
19.31
30.17
B: =A-m
5.27
1.51
3.86
-10.76
0.11
150.33
30.07
160.71
40.18
6.34
Table 1.3 - NT
All PVs
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
n=9
m
SD
A: PV % verbs
27.50
31.08
33.56
15.59
26.93
30.40
24.65
38.82
32.68
B: =A-m
-1.52
2.06
4.54
-13.44
-2.09
1.37
-4.37
9.80
3.66
261.22
29.02
n=8
m
SD
A: PV % verbs
29.53
25.08
35.00
36.40
19.29
24.98
23.44
27.37
2
C: =B
2.32
4.23
20.61
180.57
4.38
1.89
19.13
96.03
13.38
342.53
42.82
6.54
Table 1.4 - AF
All PVs
Clement
Ignatius
Polycarp
Martyrdom
Didache
Shepherd
Barnabas
Diognetus
2
C: =B
27.78
2.29
14.94
115.69
0.01
B: =A-m
1.90
-2.55
7.36
8.76
-8.34
-2.66
-4.19
-0.27
221.10
27.64
2
C: =B
3.59
6.52
54.20
76.74
69.62
7.07
17.59
0.07
235.40
33.63
5.80
The values n, m and SD are the input to the calculation of p-value by the formulas given above.
A full set of calculations for individual preverbs is given in Appendix B, Table 25.
19
When the t-stat and p-value are calculated for each pair of populations, three results are
obtained, which are conventionally displayed in a grid in which each population is listed twice, in
a row and in a column. To avoid confusion the values are listed only once for each pair, with the
cells that would duplicate this information left empty.
Table 3: One-tailed test
All PVs (as %
LXX
of all verbs)
LXX
m=30.07
NT
m=29.02
AF
m=27.64
NT
AF
0.29
0.388
0.71
0.245
0.46
0.326
To read this display, begin at the first row (in this case LXX). To see its relation with the other
populations, read across the row to the first filled cell (the cell that redundantly compares LXX to
LXX being left empty): this shows that in relation to LXX, NT has a t-stat of 0.29 and a p-value of
0.388. The t-stat is listed because it shows the direction of any change: a negative value would
show an increase, but here the positive value shows that NT has less preverbation than LXX.
None of the p-values falls under the significance level of 0.05, which means that Hypothesis A of
an increase in preverbation in the original-Greek texts over the translation-Greek texts is not
supported.
Note that the mean as shown is the average of the percentages in each population. Because
the samples are of different sizes, this is not the same as the percentage in the population as a
whole. The overall rate of preverbation in the 3 populations is:
LXX 33.47%, NT 27.33%, 26.22%
The variation here is greater than that listed as the mean in the test above. The purpose of the
test is to reduce the effect of variations in samples of unequal sizes in order to produce a more
reliable estimate of probability. In this case it suggests that the populations show less difference
20
from each other than seems apparent from the raw counts and the overall percentages. This
procedure produces an important caveat: claims about usage must be based on clear standards
and not simply on impressionistic readings.
A hypothesis that the populations are different that does not predict the direction of difference
would produce a different result. In this case, the hypothesis critical p-value is halved, since this
area is now split between the upper and lower tails (or to express it the other way round, the
probability that the null hypothesis is correct is doubled):
Table 4: Two-tailed test
All PVs (as %
LXX
of all verbs)
LXX
m=30.07
NT
m=29.02
AF
m=27.64
NT
AF
0.29
0.775
0.71
0.490
0.46
0.653
Calculation of probability-values by this method is appropriate for the comparison of groups of
data where each group is to be compared to the others and each group consists of several
samples of different sizes. It does not apply to the comparison of single-sample groups; for
example, when considering the usage of tense forms with preverbation in Classical Greek and in
the New Testament, we have insufficient data to obtain p-values, since comparable verb-counts
are not available for different authors (see Chapter 3 on data from the classical author Lysias).
d.
Transliteration
The Greek alphabet has a number of characters that do not correspond to roman letters.
Throughout this study I have used a simple transliteration scheme, in which the Greek
characters that represented an aspirated stop are rendered by the roman stop character and ‘h’:
ph, th, kh. Vowels are not distinguished by length even though Greek has separate characters
21
for two of its long vowels (the phonetic distinction maintained in the spelling was lost by the later
Koine period). Where the roman alphabet has a single character that represents a Greek letter,
I use it in preference to a more phonemic spelling; x instead of ks for x, but ps for y which has
no roman equivalent. Iota subscript is written linearly in the roman script. In most places in the
text I give the Greek word followed by a transliteration, but in lists and tables I give just the
transliteration, in order to make the presentation of data less cluttered. I have not usually
reproduced the accent diacritics in the transliterations, except where accent placement is
relevant to the discussion. When giving sample sentences I give the Greek in the first line, then
a transliteration aligned with a gloss and/or morpheme breakdown for each word, and finally a
translation. I have not attempted to provide a phonetic or phonological representation of the
Greek, since the historical spelling conceals significant changes over the long time-span
discussed, and some of the changes are not securely dated.30 The Greek font used in the body
of this study is ‘Galilee’. In Appendix C (where the data is not transliterated), the font is ‘Helena’,
as used in Accordance.
Summary
In this chapter I have offered reasons for continuing to make the Greek language an object of
linguistic investigation and for using the New Testament as a corpus for quantitative study of
hellenistic Greek.
I have suggested that a combination of corpus linguistics and
grammaticalisation theory is likely to provide a viable method of discovering facts about the
language that would be difficult to perceive by other forms of analysis, and I have outlined a
basic statistical method that is designed to increase the reliability of quantitative analyses. In the
next chapter I turn to the history of Greek and trace the origins and development of the
prepositions and preverbs that will be studied in Chapter 3.
30
For phonetic transcriptions of Greek texts from all periods, see Horrocks 1997.
22
Chapter 2 – From Proto-Indo-European to Classical Greek
In this chapter I outline what is known of P-words from the earliest period for which there is
evidence, namely the Proto-Indo-European language as it has been reconstructed by historical
linguistics, and trace the changes in their usage, particularly in the development of
configurational syntax, through all attested periods of Greek to the end of the classical period.
The P-words are a distinctive feature of most of the daughter languages of Proto-Indo-European
and offer a rich source of data for cross-linguistic, diachronic and typological studies. Greek with
its three thousand year written history is a unique resource for the study of the origins and
development of this significant and still inadequately understood group of words.
Indo-European and Pre-Greek
Greek is the sole representative of one of the ten branches of Proto-Indo-European (PIE),31 a
language or group of dialects spoken about 4500 BC in an area of eastern Europe to the north
and east of the Black Sea.32 The language as reconstructed by the comparative method is
31
There are ten branches in Fortson’s diagram (2004: 10); Campbell’s has only 8 (2004: 190-1), as he
combines Italic and Celtic as one sub-group and Greek and Armenian as another. If Greek and Armenian
form one sub-group that diverged very early it would mean that the centum-satem phonological divide in
IE languages was to some extent an areal feature and not just a matter of different innovations in different
family groups. There are several known ancient languages that cannot be securely affiliated with any of
the major branches.
32
According to the Kurgan hypothesis of PIE origins, which appears to be the majority view at present.
Other suggested homelands are Anatolia, Armenia, India and even the North Pole (Fortson 2004: 36,
quoting Mallory 1989). Different theories have been proposed on linguistic, archaeological, geographic
and population-genetics grounds; it seems these disciplines rarely point in the same direction. The
Kurgan hypothesis is based on a combination of archaeology and linguistics, principally the nature of the
vocabulary that can be reconstructed for PIE and what this tells us about the culture of its speakers. See
the discussions of Beekes 1995 Chapter 3, Fortson 2004 Chapter 2 and Campbell 2004: 401-2.
23
extensively described by Fortson.33 It had a large inventory of consonants (for example, 15
stops) and at least 8 vowels. Word-roots consisted of a limited number of combinations of
consonants with a fundamental vowel and often other vowels or syllabic consonants.
Polysyllabic words had at least one syllable characterised by a higher pitch. The pitch accent
was mobile and cannot always be reconstructed; it is generally believed that verbs in PIE were
clitics, without their own accent.34 A central feature of morphology was ablaut (usually termed
apophony in relation to Greek), a system of vowel alternations in which different vowels
appeared in roots according to the type of word being derived; inflections and other suffixes
could also ablaut. Words typically consisted of a root, a suffix (or ablaut) and an ending.
Compounding and prefixation also occurred, with reduplication of an initial syllable being
common. PIE was richly inflected, with 8 or 9 cases, three numbers, three persons and several
tenses, all occurring in an older athematic (no vowel) or less archaic thematic (e or o before the
inflection) form.
The word categories that will concern us in our study of Greek prepositions and preverbs are
verbs and adverbs. The PIE verbal system was morphologically complex. It contrasted tense
and aspect, but without a full system in which all tenses occurred in all aspects. Imperfective
present and imperfect tenses existed in aspectual contrast to an always perfective aorist tense,
along with a stative aspect that probably had its own past form (the traditionally termed perfect
and pluperfect);35 there was no future tense. There were two voices (active and middle or
33
Fortson 2004: phonology Ch 3; morphology Ch 4; syntax Ch 8. The following information on the
characteristics of PIE is derived from these chapters. On the comparative method see Beekes 1995 Ch
10, Fortson 2004: Ch 1 and Campbell 2004 Ch 5.
34
Fortson 2004: 99, who notes that in Greek the accent rules for verbs resemble those of clitics rather
than nouns (though of course Greek verbs were no longer clitics as postulated for PIE).
35
This is the view of Jasanoff, who proposes a slightly different reconstruction of the PIE verbal system
from the traditional one on the basis of his investigation of Hittite (the IE language with the earliest
attestation after Vedic Sanskrit) (2001: 215). The view of Porter 1989 that the Greek verbal system was
built around aspect and not tense is incompatible with most reconstructions of the PIE system.
24
perhaps mediopassive; the passive developed from the middle in the daughter branches), four
or five moods, three numbers and three persons with two sets of personal endings. An originally
independent particle became attached to past tense forms as an ‘augment’; it survived in Greek,
Armenian, Phrygian and Sanskrit.36 It bore the stress and in Greek is responsible for a large
amount of allophony in compound verbs, where it comes between the preverb and the root.37
The Greek particles ana, anti, amphi, ek, en, epi, kata, peri, pros, huper, hupo are all reflexes of
known IE adverbial particles.38 In PIE they functioned as independent adverbs, but in collocation
with nouns they were (primarily) postpositions; most of the daughter languages, however, have
prepositional reflexes.
These particles could modify verbs without being restricted to the
preverbal position; in some IE descendants the compound verb (combination of preverb and
verb) can have an intervening clitic, or the morphemes can be detached, or the preverb can be
fronted for emphasis.39
We next meet the P-words in Mycenaean Greek, which is chronologically the earliest attested
form of the language.
However, there is a three thousand year gap between PIE and
Mycenaean, which can be only partially bridged by reconstruction of Proto-Greek on the basis of
36
Beekes 1995: 226. Phrygian is an IE language spoken in central Asia Minor, with texts from 800 BC to
AD 600; its affiliation if any with other IE languages is not known.
37
The allophony, due to interactions between adjoining vowels and between vowels and aspirates, is
reflected in the spelling; this is one of the reasons the unlemmatised TLG archive is difficult to search.
38
These were not full adverbs of the type commonly formed from adjectives in many IE daughter
languages. In PIE certain case-forms of nouns or adjectives could function adverbially, but the particles
we are considering were mostly independent not derived words (Beekes 1995; 218). It is thought,
however, that even some of these particles can be traced back to case-inflected nouns in an earlier stage
of PIE; for instance, Greek ajntiv anti ‘against’ may come from a word meaning ‘face’ (Hewson & Bubenik
2006: 381).
39
See Fortson 2004: 140 for examples from Old Irish and Gothic, Modern German and Dutch, and
Avestan.
25
comparison of ancient dialects. All such reconstructions remain controversial because of the
difficulty of matching up linguistic and archaeological data.40
Little is known of the migration patterns of the groups of IE speakers into Europe. Greek has
been spoken in the southern Balkan peninsula continuously since the arrival of Proto-Greek
speakers in several waves of migration from approximately the beginning of the second
millennium BC. The earliest documents in Greek date from about 1500 BC (only slightly later
than Old Hittite). Traces of pre-Greek languages remain in some elements of vocabulary,
especially place-names, but substrate influence cannot be identified in phonology or morphology
because of the lack of attestation for the languages.
The early, widespread and partly
discontinuous range of dialects confirms the archaeological evidence for a period of mass
migrations, which are not securely datable but may have continued through most of the second
millennium BC; however, it should be noted that the earliest Greek documents do not take us
back as far as a form of Common Greek or Proto-Greek. We still do not know where or when
Greek broke away from IE and how long it existed as a separate language before its speakers
entered the Balkans.
Mycenaean Greek
The earliest Greek documents, palace records preserved on accidentally fired clay tablets and
written in the syllabary known as Linear B, are in a ‘supraregional administrative language’
(Palmer 1980: 57) based on an Arcado-Cyprian dialect. As a chancellery language it is far more
uniform than we might expect from the high level of dialect variation known to have existed, and
so perhaps represents an early Koine.41 The tablets have been found in Crete and in the
40
See Adrados 2005: Chapters 1 & 2 for a contested reconstruction and references to the debate.
41
The Mycenaean documents span several centuries and have been found in diverse areas: the north-
western and eastern Peloponnese and Crete. It was the unanimous opinion of Greeks in antiquity that the
large range of dialects never diverged to the point of mutual unintelligibility. However, it is possible that
26
northeast and southwest Peloponnese, but the language shows little diversity for such a
geographically wide range.
The Mycenaean language, so named because the palace of
Mycenae is one of the centres of the civilisation that produced the Linear B tablets, has
preserved some of the phonology of IE not found in later Greek, such as the series of labiovelar
stops; it shares many features otherwise known only from the Homeric writings, and yet is
notably lacking in other features characteristic of Homer.42 The reason for this anomaly is that
the tradition of orally transmitted epic poetry preserved archaic features that were already
obsolete in the spoken language of the Mycenaean civilisation; Homer and the Linear B texts
share some features of early Greek lost by the classical period, but the language of epic is
deliberately archaic and conservative and preserves some even earlier features.43
the continuum of ancient dialects had mutually unintelligible extremities. On the ancient dialect continuum
and what it tells us about population movements of Greek speakers see Finkelberg 1994; see also
Horrocks 1997: 7-16. Dialect diversity was always accompanied by a range of regional Koines that had a
standardising tendency, and frequent and regular interactions between speakers of different dialects was
the norm (Bubenik 1993), with the partial exception of the ‘Dark Ages’ (1200-800 approx).
42
Note that it is conventional to refer to the composer(s) of the Iliad and Odyssey by the name of the
traditional author, Homer, without implication that there was one figure or one stage of composition behind
the poems.
One of the significant features shared by Mycenaean and Homeric Greek is the lack of the definite article,
which developed in Greek (considerably earlier than in any other IE language) only shortly before the
classical period. In the Linear B documents the relative pronoun is rare and may be an adverb (‘thus’)
(Vilborg 1960: 101, 125); in Homer what look like articles are relative and personal pronouns (from which
the article later developed) (Hewson & Bubenik 2006: 3-4, 55-56).
43
18.
On the use of archaic formulas in oral composition of epic poetry see Nagy 1996 and Horrocks 1997:
According to the Parry-Lord hypothesis (as presented for instance in Lord 1960), poetry was
composed in performance and employed a stock of key phrases in various metrically useful forms. As
Householder put it: ‘The interplay of formulas ... is ... advantageous to diachronic perspective because of
its conservative effect on the linguistic heritage. Configurations which otherwise would have long ago
become extinct remain embedded in this or that expression preserved by the formulaic structure. It is to
the Epic that we owe the perpetuation of the most archaic words in the Greek repertory, often coexisting
side-by-side in the same line with the most recent.’ (Householder & Nagy 1972: 20-21.) Some of the
poetic formulas are thought to date back to PIE, providing evidence of very early cultural practices such as
myths and religious rituals. See Householder & Nagy 1972: 48-58 for examples of striking parallels in
Homeric, Hittite and Sanskrit verbal collocations.
27
Some of the P-words are attested in Mycenaean but do not exhibit the IE-like behaviour that is
seen in Homer. In the Linear B texts there are prepositions and preverbs but no postpositions or
tmesis (separation of verb and preverb). (See below on Homer’s use of P-words.) In the light of
the development of the P-words in other IE languages, there is no reason to suppose that the
usage in Mycenaean was far different from what became the norm in classical times. Homer,
though intermediate (in terms of when the poems were finally committed to writing) between the
Mycenaean and classical periods, represents an earlier stage of the language in respect to the
usage of the P-words.
The nature of the Linear B documents precludes a full analysis of the Mycenaean language. The
script is inadequate for Greek, as it makes phonetic distinctions Greek does not have and fails to
make others that are significant in Greek. It cannot represent consonant clusters, so either
deletes a consonant or inserts a vowel. Word-final consonants are not shown, which leaves
significant morphology unrepresented. Many words are not securely identified with known
Greek words, as there are often multiple possible conversions to later Greek spelling. The
vocabulary of the tablets consists mostly of personal and place-names, and there are few verbs
and function words and very little clause-level syntax. Nevertheless, the P-words amphi, apo,
epi, sun, meta and para are attested as prepositions; ana, en, peri, pro and huper as preverbs;
and anti and kata as elements of personal names. The only aspect of their usage inconsistent
with classical usage is that hupo is found as an adverb.44
44
This information is from Vilborg 1960: 119-123.
A dictionary of Linear B is available on-line at
www.explorecrete.com/archaeology/linearB.pdf. It lists several P-forms, among them the prepositions apu (ajpov apo), e-pi (ejpiv epi), pa-ra (parav para), the adverb u-po (uJpov hupo) and the compound verbs a-pie-ke (ajmfievcei amphiekhei ‘contains’ [hold around]) and e-pi-ko-wo (ejpivkoƒoi epikowoi ‘pay attention’
[look on]). (The conventional transcription of Linear B is to separate syllables by hyphens. Every
character represents a syllable of V or CV type.)
28
The destruction of the centralised Mycenaean civilisation during the twelfth century led to a long
period of population decline, illiteracy, social and linguistic regionalism and economic
depression. There is almost no trace of writing for four centuries. Political and linguistic
unification did not reoccur until the hellenistic period. Alphabetic inscriptions appear from the
early eighth century BC, and shortly after this the Homeric epics reached the form in which they
have been handed down: ‘essentially an archaic eastern Ionic but with an admixture of Aeolic,
and a number of conspicuous archaisms not characteristic of any one historical dialect or region’
(Horrocks 1997:18).
The language of epic was thus not an actual spoken dialect but a
conventionalised form that developed in a manner typical of orally transmitted poetry and later
became a prestigious literary variety. Nevertheless, as is clear from comparison with other
ancient IE languages, the peculiarities of the Homeric Dichtersprache are not all merely the
result of its poetic form, and therefore offer some reliable evidence for developments in the
language between PIE and Mycenaean.
Homeric Greek and the P-words
The P-words in Homer have been studied by Horrocks in Space and Time in Homer:
Prepositional and Adverbial Particles in the Greek Epic (1981) and by Luraghi in On the Meaning
of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek (2003).45
Horrocks begins from the position that:
... the language of the Iliad and Odyssey is regarded as a unitary dialect to be treated
from a synchronic point of view ... despite the chronologically and geographically
disparate origins of vocabulary items, grammatical forms, etc, I take the view,
45
Horrocks 1981 is a type-script with hand-written Greek examples; it gives no transliterations or glosses.
Frequent citations in French are untranslated. There are few headings or breaks in the text, and no index,
making it difficult to go back to sections of interest. Luraghi’s book is explicitly intended for general
linguists with no knowledge of Greek script, and gives all Greek examples in roman transliteration with
lexical glosses and morphemic analysis.
29
consistent with the interpretation of the poems as products of a long and sophisticated
oral tradition, that this amalgam was put to use as a coherent and self-contained
system by individual singers, without assuming knowledge on the part of those singers
of the history and origins of the material employed. (1981: 1)
However, this is to regard the conscious mixture of vernacular and archaic language as
representing a unified linguistic system, whereas no such coexistence is known outside this
literary or performance dialect. Some of Horrocks’ findings regarding the usage and syntactic
character of P-words in Homer depend on this assumption, relying on a spurious synchronic
unity.46 For example, he argues that in Homeric Greek the P-word is an adverbial particle even
where it occurs with a noun phrase in an oblique case, on the grounds that if the P-word is not
always a preposition then it cannot ever be the head of a prepositional phrase.
But this
disregards the fact that competing systems were present in the same semi-artificial dialect due
to the deliberate use of older patterns; there is no need to claim that only one system (P as head
of dependent NP, or N as head of NP accompanied by adverb) was synchronically possible in
the language of performance. The older IE system used case to indicate spatial relations, and
any accompanying P-word added meaning without taking over the case function; but both
Mycenaean and classical Greek increasingly used prepositional phrases with the preposition
governing the noun phrase and determining its case, even though (from a diachronic
perspective) it had been the case functions which originally determined what cases a preposition
would govern.47 In Homer both systems (independent case and configurational syntax) are still
present, and to insist that one system is still underlyingly the other is to perform the classical
46
This seems somewhat akin to arguing that the hymn writers of the nineteenth century, who regularly
used obsolete morphology and word order, had only a single underlying synchronic grammar, instead of
recognising that their conscious archaism was a separate system within the genre, which allowed ‘normal’
as well as archaic usage.
47
On case-syncretism in Mycenaean (particularly the fusion of PIE dative and locative) see Horrocks
1981: 128ff: he concludes that prepositional syntax had replaced case as the usual expression of locative
relations.
30
grammarians’ error in reverse: they viewed Homer’s usage as a departure from their own,48
while Horrocks appears to deny that the developments have yet taken place in the epic
language.49 In any case, a different but still strictly synchronic view of the data is possible if the
variation is viewed as the normal outcome of grammaticalisation processes, which typically
generate changes which may coexist with the original constructions. Greek speakers must have
been able to recognise and produce both free and syntactically restricted uses of P-words for
some time while the reanalysis of the constructions was taking place, just as English speakers
can use ‘going to’ in two different syntactic constructions.
Whether Horrocks’ views on the dependency relations of prepositional phrases are accepted or
not, his attempt to find a theoretically rigorous explanation for the variation in Homeric usage is
an improvement on older treatments, which typically are unable to find a unified classification for
the facts of usage.50
However, his analysis is unnecessarily complex.
He interprets
independent adverbial uses of particles as ‘implicitly prepositional, since a noun phrase can, in
principle, always be supplied ... adverb phrases consisting of independent particles are
interpreted as pro-forms of full adverb phrases, i.e. as incorporating a covert adverbial element
meaning something like “here”/”there” which is qualified by the particle and construed
anaphorically as co-referential with some previously mentioned adverbial noun phrase (1981:
20). It seems gratuitous to introduce covert elements in this manner. And, like the older
grammarians, he treats differences of positioning of P-words in relation to verbs as different
48
This is clear from their use of the term ‘tmesis’ (‘cutting’) as a description of the phenomenon by which,
as it seemed to them, a preverb became separated from its host verb.
49
He does not of course deny the actual usages, but denies that the configurational patterns in Homer
have syntactic meaning at this stage. He treats the Homeric language in effect as a stage completely
prior to Mycenaean rather than as showing a mixture of older and newer patterns (1981: 18-19). As noted
above in relation to the definite article, there are some features of the two stages which are identical and
do not allow such a complete separation.
50
Horrocks takes Chantraine 1953 as ‘typical of the traditional view of the subject; similar accounts
appear in all the standard grammars and works of reference’ (1981: 10). These accounts note the
differences from classical usage without offering an explanatory account of their development.
31
kinds of syntactic phenomena (phrasal verbs, compound verbs etc), when it accounts for the
facts just as well to regard them as coexisting different stages on the well-known
grammaticalisation path from free lexical items to more restricted function words.51
Horrocks briefly notes that P-words can be associated with verbs in such a way as to make them
transitive (1981: 41). The examples he gives show that the P-word is free to associate with verb
or NP:
(1) a.
ton;; d‘ au\te proseveipe qea; glaukw:piV
ton
d’
PRN.ACC PTC
‘Aqhvnh
aute
proseeipe
thea
glaukopis
Athene
again
P towards.spoke
goddess
gleaming-eyed Name
‘The goddess Athena with gleaming eyes addressed him again’ (A.206)
(1) b.
pro;V d’ Eujrukleivan e[eipen
pros
d’
P towards PTC
Eurykleian
eeipen
Name.ACC
spoke
‘he addressed Eurykleia’
(u.128)
Here the P-word provides the means to give the verb a direct object (shown in both examples by
the accusative case); normally the verb ‘speak’ can have as an object only words like
‘something’ or ‘a word’. As yet it is still the spatial meaning of the P-word that is doing the work,
rather than a fixed P-word/verb combination where the verb has different properties of
transitivity. The collocation of a verb of speaking with provV pros + ACC as PP remained an
51
It should be noted that Horrocks was writing from a generativist (transformationalist) rather than
functional perspective, before the modern predominantly functionalist renewal of interest in
grammaticalisation.
32
option in classical and later Greek. Nevertheless it is clear how a transitive verb could develop
from this configuration.
Horrocks has a short final section in which he examines the use of the P-words ajpov apo and ejpiv
epi in phrasal and compound verbs. While noting that the meanings of such verb combinations
are typically not compositional, he traces stages in Homeric usage where the parts seem to
retain their separate semantic contributions to the whole, and developments in which the
collocation of verb and particle appears to restrict the options available for accompanying noun
phrases in a way that suggests that the environment in which they are used has changed.
Some uses of the P-words are found to be ‘purely aspectual, with very little of the literal meaning
retained’ (1981: 277). The most common aspectual meanings for ajpov apo are resultative and
intensive, but he finds some examples of inceptives. Interestingly, he finds a difference in the
resultative uses of the PVs ejpiv epi and ajpov apo:
While ajpov is characteristically used in perfective function with the nuance of ‘removal’,
and so tends to appear with destructive verbs, ej p iv is generally associated with
‘creative’ verbs describing an action whose performance ‘to a result’ brings the affected
object ‘onto the scene’ in a state of completion ... availability for some purpose, etc.
(1981: 283-4)
Another resultative sense of ejpiv epi occurs in verbs of ‘urging on’; but it also occasionally has a
durative or repetitive sense. This is consistent with the stronger correlation of the preverb ajpov
apo with perfective aspect, in comparison with ejpiv epi, in verbs in the New Testament (Table
B.23) and suggests that this aspectual correlation will be found throughout the intervening period
(between Homer and late Koine) when data on individual preverb usage becomes available.
On the development of P-words into aspect-related function words Horrocks concludes with a
statement that is entirely consistent with a grammaticalisation approach:
33
... a great many linguistic oppositions to do with notions such as inception, duration,
completion and so on are learned as a kind of analogical extension of oppositions first
learned in connection with concepts such as location, movement and orientation. It
cannot be entirely accidental that the same set of particles are used to express both
types of relationship. (1981: 287)
Horrocks goes on to investigate the semantics of the P-words in relation to their interaction with
case, particularly the originally locative meanings of the cases and their metaphorical
extensions.
His componential approach to the semantics of case is expressed in the
terminology later used in Cognitive Linguistics, including the explicitly cognitive approach taken
by Luraghi 2003, who extends the description to include classical Greek usage. Her emphasis is
on establishing the meanings of the preposition-case configurations in Homer, which she argues
are primarily the prototypical spatial meanings, and then showing from a selection of classical
texts how the temporal and other metaphorical extensions of meaning developed from the
spatial ones. Both Horrocks and Luraghi employ the terminology of Source, Path and Goal and
provide plausible reasons for the often slight or apparently imperceptible differences in usage
between prepositions, and between the cases governed by a preposition.
Horrocks’ work is an early attempt to bring current linguistic understanding to bear on issues that
had previously been the domain of philologists and classicists. He rightly rejects approaches
that see the classical language as the standard and earlier stages as merely incomplete
versions of it, an attitude that is implicit in many descriptions of Homeric Greek which fail to
notice that words and constructions that have a surface similarity to classical Greek in fact have
different underlying structures (as in the pronouns that look like articles, and the P-words that
look like preverbs and prepositions). Nevertheless, he overstates the case when he argues that
all the configurational patterns of P-words, for which he has a complex categorisation, are either
merely optional or idiosyncratic collocations and that prepositions are not yet heads of their PPs.
34
The Mycenaean evidence suggests rather that the variety of P-word usage in Homer is due to
the retention of archaisms which can be used simultaneously with more recent systems of
configuration. It is evidence of an earlier form of Greek but exists only in a mixed form of the
language in which older and newer patterns coexist. Horrocks’ work remains valuable for its
general approach and its wealth of examples, but it has now been superseded by Luraghi 2003,
where the data is much more accessible to general linguists and is organised around a more
theoretically consistent approach.
Luraghi begins by stating the theoretical assumptions of Cognitive Linguistics, that grammatical
forms are meaningful and that abstract meaning usually derives from metaphorical extension of
spatial meaning, space being the basic domain of human experience (2003: 11-12). Unlike
Horrocks she considers that this cognitive approach ‘necessarily implies the integration of a
diachronic dimension in the analysis of meaning’, although it does not imply that an original
spatial meaning is synchronically available as a ‘basic’ meaning (2003: 12). She shows however
that in Homer the spatial meaning is still available for almost all the prepositions, whereas by
classical Greek the meanings are less specific and often wholly metaphorical. The prototypically
spatial prepositions en ‘in’ (+dative), ek ‘out of’ (+genitive) and eis ‘into’ (+accusative) are the
most stable and show the least metaphorical extension (2003: 315); they also retain the most
synchronically accessible semantic connection with the locative, ablative and allative functions of
PIE cases.
Luraghi is only incidentally concerned with the P-words’ association with verbs. However, her
summary of Homeric usage is more accessible than Horrocks’, and her wealth of examples of all
the combinations of preposition and case usage is a valuable resource, and includes instances
of all the types of verb and P-word combination found in Homer. Her study is used as the
35
source for Hewson & Bubenik’s discussion of the development of prepositions in Ancient Greek
(2006: Chapters 1 & 3).52
These studies may differ in their reconstructions of the exact paths of change from PIE to Greek,
but they are united in arguing that the traditional classical-oriented view of Homeric usage as an
aberrant one is anachronistic, and that Homer represents an intermediate stage in the
development of P-words from free to configurational elements.
P-words could appear in four configurations in Homer:53
(A)
Preposed before a Noun Phrase
(2)
ejpi; gai:an ajp’ oujranovqen protravphtai
epí
gaian
ap’
ouranothen
protrapetai
P to
earth.ACC
P from
heaven.[GEN] P.turn.3SG
‘to earth from heaven he turns’
(3)
ejpi; cevrsou
epí
khersou
P.near
shore.GEN
‘near the shore’
(4)
ejpi; krotavfoiV ajrarui:a
epí
krotaphois
araruia
P to
temples.DAT.PL
suited
‘ f i t t i n g
52
m y
h e a d ’
In refreshing contrast to Horrocks 1981 and Luraghi 2003, this study always gives the tradtional script
as well as transliterations and glosses, making it convient for both Greek specialists and general linguists.
53
Examples (2) to (13 from the Iliad and Odyssey all show the P-word ej p iv epi and are taken from
Hewson & Bubenik 2006: 4-7. The P-forms are printed in red in the transliterations.
36
In these examples the meaning of the P-word comes from its interaction with the case of the NP.
The accusative case is associated with movement, while the oblique cases are not. In (2) there
are 3 P-words: two preposed to NPs and one preposed to the verb. As in classical Greek ajpov
apo governs the genitive case, but in (2) there is an older genitive morpheme -qen –then instead
of the classical case form oujranou: ouranou.
(B)
Postposed after a Noun Phrase
(5)
o{ssa te gai:an e[pi pneivei
hossa
te
gaian
what.NOM.PL and earth
épi
pneiei
P on
breathe.3SG54
‘whatever on the earth breathes’
(6)
ajletreuvousi muvlh/V e[pi mhvlopa karpovn
aletreuousi
muleis
épi
grind.3PL
millstone.DAT.PL P on
melopa
karpon
yellow
grain.ACC
‘they grind the yellow grain on the millstone’
The accent on the first syllable of the P-word indicates that it is not a free adverb or preverb.
This accent placement (termed anastrophe) is of ancient origin, but as accents were not
regularly written until the middle Koine period it cannot be definitely asserted that it represents a
phonetic reality. It is possible, for instance, that it is an early attempt by grammarians conscious
of the anomaly of Homeric usage to differentiate graphically the two types of adposition.
However, Hewson & Bubenik treat the accent placement as genuinely diagnostic: ‘the inner core
prepositions are marked phonologically by lack of accent ... the outer core prepositions are
marked by an accent on the ultimate syllable ... the peripheral prepositions are accented on the
54
The singular verb with a neuter plural subject is normal in Greek, although usually the subject is not
animate. The Greek neuter plural suffix derives from a PIE collective marker (Fortson 2004: 118, 143).
37
antepenultimate’ (2006: xi). The poetic metre is no help here because the pitch accent was only
indirectly related to metre, which was based on syllable quantity.
Note that the P-word with accusative case in (5) cannot have the same meaning as in (2) and
does not mean ‘breathes on the earth’.
(C)
Tmesis (belonging with the verb but not preposed)
(7)
kai; ejpi; knevfaV iJero;n e[lqh/
kai
epí
knephas
hieron
elthe
and
P on
darkness
sacred
come.3SG
‘and the sacred darkness closes in’
(8)
hjd’ ejpi; sh:m’ e[ceen
ed’
epí
sem’
ekheen
and
P on
barrow heap.IMPF.3SG
‘and heaped a barrow on (him)’
(9)
oi|sin ejpi; Zeu;V qh:ke kako;n movron
hoisin
epí
who.DAT.PL P on
Zeus
theke
kakon
moron
Zeus.NOM
put.AOR.3SG
evil.ACC
doom.ACC
‘on whom Zeus put an evil doom’
In (7) the verb is intransitive and there is no oblique NP. In (8) the NP is the direct object of the
verb, and there is no overt locative or indirect object. In (9), it would be unusual to have a Pword postposed after a prosodically weak word like a pronoun, and the accent supports reading
the P-word as a preverb in tmesis, as it is the usual final accent for the preposition rather than
38
anastrophe as would be required if it collocated with oi|sin hoisin (but note the caveat mentioned
above on example (6) regarding the reliability of accent judgements).
(D)
Preverb
(10) kefalh/: d’ ejpevqhke kaluvptrhn
kephale
d’
epetheke
kaluptren
head.DAT
PRT
P on.put.AOR.3SG
veil.ACC
‘and on her head she put a veil’
(11) puvrgwn hJmetevrwn ejpibhvseai
purgon
hemeteron
epibeseai
wall.GEN.PL
our.GEN.PL
P on.mount.FUT.2SG
‘you shall mount upon our walls’
(12) nho;V ejpiqrw/vskwn
neos
epithroskon
ship.GEN.SG
P on.leap.PRES.PTCP.3MSG
‘as he leapt aboard his ship’
In (9) there is a direct object and an oblique NP that relates semantically to the PV. According to
Hewson & Bubenik the dative in (10) is more closely locative than the genitive in (11) and (12),
where the location is a space that people can move around in; but they do not report whether
this genitive construction can occur where there is a direct object (2006: 8), and it may be that
the difference in case assignment relates to the transitivity of the verb, or to the particular
39
semantics of ejpitivqhmi epitithemi ’put on’, which requires an extra argument (on this verb see
Appendix C).
The following example from Hewson & Bubenik is said to be an example of adverbial usage of
the P-word, but they also call it a post-posed preverb, which seems more likely (notwithstanding
the oxymoron). It is the same verb ejpevlqein epelthein ‘come upon’ as in (7) above.
(13) h[lq’ e[pi yuch; jAgamevmnonoV
elth’
épi
come.AOR.3SG P on
psukhe
Agamemnonos
soul.NOM
Name.GEN
‘the soul of Agamemnon approached’
The P-words in classical Greek
This then is the range of usage of P-words in Homer; their position in regard to verbs and noun
phrases is not fixed, and nor is their association with specific cases. By the classical period (the
fifth and fourth centuries BC) they have become much more grammatical, in the sense that their
meaning is more dependent on their syntactic behaviour. Only one P-word, periv peri, retains
the option of being postposed to a noun phrase (a construction called anastrophe; note the
regression of the accent as discussed under example (6)), as in:
(14) a. Homer
Acilleu;V a[stu pevri Priavmoio posi;n tacevessi diwvkei
Achilleus
astu
péri
Priamoio
posin
Name.NOM
city.N/A
P around
Name.GEN
foot.DAT.PL
takheessi
diokei
swift.DAT.PL
pursue.PRES.3SG
(Iliad 22:172-3, from Luraghi 2003: 273)
‘Achilles is pursuing him with swift feet round the city of Priam’
40
(14) b.
classical Greek
dikai:wn pevri kai; ajdivkwn
dikaion
péri
kai
adikon
just.M/N.GEN.PL
P about
and
unjust.M/N.GEN.PL
‘and about the just and the unjust’ (Plato Gorgias 455a (LSJ s.v. peri))
So by the classical period the P-words are restricted to configurational and not independent use.
When associated with verbs they are preverbs, not adverbs, and when associated with NPs they
are prepositions, rarely postpositions and never adverbs.
Verbs with preverbation have a
tendency to be associated more strongly with perfective or imperfective aspect, according on the
meaning that the preverb contributes to the collocation.
(See below for evidence of the
association of preverbation and aspect in Lysias.) Prepositions, on the other hand, have a much
clearer association with case, although again the semantics of the P-word also contributes to the
formal features of PPs. From the situation in PIE and to a lesser extent in Homer, where case
contributed the distinctions of locative meaning and the P-word modified this meaning as an
optional adjunct, we have arrived at a stage of grammaticalisation where the collocation of Pword and case is no longer optional, and the preposition is the determiner of the meaning of the
PP, with case as a secondary contributor.
Table 2.1, taken from Luraghi 2005, shows the ‘proper prepositions’ with the cases they govern
in classical Greek. The glosses given are of course over-simplified, but they enable us to
appreciate at a glance the high degree of near-synonymity: some prepositions have nearly the
same meaning when followed by one or another case; and some prepositions have nearly the
same meaning as others.55 For example, periv peri has the same meaning when followed by
accusative as by dative case, and parav para and prov V pros with the dative have similar
55
For an extremely fine-tuned analysis of the semantics of each preposition and its case uses, see
Luraghi 2003: 82-313.
41
meanings. LSJ online lists words with similar definitions to each headword; for eijV eis it gives ejn
en and ejpiv epi, for example. This degree of redundancy will eventually lead to loss of case as a
means of signifying meaning, leaving it as a purely formal feature which will be simplified to the
point where (during the medieval period) the spoken language began to use accusative after all
prepositions (see Appendix B.25).
Table 2.1 Primary adpositions in Classical Attic (Luraghi 2005:49)
ACCUSATIVE
amphí
aná
antí
apó
diá
eis
ek/ex
en
epí
hupér
hupó
katá
metá
pará
perí
pro
pros
sun
ajmfiv
ajnav
ajntiv
ajpov
diav
eijV
ejk ejx
ejn
ejpiv
uJpevr
uJpov
katav
metav
parav
periv
prov
provV
suvn
DATIVE
GENITIVE
around
up
in exchange for
from
through
for (cause)
to, into
out of
against
beyond
under
about
after
to, along
around
toward, against
in
on
under
(near)by
around
(near)by
with
on
above
by (agent)
down
with
from
about (topic)
before, instead
from
The three core prepositions eijV eis, ejn en and ejk ek are monosyllablic, unaccented and hence
probably proclitic, and able to govern only one case (Hewson & Bubenik 2006: 71). They
express the core spatial relations and govern the cases which expressed the same core
relations. eijV eis was a post-IE development from ejn en; in Cypriot the older two-way opposition
is preserved, in which ejn en (like its cognates in German and Latin) alternates between
accusative and dative according to meaning. ejk ek and ej x e x are phonetically conditioned
allomorphs.
Just as eijV eis developed from ejn en, provV pros developed from prov pro and adds the sense of
movement to the static location meaning of the base form, acquiring new case relations in the
42
process. Of the non-core prepositions only suv n sun occurs with dative case alone, and only
aj m fiv amphi and aj n av ana with accusative alone, while ajntiv anti, aj p ov apo and prov pro take
genitive only.
There is no preposition that governs both dative and genitive but not accusative. This lends
support to Hewson & Bubenik’s conclusion that the primary opposition in the classical
configurational syntax of the PP is between orientation from the landmark (ablative meaning
expressed by genitive case) and orientation towards the landmark, whether static (dative) or
including movement (accusative) (2006: 68-70). However, this distinction by orientation is not
always apparent. As an example of the extremely fine distinction between genitive and dative
with ejpiv epi, Luraghi provides the following minimal pair from a single passage in Herodotus:
(15) a. with dative case
a[ggoV ejpiv th/: kefalh/: e[xousan
angos
epi
te
kephale
exousan
vessel.ACC
P on
ART.DAT head.DAT have.PRTC.F.SG.ACC
‘having a jar on her head’
(15) b. with genitive case
fevrousa to; u{dwr ejpi; th/:V kefalh/:V
pherousa
to
hudor
epi
tes
kephales
carry.PTCP
ART.ACC
water.ACC
P on
ART.GEN
head.GEN
‘bearing the water on her head’
(Luraghi 2003: 308)
43
and a similar minimal pair within a sentence, also from Herodotus:
(16) e[cei de; hJ movscoV ou{toV oJ :ApiV kaleovmenoV shmei:a toiavde ejw;n mevlaV, ejpi; me;n
tw/: metwvpw/ leukovn ti trivgwnon, ejpi; de; tou: nwvtou aieto;n eikasmevnon
ekhei
de
ho
have.PRES.3SG PTC ART.NOM
kaleomenos
moskhos
houtos
calf.NOM
DEM.NOM ART.NOM
semeia
toiade
ho
Apis
Name.NOM
eon
call.PRTC.PRES.PASS.M.NOM mark.N/A.PL INDEF.N/A.PL be.PRTC.PRES.NOM
melas
epí
men
toi
black.NOM
P on
PTC
ART.DAT forehead.DAT white.NOM/ACC INDEF.N/A
trigonon
epi
de
tou
notou
aieton
PTC
ART.GEN
back.GEN
eagle.ACC represent.
triangle.N/A P on
metopoi
leukon
ti
eikasmenon
PRTC.PF.M.PL.ACC
‘this calf called Apis has these marks: he is black, and has on his forehead a threecornered white spot, and the likeness of an eagle on his back’
(Luraghi 2003: 309)
Luraghi argues that the uses differ in that the genitive profiles a vertical orientation while the
dative does not specify orientation (2003: 309-10). Hewson & Bubenik on the other hand
consider the difference in the water-jar passage to hinge on whether the empty jar or the (jar full
of) water is being profiled (2006: 75-6). Either or both are possible, even plausible subtleties of
subconscious native-speaker usage, but we are not in a position to judge.
It is likely that quantitative data may provide a means to assess such hypotheses about nativespeaker intuitions, as frequency of use of features that writers and especially speakers are
44
usually unaware of can identify both common patterns and trends, and also anomalous usages
or distinctive stylistic preferences. Without such data for classical Greek we can do no more
than guess at reasons for the variation displayed in (15) and (16).
Table 2.2 shows the frequency of most of the prepositions in Greek. The number given is for
tokens per ten thousand words, and is taken from LSJ online.56 Although incomplete and not
without a significant margin of error, this information may be used as a rough generalisation by
which to compare frequencies at different periods and note any changes. However, in the
absence of a breakdown of these frequencies by case, which is unobtainable with the present
state of grammatical tagging, qualitative analysis must depend on small studies of individual
texts.
Table 2.2 Frequency of prepositions
195.92
89.37
71.78
65.23
51.33
40.49
35.59
28.67
28.11
27.80
10.56
5.38
4.25
3.48
56
eis
en
pros
epi
ek
dia
hupo
para
apo
meta
huper
sun
pro
anti
Some prepositions are not listed because faulty links on the Perseus site prevented the searches.
(This is a permanent difficulty with LSJ online.) The counts are for prose texts and refer to the whole of
the data bank used by LSJ: that is, they cover all periods of Greek covered by LSJ, up to early medieval
times, but are drawn from usage citations not whole texts (see Ch 1 note 14); since the citations are
overwhelmingly from the earlier periods of Greek, it is likely that the counts give a rough estimation of
usage over the classical and Koine periods but do not show differences with the periods. For counts
specific to individual authors or periods see Chapter 3.
45
Comparison of this table with the data in Appendix B.8.a (frequency order of prepositions in the
three Koine corpora), shows that eis, en, ek and epi remained in frequent use but pros (possibly
because of its partial synonymy with epi) declined.
Usage counts for preverbs are even harder to obtain than for prepositions, because searches
retrieve many non-verbal P-word compounds and do not retrieve all the possible orthographic
forms of prefixes. The study by Duhoux (1995) which is discussed in the next chapter gives
statistics for preverbs in Lysias but does not break them down into individual preverbs, so that
study of the semantic contribution of each P-word to the aspect of the verb is not possible.
Nevertheless it gives support to the suggestion noted above by Horrocks that P-words in
configuration with verbs contribute aspectual meaning. This correlation will be pursued in
Chapter 3, where the more detailed data on the Koine is studied.
Summary
This chapter has surveyed the development of P-words from free adverbials in PIE to elements
of configurational syntax in classical Greek. By the fifth century BC adpositions have become
fixed as (almost exclusively) prepositions, and free adverbial use of P-words with verbs has all
but disappeared. In the next chapter we survey the post-classical stage of the language, and
look at prepositions and preverbs in the NT corpus and other near-contemporary documents.
46
Chapter 3 - Greek in the hellenistic age
The development of the Koine
The modern Greek language has its origins in the spoken Greek of the hellenistic period,57 the
centuries following the conquests of Alexander the Great, which brought Greek political
domination, administration and education to large areas of the Mediterranean, northern Africa,
the Middle East and as far as northern India.58 Population movements brought about by military
service, centralised administration and colonial and commercial settlements ensured that the
language of Greek-speakers in widely separated areas was continuously exposed to the
levelling effects of a unified administrative language and the need to communicate in a common
dialect. This meant that a renewal of the previous situation of great dialect variety was slow to
come about. The ‘Common Language’ or Koine was thus relatively homogeneous, and, with the
57
There are two principal ways the term ‘hellenistic period’ is used. It refers to the whole period of the
Koine, the koinh; diavlektoV [Koine dialektos] or ‘common language’, from about 300 BC until at least 300
AD and often to 600 or 700 AD (since the end of the reign of Justinian and the Muslim conquests of
substantial parts of the Byzantine empire both form natural historical endpoints). It can also refer to the
first part of the period, from about 300 BC until the Roman occupation of Greece and the eastern
Mediterranean (beginning in the mid-second century BC and complete in 31 BC); the rest of the Koine
period is then known as the Roman period. However, from a linguistic perspective there was no distinct
change. For the purposes of this thesis the period referred to as hellenistic or Koine is approximately 300
BC to 300 AD. This accords with O’Donnell’s definition of the language on which his proposed corpus is
based: ‘Hellenistic Greek can be defined as the extant Greek written by native and non-native language
users throughout the Hellenistic and Roman worlds from approximately the fourth century BCE to the
fourth century CE’ (2006: 2-3). However, my corpora all fall within the period 285 BC to 155 AD.
This account of the development and characteristics of the Koine is based on Horrocks 1997 and
Browning 1987.
58
Although Alexander was Macedonian, his father Philip II had been an admirer of Greek culture and
ensured that Greek was the language of his administration and of his son’s education. After the wars of
succession following Alexander’s death, his conquests were divided among three Greek dynasties, the
Ptolemies, Antigonids and Seleucids. (Whether Macedonian and Greek were related languages is not
known (Horrocks 1997: 32).)
47
exception of an isolated dialect of the Peloponnese, all modern varieties of Greek have
developed from the Koine.59
The basis of the Common Language was a variety of Attic that had been influenced by Ionic, a
closely related dialect which was less conservative than Attic and more accepting of innovation.
Athens’ political dominance had made its dialect prestigious, but it also made Athens and its port
Piraeus centres for large communities of non-Athenians. Already in the writing of classical
authors like Thucydides some concessions were being made to the needs of a wider readership
than just Attic-speakers (Horrocks 1997: 27), and in the following century under Macedonian rule
a ‘Great Attic’ variety was the language of administration and of much prose writing. A more
conservative literary Koine became the spoken language of the educated, a large class of
people in an empire that valued education and provided many opportunities for lucrative careers
that required literacy.
The modern use of the term ‘Koine’ requires comment. The English technical term derives from
the word the Greeks gave their own language. Koineisation is ‘a contact-induced process that
leads to quite rapid, and occasionally dramatic, change’ (Kerswill 2002: 669). A koine is a new
variety of a language brought about by contact between speakers of mutually intelligible varieties
of that language, and typically occurs in new settlements to which people from different parts of
a single language area have migrated. Koineisation is characterised by reduction (loss of
meaningful difference; eg decrease in vocabulary) and simplification (an increase in regularity,
such as loss of irregular case forms). There are two types of koine: regional and immigrant.
The Greek Koine was primarily a regional type, overlaying but not immediately replacing the
local dialects, but in originally non-Greek-speaking areas it was an immigrant koine and became
the vernacular of the colonists. In Palestine and Egypt, for instance, both areas that have
59
Tsakonian retains features of the ancient dialect Laconian, spoken in the area around Sparta. The
modern dialects developed in the medieval period.
48
produced substantial Koine documents, bilingualism was widespread but the indigenous
languages were maintained. However, bilingualism and substrate language influence are not
necessary accompaniments of koineisation, and they appear to have had less effect on Greek
than it had on other languages.
The early period of the Koine was a time of extensive phonological change. Both vowel and
consonant systems underwent restructuring, probably beginning early in the classical period but
obscured by the traditional historical orthography. A significant development was the change of
word-accentuation from pitch to stress. The primary prosodic accent of a word was a raised or
rising pitch on one syllable. When the accent became primarily one of stress (extra loudness
and/or duration), the distinction between long and short vowels could not be maintained. The
invention of accent marks, traditionally dated to about 200 BC at Alexandria, reflects the needs
of the large numbers of Greek-as-a-second-language learners. The change of accent type was
responsible for much homophony, which led to reorganisation of many paradigms, especially in
the verbal system, and along with the loss of some final consonants contributed to the eventual
loss of the dative case.
Restructuring of the consonant system began slightly later. With few exceptions a pronunciation
very like that of Modern Greek was in general use by the sixth century AD, and most of the
changes were current in many regions much earlier. Morphological and syntactic development
was also rapid. Irregular nouns were replaced by synonyms or regular derivatives such as
diminutives. Use of the dative case, especially with prepositions, continued to decline, with the
exception of ejn en, which developed an instrumental sense (Luraghi 2003: 332) and was widely
used in an ‘unclassical’ manner, possibly as a means of reinforcing the dative. ‘A particular
feature of the ordinary Koine in [the Septuagint and] the immediately following period is the
widespread use of ejn [en] + dative as a semantically ‘empty’ means of strengthening the flagging
dative ... however, the accusative is already advancing as the primary prepositional case at the
49
expense of the dative’ (Horrocks 1997: 58-59).60
The bare dative NP survived longest as
indirect object, but genitive pronouns in this function appear from the first century BC and
genitive nouns from about the third century AD (Browning 1983: 37).
In vocabulary there are innovations not only from borrowings but from a distinct increase in the
coining of compound verbs (including verbs with P-words, which were often synonymous with
the simplex form) (Lee 1983: 92). For example, ejxapostevllw ex-apo-stello is formed by adding
ejk ek to an already compound verb, and adds nothing to the meaning (‘send out, send away’):
ek and apo are virtually synonymous here, and the new form, which is frequent from the third
century BC but less so than aj p ostev l lw apostello, ‘has the same senses as Classical
ajpostevllw, and is clearly just a more vigorous form of the older word’ (Lee 1983: 93).61 The
phenomenon of reinforcing verbs with P-words, which then lost any additional meaning and were
used in the same way as the simple word, is a well-attested grammaticalisation process and has
similarities with the reinforcement of compound verbs with PPs (as in the cooccurrences of
ej p itiv q hmi epitithemi with ej p iv epi, on which see Appendix C).
Another phenomenon of
preverbation usage is the use of a simplex verb when repeated shortly after its compound:
where the meaning of the two verbs is similar the repetition does not require the complex form,
as in the following example from Mackay 1994: 14:
60
It is also possible that the instrumental use of ejn en in biblical Greek was influenced by the Hebrew
preposition
b b e in this sense, but this could be an example of increased frequency under Hebrew
influence of an existing feature. Detailed study of the non-literary papyri is required to establish this.
61
In NT there are 132 tokens of ajpostevllw apostello (88 in aorist) and 13 of ejxapostevllw exapostello
(12 aorist). In Luke 20:10 both occur. In the tables of preverb data in Appendix B, all such double
preverbs are counted only once, as tokens of their first P-word.
50
(17)
oiJ i[dioi aujto;n ouj parevlabon. o{soi de; e[labon aujtovn
hoi
idioi
auton
ART
one’s own him
elabon
auton ...
AOR.3PL.take
him
...
ou
parelabon.
hosoi
not
P from/beside.AOR.3PL.take
PRN.M.PL.NOM PTC
‘his own people did not accept him, but as many as did receive him ...’
de
(John 1:11-12)
Some of our evidence for the changes that took place in the Koine derives from the proscriptions
of grammarians and rhetoricians, who began during the first century BC to reject the common
language and press for a return to the ‘pure’ classical Attic standard. The discrepancy between
the spoken language and the traditional texts that formed the curriculum of Greek education was
becoming a problem for the large class of professional teachers, and Roman occupation
fostered a sense of nostalgia for past glories that often expressed itself in the wish to imitate
classical writers. The Atticist movement called for a return to classical models in preference to
the literature of the intervening period. Their view was that the language of the best classical
writers was the only correct form of Greek, and that change was decay and should be rejected.
They therefore spurned the living spoken language as a basis for literature and tried to imitate
the (sometimes inadequately understood) language of their models. The effect of this was to
maintain in artificial use some moribund features of the language that were dying out naturally,
such as the dative case, and to obscure the evidence for changes in the spoken language,
which is mediated to us almost solely through the distortions of a literacy which could rarely be
obtained except through an Atticist-dominated education. As Browning puts it:
It is very hard to date ... changes, owing to the nature of our evidence, and the inevitable
contamination of any written text by the purist language. In any case many [changes] are
only extensions of features already existing in classical Greek. What is important is not
this or that individual innovation, but the new system. And, as always in language, old
and new systems coexisted side by side in living speech for a long time, until the
distinctive features of the old became ‘desystematised’ and thus condemned to disappear
51
– except in so far as in Greek the prestige of the traditional purist language of writing and
fine speech conferred upon some of them a factitious, zombie-like life. (1983: 35)
At the time the Attic revival was gathering steam, the New Testament and other Christian
literature was being written in a register close to that of contemporary ordinary speech. Such
literature ignored the prescriptions of pagan grammarians for some time, but, just when
Christianity was beginning to become widely accepted and its literature to gain prestige, its
leaders succumbed to the pressure to conform to the by now well-entrenched Atticist standards
of pagan literature. Thus the New Testament did not become the literary model it might have
been, and the chance to limit the growth of the Atticist movement was lost.
This pagan-christian literary alliance, in combination with the changed political conditions which
saw the western Roman empire fall to barbarians and the eastern administration move to
Constantinople, set the direction of Greek literature for a millennium and a half. The style of a
text was no longer a matter of its genre but also reflected the choices and abilities of the writer to
use a more or less archaising form of language, which could range from ordinary Koine with
some ‘Attic’ diagnostic features added (such as a verb in the optative mood)62 to a serious
attempt to recreate the language of Gorgias the rhetorical stylist. Thus the diglossia which had
been a mild feature of Greek education since the adoption of administrative Attic by Philip II was
extended to all spheres of public life, and spoken and written registers increasingly diverged. It
is clear from the non-archaising texts of the Koine period, both literary and non-literary, that the
developments in the spoken language had brought it to the point where it is fair to call it Early
Modern Greek, but all sources for the study of the spoken language are mediated in some way
by the influence of Greek rhetorical education.
62
This is not the function of the optatives in the NT. Of the 68 tokens, almost all occur in formulaic
expressions and prayers where their use is a natural preservation of an older idiom.
52
P-words in New Testament Greek
It is against this background of a recent change in literary standards and practice that we turn to
look at the New Testament. Sources of language data that are early enough to be relatively free
of Atticist influence can contribute valuable information about processes of language change and
about the synchronic state of Greek before diglossia complicates the picture. This study aims to
use quantitative methods to see whether trends can be discerned that would be difficult to
observe or interpret by other methods, as well as to identify areas that would repay a more
qualitative approach.
The data on which the following observations are based can be found in Appendix B. Lists of
word counts and ratios have been compiled for each author-group in each of the three tagged
corpora.
In addition, some statistical information from other sources is given so that
comparisons between corpora of different dates can be attempted, though this information is
considered less reliable. The discussion will necessarily focus more on prepositions than on
preverbs, because of the greater accessibility of data on uninflected words through the available
search mechanisms. The purpose of collating quantitative data is to compare large sets of data
from different corpora so as to identify changes in usage that might have been invisible to
language users and therefore reflect natural usage rather than conscious Atticising. Although
the available corpora are in many ways similar in date, genre and register, and so might not
show significant differences, they can with detailed study reveal facts about the synchronic
system under investigation and provide a basis from which to compare other periods and genres
when comparable data is available.
Prepositions
We first notice from Table B.1 that if the preposition ejn en is excepted the dative case has a low
usage compared to the other two cases. This is reported in all accounts of Koine usage. The
53
dative with periv peri and uJ p ov hupo is no longer used; suvn sun can only take dative, but is
relatively rare; with parav para the case selected depends on the meaning; but with ejpiv epi and
provV pros the dative and accusative have similar meanings, so the case assignment may be a
matter of personal preference of the writer or have some nuance that we can no longer
appreciate. Tables B.2-4 show the usage within each author-group. Only Paul uses epi+DAT
more often than epi+ACC, but the difference (1.70 per thousand words for DAT compared to
1.57 for ACC) is small, and Table B.10 reveals that he uses ejpiv epi less than any other author
except Jude (which is a very small sample). From Table B.1 we also see that av m fiv amphi,
always rare, is not used in NT.
The most striking number in Table B.1 is the high frequency of ejn en. As suggested above, the
decline in the dative case meant that a prepositional configuration was increasingly preferred to
a bare dative. To see whether its increase is real and significant, we can compare token
frequencies obtained from TLG. After obtaining the word counts and calculating probabilityvalues for each pair of six populations (Classical, Early Koine and Late Koine as well as the
three corpora LXX, NT and AF), Table 3.1 was compiled. It shows that on a hypothesis of an
increase in the use of en (where the null hypothesis is that there was no change), statistically
significant changes have occurred between most pairs of populations, but not in a consistent
direction. The odd population is Later Koine, because of the dating, but the trend is that the TLG
counts are much lower than the Accordance counts.
In view of the unreliable nature of the search method for TLG, it would be unwise to draw firm
conclusions from this. Comparing figures reached by different methods is not recommended but
is difficult to avoid. With this caveat in mind, we can tentatively conclude that the data supports
the trend noted in the literature cited above that en increased significantly in frequency.
However, the decrease in the later Koine period is an oddity.
54
Table 3.1 En: Tokens per 1000 words (from TLG and Accordance)
TLG
en
Classical
Classical
m=10.24
Early
Koine
0.946
0.186
0.372
Early
Koine
m=8.76
LXX
m=22.89
LXX
NT
-3.429
0.003
0.006
-2.948
0.009
0.018
-2.712
0.008
0.017
-2.427
0.016
0.032
0.717
0.242
0.485
NT
m=19.81
Late
Koine
1.854
0.050
0.101
0.951
0.189
0.378
3.210
0.006
0.012
2.680
0.010
0.020
Apostolic
Fathers
-2.439
0.015
0.030
-2.318
0.020
0.041
1.505
0.078
0.156
0.809
0.215
0.430
-2.648
0.011
0.023
Late
Koine
m=7.69
Apostolic
Fathers
m=17.11
(Top figure: t-stat, then one-tailed p-value, then 2-tailed p-value. P-values of 0.05 or under are
highlighted.)
The data for the three Accordance corpora is reliable, and Table 3.2 shows the same information
as Table 3.1 just for those three. Table 3.2 shows (as do Tables B.9-11 in Appendix B) that a
slight decrease over time has occurred, with the LXX and AF, as expected from their dates,
having a greater degree of difference; however, the p-values all exceed 0.05, which we have set
as the significance level, leading to the conclusion that the populations do not differ sufficiently to
draw any conclusions about their use of en.
Table 3.2 En: Tokens per 10000 words (from Accordance)
en
LXX
m=228.9
NT
m=198.06
LXX
NT
0.717
0.242
0.485
Apostolic
Fathers
1.505
0.078
0.156
-0.809
0.215
0.430
Apostolic
Fathers
m=171.1
55
As a final attempt to see what might have been happening with en, we may repeat the p-value
exercise with the figures obtained from LSJ.
This produces a slightly different set of
comparisons, and it cannot be assumed that the data retrieved is more accurate. There is no
change in the relationships between LXX, NT and AF (other than the results of rounding), but the
pattern of the two groups of three being like each other and unlike the other group is clearer.
Again, this may be the result of obtaining data from different sources. Other hypotheses could
be formed but are untestable without better information: for example, the texts chosen for the
TLG and LSJ searches could be insufficiently similar to the other corpora in critical respects. It
is better to leave en to a more qualitative study, since the changes reported in its use relate not
only to its frequency but to its function as an instrumental or a substitute for a bare dative NP. In
view of its high token count such a study would have to concentrate on a small set of texts,
perhaps using quantitative data from NT for comparison.
Table 3.3
En: Tokens per 10000 words (from LSJ and Accordance)
Classical
Early
LXX
NT
en
Koine
Classical
0.238
-3.719
-2.973
m=94.28
0.409
0.002
0.005
0.818
0.004
0.010
Early
-2.858
-2.342
Koine
0.011
0.019
m=91.05
0.021
0.037
LXX
0.718
m=228.9
0.242
0.484
NT
m=198.06
Late
Koine
m=78.33
Apostolic
Fathers
m=171.1
56
Late
Koine
1.599
0.074
0.149
0.941
0.192
0.383
3.180
0.007
0.013
2.648
0.011
0.021
Apostolic
Fathers
-2.781
0.008
0.016
-2.208
0.025
0.049
1.505
0.078
0.156
0.808
0.215
0.430
-2.607
0.012
0.024
A similar pattern is obtained with the frequency counts of eijV eis (Table 3.4). This preposition
was in the process of replacing ej n +dative in its locative function, although en was not yet
significantly waning in frequency because it was being used in other functions.63 In Table 3.4
there is a statistically significant although small reduction in the frequency of eis between NT and
AF. Tables B.6 and B.7 show the frequencies as 127.9 for NT and 133.0 for AF – which looks
like the reverse of the figures in Table 3.4. This is due to the technique of taking the mean of the
samples in the population rather than the average in the whole population, so as to minimise any
error due to different sample sizes.
Table 3.4 Tokens per 10,000 words (from LSJ)
Classical
Early
LXX
LSJ eis
Koine
Classical
-0.076
3.281
m=198.38
0.470
0.004
0.941
0.008
Early
6.732
Koine
0.000
m=200.79
0.000
LXX
m=116.3
NT
3.020
0.005
0.009
3.714
0.001
0.003
-1.065
0.152
0.305
NT
m=132.51
Late
Koine
m=207.45
Apostolic
Fathers
m=129.5
Late
Koine
-0.176
0.432
0.865
-0.118
0.455
0.910
-2.132
0.033
0.066
0.201
0.421
0.843
Apostolic
Fathers
3.006
0.005
0.010
3.767
0.002
0.003
-0.840
0.208
0.416
2.149
0.027
0.055
-2.067
0.012
0.024
So far we have not been able to put much confidence in the result of these probability tests, for
reasons connected with the quality or unavailability of data. In the case of the reliably generated
data from Accordance, there was little significant change to be found. When we apply the same
tests to frequency counts of preverbs, some more interesting changes become visible.
63
For examples of the confusion of eis and en (at least from a purist point of view), see Mk 13:16, Mt
24:18 and Lk17:31, and others cited by Browning 1983: 36.
57
Preverbs
Table B.17 in Appendix B shows the order of frequency of preverbs in LXX, NT and AF.
Comparison with Table B.8 shows that there is no correlation between frequency of a P-word as
preverb and as preposition. As is to be expected from the dates of the corpora there appears to
more difference between LXX and the others than between NT and AF in preverb frequency.
Using the calculations at Table B.25 we can construct a display of p-values for the preverbs that
meet the significance test, as in the following tables:
Table 3.5
Frequency of
PV apo
LXX
m=3.15
LXX
NT
AF
-1.90
0.04
0.08
-0.85
0.20
0.41
1.02
0.16
0.32
NT
AF
-1.61
0.06
0.13
-1.78
0.05
0.10
-0.25
0.40
0.80
NT
AF
1.75
0.059
0.119
2.75
0.013
0.079
0.791
0.226
0.452
NT
m=5.29
AF
m=4.30
Table 3.7
Frequency of
PV pros
LXX
m=1.05
LXX
NT
m=1.99
AF
m=2.12
Table 3.8
Frequency of
PV epi
LXX
m=10.09
LXX
NT
m=5.47
AF
m=4.43
58
As this procedure shows, interesting-looking numbers do not always produce statistically
significant results.
Only 14 of the 54 preverb/corpus pairs compared in Table 25 show a
significance value of 0.05 or under, and only 7 of these are significant if the direction of change
is unknown (that is, in a two-tailed test). There is no need to present all 19 results as tables
here; the data is easy to read in Table 25 since there are only three corpora to compare. The
preverbs with a p-value of 0.05 or under in a two-tailed test are:
Between LXX and NT: hupo, meta and para
Between LXX and AF: hupo, meta, para and pro.
All of these are statistically significant increases in frequency, as shown by the negative t-stat
value. The only significant decreases in frequency (shown only in the one-tailed tests) are for
ek; this is likely to be associated with the increase of apo with similar meaning. There are no
significant changes from NT to AF, except in the one-tailed test for ek, huper and sun. This data
cannot be interpreted by the figures alone, even where they are judged significant by statistically
appropriate and rigorous methods, but we can use these findings to identify areas that require
further research. In particular, it is likely that the semantics of individual preverbs plays a role in
their frequency, along with their relation to other preverbs of overlapping meaning, and
identifying the areas of interest is a useful step towards organising qualitative research.
So far we have looked at individual preverbs. In the next tables we examine the incidence of
preverbation as a proportion of verb usage.
Table 3.9 Preverb as percentage of all verbs
PVs
LXX
m=30.07
NT
m=29.02
LXX
NT
AF
0.291
0.388
0.775
0.710
0.245
0.490
0.458
0.326
0.653
Apostolic
Fathers
m=27.64
59
This set of figures (repeated here from Chapter 1) tells us that the proportion of preverbs to
verbs in the three corpora is similar. However, it happens that the proportion of verbs to total
vocabulary is significantly lower in the LXX than NT and AF, as shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.10 Verbs as percentage of all words
PVs
LXX
m=16.66
NT
m=19.90
LXX
NT
AF
-2.199
0.023
0.045
-2.170
0.025
0.049
0.495
0.314
0.627
Apostolic
Fathers
m=27.64
This is another example of how the corpus data can throw up questions for research. A reader
might be unaware of a lower than usual number of verbs in a text, or might put it down to the
style of the individual author without being able to assess the likelihood of its being a wider
phenomenon. A number of hypotheses might now be formulated and tested to account for the
unexpected aberration. For instance, genre could play a role (unlikely as a sole factor because
the other corpora compared are of similar kinds of texts), or the low verb ratio could be a hidden
effect of translation (suggesting the analysis of other translated texts if available), or a number of
factors might present themselves as suitable for a multivariate analysis.
Another area for study that has been suggested by statistical analysis is the question of the
correlation between preverbation and aspect. It has often been noticed that such a correlation
exists (as for example by Horrocks, discussed in Chapter 2), and there is clear evidence in the
word counts provided in Appendix B that there is a higher proportion of perfective verbs that
have preverbs than in the total population of verbs. Study of this phenomenon is useful for
cross-linguistic aspect studies and for cross-linguistic study of P-words, because the correlation
60
between aspect and P-words occurs in many languages but in different ways (O’Dowd 1998:
147-151), but it also has specific application to Koine Greek because it may interact with the
reorganisation of the verbal system in the later Koine period (Browning 1983; 29-34).
In
addition, it has been suggested that the aspect-based verbal system of Hebrew may produce in
the Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures a disproportionate frequency of some verb forms
(this question is discussed in detail in Evans 2001), and statistical analysis of early Koine
documents could address this hypothesis.
In ancient Greek the aspect of verbs was not systematically correlated with tense, so that not
every tense was available in every aspect. As is common cross-linguistically, the present tense
is imperfective and does not have a perfective counterpart (and this is still the case in Modern
Greek). The future tense is built on the perfective stem of the verb, and is sometimes regarded
as an aspect rather than a tense (eg McKay 1994: 8). The past tense has an imperfective
(imperfect) and a perfective (aorist) form, and the stative aspect has three tenses, past, present
and future. By the NT period the aorist and perfect (earlier perfective and stative respectively)
were becoming confused (Browning 1983: 30). Because the aspectual status of future and
perfect tenses is unclear, and they and the imperfect tense are relatively infrequent, I have used
the relative frequencies of present and aorist tenses as a diagnostic of correlation between
preverbation and aspect.
A study of the verbs of the classical orator Lysias (Duhoux 1995) provides data which I have
arranged in a format suitable for comparison with the NT verb data, but being a single-author
study it is not suitable for the sort of comparative exercise that is possible with multiple-author
corpora. A summary of the data given in Appendix B appears in Table 3.7:
61
Table 3.7
Comparison of Duhoux’s figures for Lysias with NT
(adjusted: removal of unclear; 5 future perfect & 1 future aorist treated as future)
Present
Lysias
PVs
NT
PVs
Lysias
Non-PVs
NT
Non-PVs
Lysias
All verbs
NT
All verbs
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
418
22.00
2607
31.17
1426
36.07
6847
45.28
1844
31.51
11554
41.08
Future
Imperfect
109
5.74
557
6.66
242
6.12
1071
5.42
351
6.00
1628
5.79
111
5.84
412
6.41
263
6.65
1267
6.41
374
6.39
1679
5.97
Aorist
1089
57.32
4418
52.82
1405
35.54
7188
36.38
2494
42.61
11606
41.27
Perfect
160
8.42
356
4.26
594
15.03
1215
6.15
754
12.88
1571
5.59
Pluperfect
13
0.68
15
0.18
23
0.58
71
0.36
36
0.62
86
0.31
The data is not fully compatible: Duhoux did not count verbs that do not show aspect, whereas
Accordance counts the verb ‘to be’, for example, as imperfective.64 Correction of this would
have the effect of decreasing the discrepancy between Lysias’ and NT‘s proportion of
imperfective verbs, but the difference is still significant. The reduced use of the perfect in NT is
consistent with the confusion of perfect and aorist in this period, which led gradually to the
replacement of the single form by a periphrastic perfect (not complete until the medieval period).
The higher incidence of aorist with preverbs is striking in Lysias; the relative frequency of
preverb aorists over present tenses in Lysias is similar to that of LXX and much higher than NT,
where the difference is still substantial, and AF, where it is minimal (see Table B.22). This
suggests that the correlation of preverbation and perfective aspect began to decline after the
early Koine period, but as Table B.23 shows there is still in NT a strong association of individual
preverbs with aspect and a general tendency for those associated with perfectivity to be more
frequent than those associated with imperfectivity.
64
Whether the verb ‘to be’ is imperfective in Greek is controversial; Porter regards it as aspectually
vague, while McKay considers that it is limited to imperfective and future, with givnesqai ginesthai ‘become’
suppletively doing duty for aorist and perfect (1994: 9). My figures for NT include eijmiv eimi ‘be’ and
givnesqai ginesthai in the counts according to the GRAMCORD tagging of their tense.
62
It is evident that the semantics of individual preverbs is a significant factor in their aspect-linked
behaviour and that the frequency of P-words as preverbs and prepositions does not correlate
strongly (as the tables of order of frequency in Appendix B show). The non-componential
meaning of compound verbs often makes them far less amenable to systematic analysis than
the corresponding preposition, and it cannot be assumed that the two are related. More detailed
study of usages, such as taking account of features not separated in the data collection because
of the limitations of tagging (for instance, case assignment and transitivity), might reveal patterns
of association between preverbs and prepositions that cannot be detected as yet.
Qualitative study of P-words
To turn to a more qualitative approach and continue with a P-word examined in Homer and
classical Greek, let us examine the preposition and preverb epi in the NT. Along with pros, with
which it shares some semantic and functional meanings, it is the most frequent of the non-core
prepositions and is also a common preverb. Although it can take all three cases the dative has
become rare. It continues to show variation of a kind that we saw in earlier Greek (Chapter 2
examples 15 and 16).
The New Testament is a rich source of examples of apparently
unmotivated variation, because it has a number of instances of multiple retellings of the same
event. The following minimal pair features the verb ejpitivqhmi epitithemi that we met in Homer
(Example 10 in Chapter 2); the two accounts are of the same incident and they may even have a
common literary source, but they use different strategies to express the locative argument of the
verb, which has the preverb epi. (The collocation of epitihemi with ‘hand’ or ‘hands’ is a common
one in NT; tithemi occurs only once in this sense, in Mark 10:16.)
63
(16) Mt 9:18 with PP
ajlla; ejlqw;n ejpivqeV th;n cei:rav sou ejp’ aujth;n kai; zhvseta
alla
elthon
epithes
ten
but
come.PTPL.ACT.M.SG.NOM
put.2.SG.AOR.ACT.IMP
ART.F.SG.ACC
kheira
sou
ep’
hand.F.SG.ACC
you.SG.GEN on
auten
kai
zesetai
her.ACC
and
live.3.SG.FUT.MID.IND
‘But come and lay your hand on her, and she will live’
(17) Mk 5:23 with DAT
i{na ejlqw;n ejpiqh:/V ta;V cei:raV aujth/: i{na swqh/: kai; zhvsh/
hina
elthon
epitheis
tas
kheiras
CONJ
come.
P on.put
ART.ACC
hand.ACC
PART.M.SG.NOM
2.SG.AOR.SUBJ
autei
hina
sothei
kai
zesei
her.DAT
CONJ
.save.3.SG.AOR.PASS.SUBJ
and
live.3.SG.AOR.SUBJ
‘Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live’
All the NT collocations of epitithemi with epi are set out in Appendix C, along with the far fewer
collocations of tithemi and epi.65 It can be seen that the detailed examination of collocations and
syntactic choices is necessary, and cannot be done without more advanced methods of retrieval
than are currently available in TLG (and in Accordance such searches return many tokens that
do not meet the desired criteria and have to be manually separated from the data to be
assessed). Research is both enabled and limited by the technologies available.
65
This is provided as a sample of the layout and detail of the answers that Accordance gives to queries:
the translation is optional, but the full verse with identifying reference is always given, and the search term
highlighted. It is a much more user-friendly display than traditional corpus outputs and is easily exportable
to other software.
64
Summary
I have shown that the Koine period is a significant one for the development of the Greek
language, both as the source of the modern forms of Greek and as an interesting stage of
linguistic development in itself, including further developments in the usage of P-words. There is
a large body of literature from the period, with diverse genres, from inscriptions and epigraphs,
personal and commercial correspondence and religious tracts to philosophical treatises, novels
and histories; this makes the Koine particularly suitable for corpus studies. However, only a
small part of the material is available in a convenient, accessible digital format that provides
ease of comparison with other research findings.
We have discovered that P-words show interesting changes from previous usages. Prepositions
that governed more than one case now tend to be associated more strongly with certain cases
than others (generally by less frequent use of dative). Preverbation has increased with the use
of compound verbs as synonyms of simplex forms, but the association of preverbs with
perfective aspect has decreased. (Whether these two facts are systematically related cannot be
determined by the statistical analysis used in this study, but is a question for further research.)
Collocation of the same P-word as preposition and preverb is also a feature that suggests that
P-words were continuing a process of grammaticalisation, in which the semantic content of Pwords was decreasing and their collocational significance increasing. All these developments
have implications for corpus study of this and other periods of Greek and for cross-linguistic
comparison of P-words.
65
Chapter 4 - Conclusion
‘The form of criticism that is perhaps the most underutilized and in its most rudimentary form of
development for NT studies is linguistic criticism.’ (McDonald & Porter 2000: 34)
‘...the study of the language of the New Testament ... we find that the basic methodology of long
standing has not been eclipsed significantly by new developments’ (Botha 1991: 71)
Such complaints are commonplace in the field of New Testament studies, which embraces a
large number of specialisms. Linguistics is an obvious component of the intensive scrutiny that
the biblical texts have received, and a necessary perspective. Since the retreat of classical
studies the field of ancient Greek linguistics has been to a large extent populated by scholars
with interests in the New Testament period. This has meant that a number of resources are
available to anyone working on ancient Greek, because of the long tradition of biblical textual
scholarship based on study of the ancient languages and collation of data about them. The
availability of resources like TLG and powerful inexpensive Bible software puts Greek linguists in
an enviable position in comparison with many other languages.
Corpus linguistics is an appropriate tool for studying a language with a large body of texts and
no native speakers. It is particularly suited to probabilistic approaches, but all theories can
benefit from access to reliable data. Much more work needs to be done on designing and
tagging a suitable corpus for study of Greek, and on making any systems accessible, userfriendly and compatible with the goals of the diverse range of scholars interested in the
hellenistic period.
But the very availability of the corpora I have used makes it tempting to do word counts and
draw conclusions direct from raw numbers. Because of the diverse nature of the material, and
the inherent interest of such diversity, it is imperative that viable methods be established of
assessing the results of corpus searches and displaying them in a manner that does not hide the
complexities and uncertainties involved. As we have seen from the probability-value method of
66
comparing otherwise intractable amounts of data, the results depend not only on the reliability of
the input but also on the ability to ask questions and form testable hypotheses. In spite of the
high level of integrity of the Accordance search facility, the three corpora used have not shown
significant differences in many of the features examined, even though initial number counts
suggested otherwise. This is a healthy corrective to an uncritical use of statistical data. The pvalue method retains its appeal because it partly escapes the need to design corpora of fixedlength texts or specific genres, an approach that is unlikely to succeed in the field of New
Testament scholarship because of its permanent interest in a specific body of texts. It is a
method that encourages the testing of hypotheses, instead of vague impressionistic
generalisations, and is therefore also a desirable corrective to the tendency (already recognised
and decried by many NT scholars) to give undue weight to non-linguistic (especially tendentious
theological and sociological) evaluations of linguistic data.
Grammaticalisation is one theory that provides hypotheses. Whether something as specific as
how an adverb might become a preposition or case ending, or as general as whether
unidirectionality is a testable claim, it attempts to establish probable or possible paths of
variation and change. Combining a theoretical drive with the means to organise large data sets
and the safeguard of a statistical method that prevents rash judgments is a desirable goal; in the
case of hellenistic Greek much progress has already been made but much more is possible.
This study has identified several areas where quantitative methods have produced unexpected
questions for qualitative research to investigate. Corpus linguistics is not the only appropriate
methodology for studying hellenistic Greek, but when combined with complementary approaches
such as grammaticalisation and discourse analysis (as suggested by O’Donnell 2005) it offers
good prospects for progress.
The essential immediate need is for the development of
standardised tagged digital corpora, and the early Christian documents now available are a good
model of what could be done for this and other periods of Greek, and for other languages for
which corpus study is a new direction.
67
Appendices
Appendix A
Description of corpora
69
Appendix B
Tables of data
Appendix C
Case study of a P/PV collocation
68
Appendix A — Composition of the corpora used in this study
LXX66
The Septuagint, from Latin septuaginta ‘seventy’ (abbreviated LXX) (Greek J E bdomhv k onta
hebdomekonta), is so called because of the ancient tradition that the translation was produced
by a committee of 72 scholars. The searchable text in Accordance is the edition of Rahlfs 1935.
1.
Pentateuch
From Greek pentateuvcwV pentateukos ‘consisting of 5 books in one volume’. This is the name
traditionally given to the first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible; it is also called the Torah (Hebrew
‘law, teaching’).
The Greek translations of the Pentateuch are the earliest of the LXX
translations and were made by different translators. 124,530 words.
a.
Genesis
;
Heb tyvarb Bereshit ‘in the beginning’ Grk GevnesiV genesis ‘birth’
Probably the first book of the Pentateuch to be translated. Idiomatic Greek with occasional
Hebrew influence. An account of the creation of the world, the lives of the first generations of
humans, the calling of Abraham and the migration of his descendants to Egypt. 32,573 words.
b.
Exodus
Heb twmv Shemot ‘names’, Grk [ExodoV exodos ‘going out’
Less literal translation than Genesis. An account of the struggles of the people of Israel to
escape from Egypt, the life of Moses and the people’s wandering in the desert of Sinai. 24,818
words.
c.
Leviticus
Heb arqyw Vayikra’ ‘and he called’, Grk Leui-tikovn leuitikon ‘Levitic’
Idiomatic Greek with creative solutions to translating Hebrew technical terms. Lists of laws and
regulations, especially those relating to personal and communal holiness and to priestly and
other cultic requirements. 19,085 words.
d.
Numbers
Heb rbdmb Bemidbar ‘in the desert’, Grk jAriqmoiv arithmoi ‘numbers’
Fairly literal. An account of the census of the people at Mt Sinai, their journey to Moab and the
sending of spies into the Promised Land. 25,059 words.
66
The following information about translations is taken from Dines 2004. On the rhetorical style of the
LXX see Lee 1997.
69
LXX continued
e.
Deuteronomy
Heb
Myrbd Devarim
‘things, words’, Grk Deuteronovmion deuteronomion
‘second law’. Also a literal translation. Three sermons by Moses to the people in Moab as they
wait to enter the Promised Land; the death of Moses. 22,995 words.
2.
Chronicles
Heb
Mymyh yrbd Divrey
hayyamim ‘events of the days’, Grk
Paraleipomevnwn paraleipomenon ‘things left out, supplements’
Free translation style. Two books of genealogical lists and history of the reigns of David,
Solomon and the kings of Judah to the time of the Babylonian exile. 37,600 words.
3.
Proverbs
Heb
hmlv ylvm Mishley Shelomoh ‘proverbs of Solomon’, Grk Paroimivai
paroimiai ‘proverbs’. Paraphrase style of translation. Proverbs about wisdom and the way to
live according to knowledge of God. 11,166 words.
4.
Ecclesiastes Heb
tlhq
Qohelet ‘assembler’, Grk
j E kklhsiasthv V ecclesiastes
‘assembler’
Very literal translation, probably from 1 BC - 1 AD. Reflections on wisdom and the best way of
life. 4546 words.
5.
Isaiah
Heb hyovy Yesha‘yah ‘Isaiah’, Grk jHsai-vaV Esaias (personal name)
Free translation, probably later than mid-second century BC. Prophecies of judgments against
the nations persecuting Judah and against Judah, and about the future messiah. 27,087 words.
70
NT
The New Testament is a collection of 27 texts considered scripture in the Christian tradition.
The searchable text in Accordance is the edition of Nestle-Aland 27 (1993).
There is no
evidence that any of the books were not written in Greek, though some may have been based
on Aramaic documentary as well as oral traditions. It is probable that all the writers were
bilingual in Aramaic and Greek, and Paul at least was educated in Hebrew. The corpus is
divided into samples by traditional author. 138,167 words.
1.
Gospel of Matthew
A narrative of events in the life of Jesus including reported speeches.67 Non-literary language.68
Shares material with Mark and Luke (generally thought that Matthew and Luke independently
used Mark or a common source).
70-80 AD. 18,363 words.
2.
Gospel of Mark
A narrative of events in the life of Jesus including reported speeches.
Vulgar/non-literary
language. 55-70 AD. Shares material with Matthew and Luke but usually considered prior to
them. 11,313 words.
3. Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles
Luke: narrative of events in the life of Jesus including reported speeches.
Non-literary
language.69 75-90 AD. Shares material with Mark and Matthew. 19,496 words.
Acts: history of the origins and growth of the early church, including speeches, first- and thirdperson narrative. Non-literary language. 75-90 AD. 18,4471 words.
The common authorship of these two books is relatively uncontroversial.
4. Gospel and Epistles of John, Revelation
Gospel of John: narrative of events in the life of Jesus including reported speeches. Vulgar/non-literary
language. 85-100 AD. 15,675 words.
67
On the generic nature of ‘gospels’ as belonging to the Greek Bios tradition, see Burridge 1997a and
1997b.
68
This categorisation of the language styles of the NT books follows that of O’Donnell 2006 (Chapter 3
Appendix A, 164-5). The dates given are also taken from O’Donnell’s list. (There is great variety of
opinion about dates and authorship: a slightly earlier dating is argued for by Carson & Moo 2005.) The
word counts given here differ from O’Donnell’s and are taken from Accordance’s count of NA27.
69
Luke’s language is usually considered more literary than O’Donnell’s classification suggests. Cf
Browning (1983: 40): ‘St Luke ... has rather more literary pretensions than the other Synoptics [Matthew
and Mark]’. But his ‘pretensions’ are literary rather than purist; his language is Koine not Atticising.
71
NT continued
Epistles of John: 1 John – pastoral letter to a congregation. Vulgar/non-literary language. 85100 AD. 2141 words. 2 John: letter to a congregation warning about false teachers. Vulgar/nonliterary language. 85-100 AD. 245 words. 3 John – letter to an individual. Vulgar/non-literary
language. 85-100 AD. 219 words.
Revelation (Apocalypse): A series of visions in the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, prefaced by
seven short letters to churches, traditionally attributed to the apostle John. Vulgar language.
50-90 AD. 9856 words.
5. Epistles of Paul Non-literary language. 32,442 words.
Romans – A theological treatise setting out Paul’s teaching, within a letter to the church in
Rome. 55-50 AD. 7114 words.
1 Corinthians – A letter to the Corinthian church concerning internal problems and answering
questions from them. 55-60 AD. 6842 words.
2 Corinthians – A letter to the Corinthian church defending Paul’s decision to delay his visit to
them and giving teaching on various matters. 55-60 AD. 4488 words.
Galatians – A letter to a church in Asia Minor defending Paul’s status as an apostle and
restating his basic teaching. 50-55 AD. 2233 words.
Ephesians – A letter to a church in Asia Minor about redemption in Christ and what this means
for Christian living. ?55-65 AD. 2423 words.
Philippians – A letter to a church in Macedonia commending certain elders and calling for
perseverance. 55-65 AD. 1631 words.
Colossians – A letter to a church in Asia Minor about the greatness of Christ and the danger of
false teaching. 55-65 AD. 1582 words.
1 Thessalonians – A letter to a church in Macedonia recalling Paul’s stay in Thessaloniki and
exhorting the church to live in light of Christ’s return. 50-55 AD. 1482 words.
2 Thessalonians – A letter to the same church encouraging them to stand firm under
persecution. 50-55 AD. 823 words.
1 Timothy – A letter to a church elder warning against false teachers and explaining how to treat
various groups in the congregation. 60-100 AD. 1591 words.
2 Timothy – A letter to the elder encouraging him to persevere in spite of the fact that Paul is
now in prison facing death. 160-100 AD. 239 words.
Titus – A letter to a church elder in Crete, encouraging him to appoint elders there and
explaining criteria for such service. 60-100 AD. 55-65 AD. 659 words.
Philemon – A letter to a friend encouraging him to treat his slave generously. 55-65 AD. 335
words.
72
NT continued
6. Epistles of Peter
1 Peter – a letter to persecuted Christians in Asia Minor. Non-literary/literary language. 65-90
AD. 1685 words.
2 Peter – a letter warning about false teachers. Includes some borrowing from the letter of Jude
(or possibly vice versa). Non-literary language. 65-95 AD. 1099 words.
7. Epistle of James
A letter to churches in Palestine concerning suffering, the law and good works and dealing with
dissension. Non-literary/literary language. 45-50 or 90-100 AD. 1745 words.
8. Epistle of Jude
A letter warning about false teachers.
Shares some material with 2 Peter.
Non-literary
language. 70-95 AD. 461 words.
9. Epistle to the Hebrews
A series of homilies on the supremacy of Christ showing how he fulfils various Old Testament
concepts. Non-literary/literary language. 70-95 AD. 4956 words.
73
AF
The Apostolic Fathers is a collection of some of the earliest extant writings of the Christian
church. They were written not long after the New Testament, with a similar range of genres and
topics. The edition used by Accordance is Holmes 1999. 64,640 words.70
1.
Letters of Clement Clement was an elder of the church in Rome. 13,182 words.
1 Clement – a letter from the Roman church to the church in Corinth concerning a dispute there,
written in 96 AD. 10127 words.
2 Clement - spuriously attributed to Clement, an anonymous sermon written about 140-160 AD.
3055 words.
2.
Letters of Ignatius From Ignatius Theophorus of Antioch (died 107 AD). Seven of the 15
letters attributed to him are considered genuine; they were written to various churches while he
was travelling through Asia Minor. Non-literary language. 7960 words.
Ephesians – A letter from Smyrna about the dangers of docetism. 1822 words.
Magnesians – A letter from Smyrna about the need for unity. 1084 words.
Trallians – A letter from Smyrna about the dangers of docetism. 983 words.
Romans – A letter embracing Ignatius’ approaching martyrdom. 1061 words.
Philadelphians – A letter from Troas urging unity. 1026 words.
Smyrnaeans – A letter from Troas about the dangers of docetism. 1184 words.
Polycarp – A letter of advice from a senior to a junior church leader. 800 words.
3.
Letter of Polycarp
Letter from Polycarp of Smyrna (died 155 AD) to the church at Philippi in Macedonia. Nonliterary language. Written after 107 AD. 1146 words.
4.
Martyrdom of Polycarp
A letter from the church in Smyrna to a Phrygian church, embodying an eyewitness account of
the death of Bishop Polycarp, written shortly after 155 AD. Literary language. 2733 words.
5.
Didache
A treatise or catechism incorporating early Christian and pre-Christian material. Written 70-200
AD, probably 100-120 AD. Non-literary language. 2234 words.
70
The following information about the AF documents is taken from Staniforth 1968.
74
AF continued
6.
Shepherd of Hermas
A series of visions and parables. Written in the second century, possibly later than 155 AD.
Vulgar language. 27,869 words.
7.
Letter of Barnabas
A theological tract in letter form, written between 70 and 132 AD. 6834 words.
8.
Letter to Diognetus
Anonymous treatise in letter form, written 124 AD or later. Literary language. 2682 words.
TLG and LSJ Corpora
In order to put information extracted from the TLG and LSJ databases into a usable form
comparable with the three corpora described above, I have collected data on the following
authors and divided them into three populations based on their dates:
Classical
Herodotus 5 BC
189,489 words
history
Thucydides 5 BC
153,260 words
history
Plato 5-4 BC
585,531 words
philosophy
Lysias 5-4 BC
70,543 words
Aristotle 4 BC
1,104,731 words
rhetoric
philosophy
Early Koine
Polybius 3-2 BC
331,666 words
history
Diodorus Siculus 1 BC
486,054 words
history
Strabo 1 BC – AD 1
299,836 words
geography
Appian AD 1-2
491,292 words
history
Epictetus AD 1-2
233,587 words
philosophy
Later Koine
Cassius Dio AD 2-3
88,164 words
history
Early Koine is roughly contemporaneous with the Septuagint, and Later Koine with the New
Testament and Apostolic Fathers.
75
Appendix B – index of data tables
B.1.
Prepositions in New Testament by case
77
B.2
NT prepositions by author
a.
1-case prepositions
78
B.3
NT prepositions by author
b.
2-case prepositions
79
B.4
NT prepositions by author
c.
3-case prepositions
80
B.5.
Prepositions in LXX – frequency by author
81
B.6.
Prepositions in NT – frequency by author
82
B.7
Prepositions in AF – frequency by author
83
B.8.
Comparison of frequency order of prepositions in each corpus
a.
Frequency in LXX, NT & AF
b.
Frequency as tokens per 10,000 words in LSJ and LXX, NT, AF
84
84
84
B.9.
Prepositions in LXX
85
B.10. Prepositions in NT
86
B.11. Prepositions in AF
88
B.12
Preverbs in Lysias and NT
90
a.
b.
c.
d.
90
90
91
91
B.13
Table from Duhoux 1995
Amalgamation of Duhoux’s 6 tables of preverbs
Equivalent table of NT data
Comparison of data from Lysias and NT
P-values for comparison of data from TLG and LSJ with NT, LXX & AF
92
a.
b.
c.
d.
92
92
93
93
TLG & Accordance data for frequency of epi
TLG & Accordance data for frequency of pros
LSJ & Accordance data for frequency of eis
TLG & Accordance data for frequency of en
B.14
Preverbs in LXX: order of frequency
94
B.15
Preverbs in NT: order of frequency
95
B.16
Preverbs in AF: order of frequency
96
B.17
Comparison of frequency order of preverbs in each corpus
97
B.18
Preverbs in NT according to tense
98
B.19
Tenses in LXX, NT, AF
99
B.20
Present and aorist tenses of preverbs in LXX
100
B.21
Present and aorist tenses of preverbs in AF
101
B.22
Summary of PV usage by tense in LXX, NT, AF
102
B.23
Frequencies of PVs in NT accoding to tense
103
B.24
NT usage of PVs by author
104
B.25
Probability-value calculations for preverbs in LXX, NT, AF
107
B.26
Prepositions and preverbs in Modern Greek
a. Modern Greek reflexes of ancient prepositions
b. Katharevousa prepositions in Modern Greek
109
109
110
76
Each corpus has been divided into a number of samples of different sizes. For convenience these
samples are referred to as author-groups, because they have for the most part been grouped according to
the traditional author. However, this procedure is for the purpose of making statistical comparisons, and
carries no implications on the matter of authorship ascription, which in some cases is controversial.
Table B.1 Prepositions in NT by case
ACC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
amphí
aná
antí
apó
diá
eis
ek/ex
en
epí
hupér
hupó
katá
metá
pará
perí
pro
pros
sun
DAT
GEN
NOM
ADVERB
12
22
618
384
283
1767
1
913
469
20
51
395
104
59
37
692
2752
183
222
130
169
74
365
82
276
47
2
53
7
128
27
1
4
TOTAL
0
12
22
646
667
1767
914
2752
890
150
220
473
469
194
333
47
700
128
The instance of ajpov apo + NOM is a construction in which a relative pronoun has retained its case as
subject of its relative clause instead of being itself determined by the preposition. Cf ‘She who must be
obeyed’, in which ‘she’ is not declined when the phrase follows a preposition.
The four cases of katav kata + NOM illustrate a shortcoming of the lemmatisation and morphemic tagging.
The distributive pronoun kaq’ ei|V kath’ heis ‘one by one; each’ has been tagged as 2 words rather than a
compound. The P-word kata is here more like a prefix, and the following nominative indicates that the Pword was adverbial rather than prepositional in this collocation. Where the neuter e{n hen ‘one’ follows the
preposition in NT, Accordance tags it accusative (neuters are identical in nominative and accusative), but
where the word ‘one’ is masculine it is clearly nominative in all but one instance (1 Cor. 14:31, where ‘one’
is accusative but the collocation kaq’ e{na kathena ‘one by one’ refers to the subject).
The adverbial uses of ajpov apo and ejk ek are instances where the preposition is followed by a non-casebearing word, as in ajpo; tovte apo tote ‘since then’.
77
Table B.2 NT usage of prepositions by author: a. prepositions governing one case
2.
aná
12
0.0869
aná +
ACC
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
3.
antí
4.
apó
6.
eis
646
en
0.2723
0.0884
0.1317
0.0355
0.1541
0.7184
0.5731
0.0000
0.4036
82
67
171
337
208
13
13
2
21
2752
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
16.
pró
Tokens /
1000 words
293
135
640
474
1006
93
38
8
65
47
18.
sún
Tokens /
1000 words
5
1
14
9
12
2
2
1
1
128
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
Total
11.8717
14.8502
13.9068
9.9517
13.1003
19.0374
8.5960
13.0152
14.9314
78
0.2723
0.0884
0.3687
0.3199
0.3699
0.7184
1.1461
2.1692
0.2018
0.9264
sún +
DAT
Tokens /
1000 words
15.9560
11.9332
16.8567
16.8467
31.0092
33.4052
21.7765
17.3536
13.1154
0.3402
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
5.7725
3.7125
6.1896
3.3054
3.1749
2.8736
3.4384
4.3384
4.6408
4.4655
5.9224
4.5039
11.9775
6.4114
4.6695
7.4499
4.3384
4.2373
19.9179
pró +
GEN
12.7889
218
168
528
280
425
53
15
6
74
Tokens /
1000 words
en +
DAT
Tokens /
1000 words
106
42
235
93
103
8
6
2
23
1767
8.
4.6755
eis +
ACC
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
Tokens /
1000 wds
apó +
GEN
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
0.1634
0.0884
0.0790
0.1066
0.0616
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
5
1
5
1
5
2
1
0
2
6.6152
ek +
GEN
0.1592
antí +
GEN
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
ek/ex 914
Tokens /
1000 words
3
1
3
3
2
22
7.
4
6
74
3
39
1
1
0
0
128
Tokens /
1000 words
0.2178
0.5304
1.9491
0.1066
1.2021
0.3592
0.5731
0.0000
0.0000
0.9264
Table B.3 NT usage of prepositions by author: b. prepositions governing two cases
5.
diá
667
4.8275
diá + ACC
Tokens/1000 words diá + GEN
Tokens/1000
words
Matthew
33
1.7971
26
1.4159
Mark
21
1.8563
12
1.0607
Luke-Acts
46
1.2116
66
1.7384
Johannine
66
2.3457
20
0.7108
Pauline
92
2.8358
200
6.1648
Peter
6
2.1552
19
6.8247
James
1
0.5731
1
0.5731
Jude
0
0.0000
1
2.1692
Hebrews
18
3.6320
39
7.8692
10.
hupér 150
1.0856
hupér + ACC Tokens/1000 words hupér + GEN Tokens/1000 wds
Matthew
4
0.2178
1
0.0545
Mark
0
0.0000
2
0.1768
Luke-Acts
3
0.0790
9
0.2370
Johannine
0
0.0000
16
0.5687
Pauline
12
0.3699
89
2.7434
Peter
0
0.0000
2
0.7184
James
0
0.0000
1
0.5731
Jude
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
Hebrews
1
0.2018
10
2.0178
11.
hupó 220
1.5923
hupó + ACC
Tokens / 1000 wds
hupó + GEN
Tokens/1000 wds
Matthew
5
0.2723
23
1.2525
Mark
3
0.2652
9
0.7955
Luke-Acts
10
0.2634
62
1.6330
Johannine
1
0.0355
5
0.1777
Pauline
28
0.8631
48
1.4796
Peter
1
0.3592
6
2.1552
James
2
1.1461
5
2.8653
Jude
1
2.1692
2
4.3384
Hebrews
0
0.0000
9
1.8160
13.
metá 469
3.3944
metá + ACC
Tokens/1000 words metá + GEN
Tokens/1000 wds
Matthew
10
0.5446
61
3.3219
Mark
12
1.0607
44
3.8893
Luke-Acts
41
1.0799
87
2.2915
Johannine
26
0.9241
89
3.1632
Pauline
4
0.1233
69
2.1269
Peter
2
0.7184
1
0.3592
James
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
Jude
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
Hebrews
9
1.8160
14
2.8249
15.
perí
333
2.4101
perí + ACC
Tokens/1000 wds
perí + GEN
Tokens/1000 wds
Matthew
8
0.4357
20
1.0891
Mark
10
0.8839
13
1.1491
0.0708
Luke-Acts
12
0.3161
105
2.7656
0.5718
Johannine
1
0.0355
78
2.7722
0.4248
Pauline
7
0.2158
44
1.3563
0.2396
Peter
0
0.0000
7
2.5144
0.0381
James
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
0.0000
Jude
1
2.1692
4
8.6768
0.0218
Hebrews
0
0.0000
23
4.6408
0.12530
79
Table B.4 NT usage of prepositions by author: c. prepositions governing three cases
9.
epí
890
6.4415
epí + ACC
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
Tokens / 1000
words
69
35
210
91
51
9
4
0
13
epí + DAT
3.7576
3.0938
5.5311
3.2343
1.5720
3.2328
2.2923
0.0000
2.6231
Tokens /
1000 words
18
16
62
22
55
1
2
0
10
epí +
GEN
0.9802
1.4143
1.6330
0.7819
1.6953
0.3592
1.1461
0.0000
2.0178
Tokens /
1000 words
35
21
58
69
28
2
2
1
6
1.9060
1.8563
1.5276
2.4524
0.8631
0.7184
1.1461
2.1692
1.2107
12. katá 473 3.4234 (listed here for reasons of space: kata+NOM is not a true case government-see
comments under Table B.1)
katá + ACC
Tokens /
katá + GEN Tokens /
katá +
Tokens / 1000
1000 words
1000 words
NOM
words
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
21
16
111
14
178
12
3
2
38
14.
1.4041
pará 194
pará + ACC
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
17.
prós
Tokens / 1000
words
7
7
21
0
14
0
0
0
10
700
16
7
22
5
15
2
2
2
3
0.8713
0.6188
0.5795
0.1777
0.4624
0.7184
1.1461
4.3384
0.6053
pará + DAT
0.3812
0.6188
0.5531
0.0000
0.4315
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.0178
6
3
15
10
14
3
2
0
0
Tokens /
1000 words
0.3267
0.2652
0.3951
0.3554
0.4315
1.0776
1.1461
0.0000
0.0000
3
1
pará +
GEN
0.1066
0.0308
Tokens /
1000 words
5
7
22
31
13
2
2
0
0
0.2723
0.6188
0.5795
1.1018
0.4007
0.7184
1.1461
0.0000
0.0000
5.0663
prós + ACC
Matthew
Mark
Luke-Acts
Johannine
Pauline
Peter
James
Jude
Hebrews
1.1436
1.4143
2.9236
0.4976
5.4867
4.3103
1.7192
4.3384
7.6675
42
64
297
117
146
5
2
0
19
Tokens / 1000
words
prós + DAT
2.2872
5.6572
7.8226
4.1584
4.5003
1.7960
1.1461
0.0000
3.8337
1
1
5
80
Tokens /
1000 words
0.0000
0.0884
0.0263
0.1777
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
prós +
GEN
1
Tokens / 1000
words
0.0000
0.0000
0.0263
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Table B.5 Prepositions in LXX corpus - frequency in each group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Pentateuch
2215 en
1574 eis
1420 epi
963 pros
910 apo
903 ek
559 kata
492 meta
242 peri
225 para
218 dia
130 ana
78 anti
74 pro
61 hupo
53 sun
7 huper
10124
Chronicles
1001 en
507 eis
452 epi
243 ek
215 apo
183 pros
180 meta
163 kata
59 dia
36 peri
35 anti
30 para
16 huper
13 ana
4 hupo
2 pro
2 sun
3141
Proverbs
200 en
94 eis
78 epi
53 apo
52 meta
49 ek
42 para
22 dia
21 pros
20 hupo
11 pro
8 kata
4 huper
3 ana
3 anti
3 peri
1 sun
664
81
Ecclesiastes
160 en
51 eis
34 apo
34 sun
33 epi
33 hupo
29 huper
9 meta
9 pros
7 para
6 pro
5 ek
5 peri
1 anti
1 dia
0 ana
0 kata
417
Isaiah
459 en
346 epi
336 eis
206 apo
134 dia
118 ek
100 pros
76 meta
30 para
29 kata
26 hupo
23 peri
17 anti
9 huper
7 ana
5 pro
4 sun
1925
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Table B.6 Prepositions in NT corpus - frequency in each group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Matt
293 en
218 eis
122 epi
106 apo
82 ek
71 meta
59 dia
42 pros
37 kata
28 hupo
28 peri
18 para
5 anti
5 huper
5 pro
4 sun
3 ana
1126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Peter
93 en
53 eis
25 dia
14 kata
13 ek
12 epi
8 apo
7 hupo
7 peri
5 para
5 pros
3 meta
2 anti
2 huper
2 pro
1 sun
0 ana
252
Mark
168 eis
135 en
72 epi
67 ek
65 pros
56 meta
42 apo
33 dia
23 kata
23 peri
17 para
12 hupo
6 sun
2 huper
1 ana
1 anti
1 pro
724
James
38 en
15 eis
13 ek
8 epi
7 hupo
6 apo
5 kata
4 para
2 dia
2 pro
2 pros
1 anti
1 huper
1 sun
0 ana
0 meta
0 peri
105
Lk-Acts
640 en
528 eis
330 epi
299 pros
235 apo
171 ek
133 kata
128 meta
117 peri
112 dia
74 sun
72 hupo
58 para
14 pro
12 huper
5 anti
3 ana
2931
8
6
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
Jude
en
eis
peri
kata
hupo
apo
ek
dia
epi
pro
ana
anti
huper
meta
para
pros
sun
82
John
474 en
337 ek
280 eis
182 epi
122 pros
115 meta
93 apo
86 dia
79 peri
41 para
22 kata
16 huper
9 pro
6 hupo
3 ana
3 sun
1 anti
1869
Paul
1006 en
425 eis
292 dia
208 ek
194 kata
146 pros
134 epi
103 apo
101 huper
76 hupo
73 meta
51 peri
41 para
39 sun
12 pro
5 anti
2 ana
2908
Hebrews
74 eis
65 en
57 dia
41 kata
29 epi
23 apo
23 meta
23 peri
21 ek
19 pros
11 huper
10 para
9 hupo
2 anti
1 pro
0 ana
0 sun
408
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Table B.7 Prepositions in AF corpus - frequency in each group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Clement
238 en
155 eis
110 dia
85 epi
78 apo
71 ek
44 meta
42 hupo
42 kata
42 pros
32 peri
18 para
8 huper
7 pro
4 anti
1 sun
0 ana
977
Didache
37 eis
32 en
17 apo
11 peri
10 kata
10 meta
8 dia
8 epi
8 huper
8 pros
7 ek
3 pro
2 hupo
1 para
0 sun
0 anti
0 ana
162
Ignatius
233 en
127 eis
78 kata
71 dia
31 apo
20 ek
20 peri
18 epi
18 huper
18 hupo
16 pros
15 meta
8 para
6 sun
4 pro
1 anti
0 ana
684
Shepherd
377 eis
264 en
176 ek
164 apo
153 meta
125 epi
117 dia
89 peri
81 para
71 hupo
47 pros
31 kata
11 huper
4 anti
3 ana
2 pro
0 sun
1715
Polycarp
21 en
15 eis
11 ek
7 peri
5 dia
5 kata
4 anti
4 apo
4 para
3 huper
3 hupo
2 epi
2 pros
1 meta
1 pro
1 sun
0 ana
89
Barnabas
132 en
100 eis
73 epi
33 ek
32 peri
31 dia
27 pros
24 apo
21 kata
18 meta
10 huper
7 hupo
7 para
1 pro
0 sun
0 anti
0 ana
516
83
Martyrdom
33 en
31 eis
22 kata
16 ek
14 dia
11 epi
11 hupo
11 meta
9 apo
8 sun
7 pros
4 peri
4 pro
3 huper
2 para
0 ana
0 anti
186
Diognetus
43 en
18 eis
18 hupo
12 dia
9 ek
7 huper
7 kata
7 para
7 pros
6 epi
6 peri
5 apo
4 meta
1 sun
0 pro
0 anti
0 ana
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Table B.8.a Comparison of frequency order of prepositions in each corpus
Usage of each preposition as percentage of all prepositions per corpus
LXX
24.80
15.75
14.31
8.71
8.10
7.84
4.97
4.66
2.67
2.05
1.90
0.94
0.89
0.82
0.60
0.58
0.40
100.00
NT
en
eis
epi
apo
ek
pros
meta
kata
dia
para
peri
ana
hupo
anti
pro
sun
huper
26.57
17.06
8.83
8.59
6.76
6.44
5.97
4.57
4.53
3.22
2.12
1.87
1.45
1.24
0.45
0.21
0.12
100.00
AF
en
eis
ek
epi
pros
dia
apo
kata
meta
peri
hupo
para
huper
sun
pro
anti
ana
22.24
19.20
8.22
7.66
7.41
7.32
5.72
4.82
4.49
3.84
3.48
2.86
1.52
0.49
0.38
0.29
0.07
100.00
en
eis
dia
ek
apo
epi
meta
kata
peri
hupo
pros
para
huper
pro
sun
anti
ana
Note that, because spatial and other relations could sometimes be expressed by an oblique NP as well as
by a PP, this percentage expresses only the actual and not all the possible uses of each preposition. For
example, ejpiv epi has a higher usage rate in LXX than NT or AF, but this may be due to a lower incidence
of the dative NP construction (which is examined in relation to the verb ejpitivqhmi epitithemi in the NT in
Appendix C); only a detailed semantic analysis of each token in its context (taking account both of
possible paradigmatic alternatives when it was used, and of contexts where it could have been used but
was not) would reveal the reason for the difference between LXX and the other corpora.
B.8.b (Table 2.2) Frequency of prepositions in LSJ citations (tokens per 10,000)
and in LXX, NT & AF (tokens per 10,000)
LSJ
195.92
89.37
71.78
65.23
51.33
40.49
35.59
28.67
28.11
27.80
10.56
5.38
4.25
3.48
eis
en
pros
epi
ek
dia
hupo
para
apo
meta
huper
sun
pro
anti
LXX
196.9 en
125.0 eis
113.6 epi
69.2 apo
64.3 ek
62.3 pros
39.5 meta
37.0 kata
21.2 dia
16.3 para
15.1 peri
7.5 ana
7.0 hupo
6.5 anti
4.8 pro
4.6 sun
3.2 huper
84
NT
199.2 en
127.9 eis
66.2 ek
64.4 epi
50.7 pros
48.3 dia
44.7 apo
34.2 kata
33.9 meta
24.1 peri
15.9 hupo
14.0 para
10.9 huper
9.3 sun
3.4 pro
1.6 anti
AF
154.1 en
133.0 eis
56.9 dia
53.1 ek
51.4 apo
50.7 epi
39.6 meta
33.4 kata
31.1 peri
26.6 hupo
24.1 pros
19.8 para
10.5 huper
3.4 pro
2.6 sun
2.0 anti
0.9 ana
0.5 ana
Table B.9 Prepositions in LXX
Pentateuch
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
Chronicles
/1000
words
% of
preps
Word
count
/1000
words
% of
preps
Word
count
/1000
words
% of
preps
130
78
910
218
1574
903
2215
1420
7
61
559
492
225
242
74
963
53
10124
1.04
0.63
7.31
1.75
12.64
7.25
17.79
11.40
0.06
0.49
4.49
3.95
1.81
1.94
0.59
7.73
0.43
81.30
1.28
0.77
8.99
2.15
15.55
8.92
21.88
14.03
0.07
0.60
5.52
4.86
2.22
2.39
0.73
9.51
0.52
100.00
13
35
215
59
507
243
1001
452
16
4
163
180
30
36
2
183
2
3141
0.35
0.93
5.72
1.57
13.48
6.46
26.62
12.02
0.43
0.11
4.34
4.79
0.80
0.96
0.05
4.87
0.05
83.54
0.41
1.11
6.84
1.88
16.14
7.74
31.87
14.39
0.51
0.13
5.19
5.73
0.96
1.15
0.06
5.83
0.06
71.11
3
3
53
22
94
49
200
78
4
20
8
52
42
3
11
21
1
664
0.27
0.27
4.75
1.97
8.42
4.39
17.91
6.99
0.36
1.79
0.72
4.66
3.76
0.27
0.99
1.88
0.09
59.47
0.45
0.45
7.98
3.31
14.16
7.38
30.12
11.75
0.60
3.01
1.20
7.83
6.33
0.45
1.66
3.16
0.15
100.00
Ecclesiastes
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
Proverbs
Word
count
Isaiah
Whole corpus
Word
count
/1000
words
% of
preps
Word
count
/1000
words
% of
preps
Word
count
/1000
words
% of
preps
0
1
34
1
51
5
160
33
29
33
0
9
7
5
6
9
34
417
0.00
0.22
7.48
0.22
11.22
1.10
35.20
7.26
6.38
7.26
0.00
1.98
1.54
1.10
1.32
1.98
7.48
91.73
0.00
0.24
8.15
0.24
12.23
1.20
38.37
7.91
6.95
7.91
0.00
2.16
1.68
1.20
1.44
2.16
8.15
100.00
7
17
206
134
336
118
459
346
9
26
29
76
30
23
5
100
4
1925
0.26
0.63
7.61
4.95
12.40
4.36
16.95
12.77
0.33
0.96
1.07
2.81
1.11
0.85
0.18
3.69
0.15
71.07
0.36
0.88
10.70
6.96
17.45
6.13
23.84
17.97
0.47
1.35
1.51
3.95
1.56
1.19
0.26
5.19
0.21
100.00
153
134
1418
434
2562
1318
4035
2329
65
144
759
809
334
309
98
1276
94
16271
0.75
0.65
6.92
2.12
12.50
6.43
19.69
11.36
0.32
0.70
3.70
3.95
1.63
1.51
0.48
6.23
0.46
79.40
0.94
0.82
8.71
2.67
15.75
8.10
24.80
14.31
0.40
0.89
4.66
4.97
2.05
1.90
0.60
7.84
0.58
100.00
85
Table B.10
Prepositions in NT
Matthew
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
Mark
/1000
words
% of
preps
Word
count
/1000
words
% of
preps
Word
count
/1000
words
% of
preps
3
5
106
59
218
82
293
122
5
28
37
71
18
28
5
42
4
0.16
0.27
5.77
3.21
11.87
4.47
15.96
6.64
0.27
1.52
2.01
3.87
0.98
1.52
0.27
2.29
0.22
0.27
0.44
9.41
5.24
19.36
7.28
26.02
10.83
0.44
2.49
3.29
6.31
1.60
2.49
0.44
3.73
0.36
1
1
42
33
168
67
135
72
2
12
23
56
17
23
1
65
6
0.09
0.09
3.71
2.92
14.85
5.92
11.93
6.36
0.18
1.06
2.03
4.95
1.50
2.03
0.09
5.75
0.53
0.14
0.14
5.80
4.56
23.20
9.25
18.65
9.94
0.28
1.66
3.18
7.73
2.35
3.18
0.14
8.98
0.83
3
5
235
112
528
171
640
330
12
72
133
128
58
117
14
299
74
0.08
0.13
6.19
2.95
13.91
4.50
16.86
8.69
0.32
1.90
3.50
3.37
1.53
3.08
0.37
7.88
1.95
0.10
0.17
8.02
3.82
18.01
5.83
21.84
11.26
0.41
2.46
4.54
4.37
1.98
3.99
0.48
10.20
2.52
1126
61.32
100.00
724
64.00
100
2931
77.20
100.00
John
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
Luke-Acts
Word
count
Paul
Peter
Word
count
/1000
words
% of
preps
Word
count
/1000
words
% of
preps
Word
count
/1000
words
% of
preps
3
1
93
86
280
337
474
182
16
6
22
115
41
79
9
122
3
0.11
0.04
3.31
3.06
9.95
11.98
16.85
6.47
0.57
0.21
0.78
4.09
1.46
2.81
0.32
4.34
0.11
0.16
0.05
4.98
4.60
14.98
18.03
25.36
9.74
0.86
0.32
1.18
6.15
2.19
4.23
0.48
6.53
0.16
2
5
103
292
425
208
1006
134
101
76
194
73
41
51
12
146
39
0.06
0.15
3.17
9.00
13.10
6.41
31.01
4.13
3.11
2.34
5.98
2.25
1.26
1.57
0.37
4.50
1.20
0.07
0.17
3.54
10.04
14.61
7.15
34.59
4.61
3.47
2.61
6.67
2.51
1.41
1.75
0.41
5.02
1.34
0
2
8
25
53
13
93
12
2
7
14
3
5
7
2
5
1
0.00
0.72
2.87
8.98
19.04
4.67
33.41
4.31
0.72
2.51
5.03
1.08
1.80
2.51
0.72
1.80
0.36
0.00
0.79
3.17
9.92
21.03
5.16
36.90
4.76
0.79
2.78
5.56
1.19
1.98
2.78
0.79
1.98
0.40
1869
66.43
100.00
2908
89.64
100.00
252
90.52
100.00
86
Table B.10
Prepositions in NT continued
James
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
Jude
/1000
words
% of
preps
Word
count
/1000
words
% of
preps
0
1
6
2
15
13
38
8
1
7
5
0
4
0
2
2
1
0.00
0.57
3.44
1.15
8.60
7.45
21.78
4.58
0.57
4.01
2.87
0.00
2.29
0.00
1.15
1.15
0.57
0.00
0.95
5.71
1.90
14.29
12.38
36.19
7.62
0.95
6.67
4.76
0.00
3.81
0.00
1.90
1.90
0.95
0
0
2
1
6
2
8
1
0
3
4
0
0
5
1
0
0
0.00
0.00
4.34
2.17
13.02
4.34
17.35
2.17
0.00
6.51
8.68
0.00
0.00
10.85
2.17
0.00
0.00
105
60.17
100.00
33
71.58
Whole corpus
Word
Count
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
hyper
hypo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
Hebrews
Word
count
12
22
618
667
1767
914
2752
890
150
220
473
469
194
333
47
700
128
10356
/1000
0.09
0.16
4.47
4.83
12.79
6.62
19.92
6.44
1.09
1.59
3.42
3.39
1.40
2.41
0.34
5.07
0.93
74.95
%
allpreps
0.12
0.21
5.97
6.44
17.06
8.83
26.57
8.59
1.45
2.12
4.57
4.53
1.87
3.22
0.45
6.76
1.24
100.00
87
Word
count
/1000
words
% of
preps
0.00
0.00
6.06
3.03
18.18
6.06
24.24
3.03
0.00
9.09
12.12
0.00
0.00
15.15
3.03
0.00
0.00
0
2
23
57
74
21
65
29
11
9
41
23
10
23
1
19
0
0.00
0.40
4.64
11.50
14.93
4.24
13.12
5.85
2.22
1.82
8.27
4.64
2.02
4.64
0.20
3.83
0.00
0.00
0.49
5.64
13.97
18.14
5.15
15.93
7.11
2.70
2.21
10.05
5.64
2.45
5.64
0.25
4.66
0.00
100.00
408
82.32
100.00
Table B.11
Prepositions in AF
Clement
Word
Count
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
0
4
78
110
155
71
238
85
8
42
42
44
18
32
7
42
1
977
/1000
0.00
0.30
5.92
8.34
11.76
5.39
18.05
6.45
0.61
3.19
3.19
3.34
1.37
2.43
0.53
3.19
0.08
74.12
Ignatius
%
allpreps
0.00
0.41
7.98
11.26
15.86
7.27
24.36
8.70
0.82
4.30
4.30
4.50
1.84
3.28
0.72
4.30
0.10
100.00
Word
Count
0
1
31
71
127
20
233
18
18
18
78
15
8
20
4
16
6
684
Martyrdom
Word
Count
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
0
0
9
14
31
16
33
11
3
11
22
11
2
4
4
7
8
186
/1000
0.00
0.00
3.29
5.12
11.34
5.85
12.07
4.02
1.10
4.02
8.05
4.02
0.73
1.46
1.46
2.56
2.93
68.06
/1000
0.00
0.13
3.89
8.92
15.95
2.51
29.27
2.26
2.26
2.26
9.80
1.88
1.01
2.51
0.50
2.01
0.75
85.93
Polycarp
%
allpreps
0.00
0.15
4.53
10.38
18.57
2.92
34.06
2.63
2.63
2.63
11.40
2.19
1.17
2.92
0.58
2.34
0.88
100
Word
Count
0
4
4
5
15
11
21
2
3
3
5
1
4
7
1
2
1
89
Didache
%
allpreps
0.00
0.00
4.84
7.53
16.67
8.60
17.74
5.91
1.61
5.91
11.83
5.91
1.08
2.15
2.15
3.76
4.30
100.00
Word
Count
0
0
17
8
37
7
32
8
8
2
10
10
1
11
3
8
0
162
0.00
3.49
3.49
4.36
13.09
9.60
18.32
1.75
2.62
2.62
4.36
0.87
3.49
6.11
0.87
1.75
0.87
77.66
%
allpreps
0.00
4.49
4.49
5.62
16.85
12.36
23.60
2.25
3.37
3.37
5.62
1.12
4.49
7.87
1.12
2.25
1.12
100.00
Shepherd
/1000
%
allpreps
0.00
0.00
7.61
3.58
16.56
3.13
14.32
3.58
3.58
0.90
4.48
4.48
0.45
4.92
1.34
3.58
0.00
72.52
0.00
0.00
10.49
4.94
22.84
4.32
19.75
4.94
4.94
1.23
6.17
6.17
0.62
6.79
1.85
4.94
0.00
100.00
88
/1000
Word
Count
3
4
164
117
377
176
264
125
11
71
31
153
81
89
2
47
0
1715
/1000
%
allpreps
0.11
0.14
5.88
4.20
13.53
6.32
9.47
4.49
0.39
2.55
1.11
5.49
2.91
3.19
0.07
1.69
0.00
61.54
0.17
0.23
9.56
6.82
21.98
10.26
15.39
7.29
0.64
4.14
1.81
8.92
4.72
5.19
0.12
2.74
0.00
100.00
Table B.11
Prepositions in AF continued
Barnabas
Word
Count
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
hyper
hypo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
0
0
24
31
100
33
132
73
10
7
21
18
7
32
1
27
0
516
Diognetus
/1000
%
allpreps
0.00
0.00
3.51
4.54
14.63
4.83
19.32
10.68
1.46
1.02
3.07
2.63
1.02
4.68
0.15
3.95
0.00
75.50
0.00
0.00
4.65
6.01
19.38
6.40
25.58
14.15
1.94
1.36
4.07
3.49
1.36
6.20
0.19
5.23
0.00
100.00
Word
Count
Whole Corpus
/1000
%
allpreps
0.00
0.00
1.86
4.47
6.71
3.36
16.03
2.24
2.61
6.71
2.61
1.49
2.61
2.24
0.00
2.61
0.37
55.93
0.00
0.00
3.33
8.00
12.00
6.00
28.67
4.00
4.67
12.00
4.67
2.67
4.67
4.00
0.00
4.67
0.67
100.00
0
0
5
12
18
9
43
6
7
18
7
4
7
6
0
7
1
150
89
Word
Count
3
13
332
368
860
343
996
328
68
172
216
256
128
201
22
156
17
4479
/1000
0.05
0.20
5.14
5.69
13.30
5.31
15.41
5.07
1.05
2.66
3.34
3.96
1.98
3.11
0.34
2.41
0.26
69.29
%
allpreps
0.07
0.29
7.41
8.22
19.20
7.66
22.24
7.32
1.52
3.84
4.82
5.72
2.86
4.49
0.49
3.48
0.38
100.00
Table B.12 Preverbs in Lysias and NT
Table B.12.a. from Duhoux 1995 (Tableau 6: Temps et préverbation à l’indicatif chez Lysias, p 255)
Preverbs
%
Unclear
Aorist
Future
Future-Aorist
Future Perfect
Imperfect
Perfect
Pluperfect
Present
Total
52.9
9.3
No
14
383
67
11.3
8.6
1.8
14.2
100
82
62
13
103
724
Non-preverbs
%
No
3
33.2
493
9.3
138
0.1
1
0.3
5
17.7
263
12.9
192
1.5
23
24.8
368
100
1486
Total
%
39.6
9.3
0.0
0.2
15.6
11.5
1.6
21.3
100
No
17
876
205
1
5
345
254
36
471
2210
This table shows the raw word count and the percntage of the total number of verbs of each indicative
tense-form in the classical author Lysias (text of approx 50,000 words)
Table B.12.b Amalgamation of Duhoux’s Tables 6-11 (all moods. participles and infinitives)
Preverbs
Non-preverbs
%
No
%
No
Unclear
0.84
16
0.08
Aorist
56.84
1089
Future
5.69
Future-Aorist
Total
%
No
3
0.32
19
35.52
1405
42.47
2494
109
5.97
236
5.88
345
0.00
0
0.03
1
0.02
1
Future
Perfect
0.00
0
0.13
5
0.09
5
Imperfect
5.79
111
6.65
263
6.37
374
Perfect
8.35
160
15.02
594
12.84
754
Pluperfect
0.68
13
0.58
23
0.61
36
Present
21.82
418
36.05
1426
31.40
1844
Total
1916
3956
5872
This table is a composite of the separate tables Duhoux gives for preverbation according to the mood
and finiteness of the verb. The figures are aggregated to make them comparable to my NT data (Table
B.12.c overleaf).
90
Table B.12.c NT preverbation
Equivalent table for verbs in NT (all moods. participles and infinitives) removing Unclear, Future Aorist &
Future Perfect
NT verbs
Aorist
Preverbs
%
52.82
No
4418
Non-preverbs
%
No
36.38
7188
Total
%
41.27
No
11606
Future
6.66
557
5.42
1071
5.79
1628
Imperfect
4.93
412
6.41
1267
5.97
1679
Perfect
4.26
356
6.15
1215
5.59
1571
Pluperfect
0.18
15
0.36
71
0.31
86
31.17
2607
45.28
8947
41.08
11554
100.00
8635
100.00
19759
100.00
28124
Present
Total
This table organises the NT data into the same format as Duhoux’s Lysias data, as given in Table B.12.b
Table B.12.d Comparison of Duhoux’s data from Lysias with NT
(adjusted: removal of unclear; 5 fut pf & 1 fut aor treated as fut)
Present
Lysias
PV
NT
PV
Lysias
Non-PV
NT
Non-PV
Lysias
Total
NT
Total
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
418
22.00
2607
31.17
1426
36.07
6847
45.28
1844
31.51
11554
41.08
Future
Imperfect
109
5.74
557
6.66
242
6.12
1071
5.42
351
6.00
1628
5.79
111
5.84
412
6.41
263
6.65
1267
6.41
374
6.39
1679
5.97
91
Aorist
1089
57.32
4418
52.82
1405
35.54
7188
36.38
2494
42.61
11606
41.27
Perfect
160
8.42
356
4.26
594
15.03
1215
6.15
754
12.88
1571
5.59
Pluperfect
13
0.68
15
0.18
23
0.58
71
0.36
36
0.62
86
0.31
Table B.13 – P-values for comparison of data from TLG and LSJ with LXX, NT, AF
P-values of 0.05 or under are hightlighted in pink (2-tailed) and green (1-tailed)
Table B.13.a Epi tokens per 1000 words in TLG
Classical
Early
LXX
TLG epi
Koine
Classical
-2.025
-3.763
m=4.25
0.039
0.003
0.077
0.006
Early
-3.166
Koine
0.007
m=6.36
0.013
LXX
m=10.09
NT
-1.167
0.138
0.277
0.042
0.484
0.968
1.747
0.059
0.119
NT
m=5.47
Late
Koine
-2.028
0.039
0.077
-0.669
0.261
0.522
1.721
0.062
0.124
-0.290
0.390
0.779
Late
Koine
m=6.93
Apostolic
Fathers
m=4.43
Table B.13.b Pros tokens per 1000 words in TLG
Classical
Early
LXX
TLG pros
Koine
Classical
-4.644
0.967
m=
0.001
0.181
0.002
0.362
Early
3.414
Koine
0.005
m=
0.009
LXX
m=
NT
m=
Late
Koine
m=
Apostolic
Fathers
m=
92
NT
1.143
0.143
0.286
3.662
0.003
0.006
0.030
0.489
0.977
Late
Koine
-0.877
0.203
0.406
1.577
0.077
0.143
-1.162
0.139
0.279
-1.271
0.120
0.239
Apostolic
Fathers
0.111
0.457
0.914
1.530
0.082
0.164
2.750
0.013
0.079
0.791
0.226
0.452
1.465
0.091
0.181
Apostolic
Fathers
4.509
0.001
0.002
5.595
0.000
0.001
0.915
0.194
0.387
1.006
0.172
0.344
1.845
0.051
0.102
Table B.13.c Eis tokens per 10000 words in LSJ
Classical
Early
LXX
LSJ eis
Koine
Classical
-0.076
3.281
m=198.38
0.470
0.004
0.941
0.008
Early
6.732
Koine
0.000
m=200.79
0.000
LXX
m=116.3
NT
3.020
0.005
0.009
3.714
0.001
0.003
-1.065
0.152
0.305
NT
m=132.51
Late
Koine
-0.176
0.432
0.865
-0.118
0.455
0.910
-2.132
0.033
0.066
0.201
0.421
0.843
Apostolic
Fathers
3.006
0.005
0.010
3.767
0.002
0.003
-0.840
0.208
0.416
2.149
0.027
0.055
-2.067
0.012
0.024
Late
Koine
1.854
0.050
0.101
0.942
0.187
0.374
3.210
0.006
0.012
-12.228
0.000
0.000
Apostolic
Fathers
-2.410
0.021
0.043
-3.044
0.008
0.016
1.080
0.156
0.312
-6.233
0.000
0.000
-3.72
0.003
0.006
Late
Koine
m=207.45
Apostolic
Fathers
m=129.5
Table B.13.d En tokens per 1000 words in TLG
Classical
Early
LXX
TLG en
Koine
Classical
0.946
-3.507
m=10.24
0.186
0.004
0.372
0.008
Early
-4.011
Koine
0.002
m=
0.004
LXX
m=
NT
m=
Late
Koine
m=
Apostolic
Fathers
m=
93
NT
6.485
0.000
0.000
6.528
0.000
0.000
4.576
0.001
0.002
Table B.14 Preverbs in LXX - order of frequency in each group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Pentateuch
1115 apo
1061 ek
828 kata
645 epi
534 ana
501 pros
412 sun
370 eis
361 para
284 dia
251 en
118 peri
79 hupo
54 pro
40 anti
29 meta
22 huper
0 amphi
6704
Chronicles
275 kata
224 apo
208 ek
137 ana
120 epi
73 sun
69 eis
61 pros
60 dia
57 para
41 en
19 pro
16 hupo
12 anti
12 peri
9 meta
2 huper
0 amphi
1395
Proverbs
118 apo
104 kata
93 ek
87 epi
63 sun
46 para
42 dia
35 hupo
33 ana
33 pros
21 en
20 pro
18 peri
14 eis
10 meta
9 anti
9 huper
0 amphi
755
94
Ecclesiastes
29 apo
26 ek
26 epi
13 kata
11 sun
9 ana
9 dia
9 peri
7 pros
6 para
3 hupo
2 anti
1 eis
0 en
0 huper
0 meta
0 pro
0 amphi
151
Isaiah
260 apo
236 kata
209 ana
188 ek
131 epi
123 sun
92 para
67 dia
65 en
58 pros
38 anti
35 eis
24 peri
15 hupo
12 pro
11 meta
4 huper
0 amphi
1568
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Table B.15 Preverbs in NT - order of frequency in each group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Matt
292 apo
122 ek
119 pros
107 kata
84 para
67 sun
66 ana
63 epi
41 dia
39 eis
28 hupo
23 peri
18 meta
14 pro
13 en
2 amphi
2 anti
0 huper
1100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Peter
25 apo
20 epi
16 kata
15 hupo
14 para
10 ana
9 dia
9 ek
8 sun
7 pros
5 pro
3 anti
2 peri
1 en
1 huper
0 eis
0 meta
0 amphi
145
Mark
201 apo
109 ek
76 epi
75 kata
68 para
60 ana
44 pros
38 eis
37 sun
34 dia
26 peri
20 hupo
12 en
12 pro
6 meta
1 amphi
0 anti
0 huper
819
James
20 kata
13 epi
11 apo
7 ek
6 hupo
6 pros
4 ana
4 para
3 anti
3 dia
3 eis
3 meta
2 en
2 sun
1 peri
0 pro
0 huper
0 amphi
88
Lk-Acts
455 apo
296 kata
295 epi
281 ana
266 ek
215 para
214 dia
182 sun
172 pros
119 hupo
115 eis
58 peri
46 pro
45 meta
27 anti
27 en
5 huper
2 amphi
2820
Jude
6 apo
6 epi
4 para
4 pro
3 dia
3 ek
2 hupo
2 pros
1 en
1 meta
1 sun
0 peri
0 ana
0 anti
0 eis
0 kata
0 huper
0 amphi
33
95
John
261 apo
122 kata
103 ana
99 ek
53 peri
46 hupo
41 pros
32 para
29 epi
28 sun
21 eis
18 meta
17 dia
9 en
6 pro
5 anti
0 huper
0 amphi
890
Hebrews
43 kata
38 pros
36 apo
30 epi
21 ana
21 eis
21 para
19 ek
15 hupo
13 dia
11 sun
9 en
9 meta
6 peri
6 pro
3 anti
0 huper
0 amphi
301
Paul
189 apo
177 kata
168 para
130 epi
116 sun
104 ek
97 ana
83 peri
81 en
80 pro
69 dia
60 hupo
49 pros
29 anti
27 meta
22 huper
7 eis
0 amphi
1488
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Table B.16 Preverbs in AF - order of frequency in each group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Clement
93 apo
84 epi
80 ek
70 ana
67 kata
52 hupo
52 para
44 pros
40 dia
35 sun
26 meta
19 eis
16 en
16 pro
10 peri
8 anti
3 huper
0 amphi
715
Ignatius
58 apo
42 epi
39 sun
35 kata
31 para
30 ana
23 pros
21 hupo
20 en
20 pro
14 dia
10 ek
9 huper
9 meta
7 peri
5 anti
1 eis
0 amphi
374
Polycarp
19 apo
7 epi
6 hupo
6 pro
5 ana
4 para
3 eis
3 ek
3 en
3 kata
3 peri
3 sun
2 pros
1 anti
1 dia
1 meta
0 huper
0 amphi
70
Martyrdom
30 epi
21 apo
21 pros
20 kata
17 hupo
17 sun
15 para
11 ana
11 ek
10 meta
6 pro
4 peri
3 anti
3 dia
3 eis
2 en
0 huper
0 amphi
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Clement
13 apo
12 pros
9 sun
8 ek
7 kata
6 dia
5 epi
5 pro
4 para
3 ana
3 hupo
2 en
2 meta
1 eis
1 huper
1 peri
0 anti
0 amphi
82
Ignatius
299 apo
223 epi
210 kata
105 meta
97 ana
85 para
83 ek
67 en
66 sun
53 peri
48 dia
41 pros
38 hupo
30 eis
25 pro
14 anti
8 huper
0 amphi
1492
Polycarp
41 kata
38 ek
35 sun
32 pros
27 ana
27 apo
24 epi
19 peri
16 en
15 para
12 hupo
12 pro
8 dia
7 huper
5 eis
3 anti
3 meta
0 amphi
324
Martyrdom
20 para
18 apo
18 kata
17 epi
16 pros
14 dia
13 ana
7 sun
6 en
5 hupo
4 huper
4 meta
4 pro
3 ek
2 eis
1 peri
1 anti
0 amphi
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
96
Table B.17 Order of frequency of preverbs in each corpus
Table B.17.a Order of frequency of PVs
in LXX corpus
% PVs
apo
ek
kata
epi
ana
sun
pros
para
eis
dia
en
peri
hupo
pro
anti
meta
huper
amphi
Total
Tokens
1746
1576
1456
1009
922
682
660
562
489
462
378
181
148
105
101
59
37
0
10573
16.51
14.91
13.77
9.54
8.72
6.45
6.24
5.32
4.62
4.37
3.58
1.71
1.40
0.99
0.96
0.56
0.35
0.00
100.00
Table B.17.c Order of frequency of PVs
in AF corpus
% all
verbs
5.53
4.99
4.61
3.19
2.92
2.16
2.09
1.78
1.55
1.46
1.20
0.57
0.47
0.33
0.32
0.19
0.12
0.00
33.47
% PVs
apo
epi
kata
ana
ek
para
sun
pros
meta
hupo
dia
en
peri
pro
eis
anti
huper
amphi
Total
apo
kata
ek
epi
ana
para
pros
sun
dia
hupo
peri
eis
pro
en
meta
anti
huper
amphi
Total
Tokens
1476
856
738
662
642
610
478
452
403
311
252
244
173
155
127
72
28
5
7684
19.21
11.14
9.60
8.62
8.36
7.94
6.22
5.88
5.24
4.05
3.28
3.18
2.25
2.02
1.65
0.94
0.36
0.07
100.00
16.10
12.69
11.78
7.52
6.93
6.64
6.20
5.61
4.70
4.52
3.94
3.88
2.88
2.76
1.88
1.03
0.94
0.00
100.00
% all
verbs
4.22
3.33
3.09
1.97
1.82
1.74
1.63
1.47
1.23
1.19
1.03
1.02
0.75
0.72
0.49
0.27
0.25
0.00
26.22
(On the statistical significance of these figures,
see Chapter 1 Tables 3 and 4 and comments.)
Table B.17.b Order of frequency of PVs
in NT corpus
% PVs
Tokens
548
432
401
256
236
226
211
191
160
154
134
132
98
94
64
35
32
0
3404
% all
verbs
5.25
3.04
2.63
2.35
2.28
2.17
1.70
1.61
1.43
1.11
0.90
0.87
0.62
0.55
0.45
0.26
0.10
0.02
27.33
97
Table B.18 Preverbs in NT according to tense
Present
Future
Imperfect
Aorist
0
0.00
Perfect
amphi
60.00
3
0.00
0
0.00
0 40.00
ana
22.20
143
7.14
46
1.86
12 65.68
423
anti
48.61
35
9.72
7
5.56
4 30.56
apo
17.89
264
7.45
110
1.42
dia
35.96
146
4.68
19 15.76
eis
15.98
39
5.33
13
ek/ex
24.80
183
5.28
en
40.00
62
epi
30.06
huper
Pluperfect
All tenses
2
0.00
0 100.00
5
3.11
20
0.00
0 100.00
644
22
5.56
4
0.00
0 100.00
72
21 69.24
1022
3.93
58
0.07
1 100.00
1476
64 38.67
157
4.19
17
0.74
3 100.00
406
1.23
3 76.64
187
0.82
2
0.00
0 100.00
244
39
5.56
41 61.11
451
2.85
21
0.41
3 100.00
738
6.45
10
3.87
6 40.65
63
9.03
14
0.00
0 100.00
155
199
6.50
43
7.40
49 53.78
356
1.96
13
0.30
2 100.00
662
78.57
22
0.00
0
0.00
0 21.43
6
0.00
0
0.00
0 100.00
28
hupo
61.09
190
3.22
10
5.14
16 28.94
90
1.61
5
0.00
0 100.00
311
kata
41.96
360
7.23
62
4.66
40 42.31
363
3.85
33
0.00
0 100.00
858
meta
34.88
45
6.98
9
1.55
2 54.26
70
2.33
3
0.00
0 100.00
129
para
35.25
215
8.03
49
6.56
40 44.10
269
5.74
35
0.33
2 100.00
610
peri
53.57
135
2.78
7
6.75
17 29.76
75
6.75
17
0.40
1 100.00
252
pro
28.90
50
6.36
11
5.78
10 44.51
77 14.45
25
0.00
0 100.00
173
pros
36.40
174
4.39
21
5.02
24 52.51
251
1.67
8
0.00
0 100.00
478
sun
38.72
175
3.98
18
6.42
29 43.81
198
6.42
29
0.66
3 100.00
452
31.72
2440
6.16
474
4.91
378 53.04
4080
3.98
306
41.10
11554
5.79
1628
5.97
1679 41.28 11606
5.59
1571
0.31 86 28124 28112
44.63
9114
5.65
1154
6.37
1301 36.86
6.20
1265
0.35 71 20431 20419
PVs
0.19 15
7693
7693
all Vs
nonPVs
7526
Total of each tense-form of PVs as percentage of all PVs
Total of each tense-form of PVs as percentage of all verbs
Number of non-preverbed verbs in each tense
Total of each tense-form of non-PVs as percentage of all non-PVs
Note on total verb count: There is an error in the way Accordance reports the number of tenseforms. Although the total verb count is 28112, the sum of the individual tense-forms comes to
28124 (after omission of the single NT token of future perfect). The twelve extra verbs are aorist
forms (there are 2 types aorist, and some verbs may have tense tagged twice), but I have not
been able to identify them individually, except to rule out error in the less frequent preverbs and
the smaller author-groups. The corrected figure for the percentage of PVs in the aorist is
52.88%, an insignificant difference from 53.04% given in the table.
98
Table B.19.a Tenses in LXX Corpus
Pentateuch
present
imperfect
future
aorist
perfect
pluperfect
All Vs
3529 18.60
546
2.88
4711 24.83
9371 49.39
775
4.08
40
0.21
18972 100.00
Chronicles
Proverbs
724 16.39
237
5.37
257
5.82
3052 69.10
143
3.24
4
0.09
4417 100.00
1233 55.42
24
1.08
400 17.98
487 21.89
79
3.55
2
0.09
2225 100.00
Mark
Luke-Acts
Ecclesiastes
248 31.71
3
0.38
140 17.90
360 46.04
31
3.96
0
0.00
782 100.00
Isaiah
Table B.19.b Tenses in NT
Matthew
present
imperfect
future
aorist
perfect
pluperfect
All Vs
Actual Vs
1420 35.48
142
3.55
355
8.87
1964 49.08
113
2.82
8
0.20
4002 100.00
4000
present
imperfect
future
aorist
perfect
pluperfect
All Vs
Actual Vs
238 49.90
11
2.31
27
5.66
167 35.01
34
7.13
0
0.00
477 100.00
477
Peter
977 37.06
293 11.12
124
4.70
1142 43.32
92
3.49
8
0.30
2636 100.00
2635
James
197 55.18
3
0.84
26
7.28
112 31.37
19
5.32
0
0.00
357 100.00
357
2724 32.41
784
9.33
419
4.99
4110 48.90
335
3.99
33
0.39
8405 100.00
8402
John
Paul
2475 43.31
332
5.81
302
5.29
2094 36.65
475
8.31
36
0.63
5714 100.00
5710
Jude
Hebrews
41 48.24
2
2.35
1
1.18
32 37.65
9 10.59
0
0.00
85 100.00
85
425
27
51
330
87
0
920
920
46.15
2.93
5.54
35.83
9.45
0.00
99.89
3057 55.30
85
1.54
323
5.84
1655 29.94
407
7.36
1
0.02
5528 100.00
5525
Total
11554 41.08
1679
5.97
1628
5.79
11606 41.27
1571
5.59
86
0.31
28125 100.00
As noted under Table B.18, there is an error in the tense-counts for NT. The ‘Actual Vs’ line
shows where the error affects each author-group. Ony the larger groups are affected, by
overcounting of aorists. The percentage of 99.89 for verbs in Hebrews is due to omission of
a future perfect (the only token of this form in NT).
Table B.19.c Tenses in AF Corpus
Clement
Ignatius
present
imperfect
future
aorist
perfect
pluperfect
all Vs
1014 41.88
58
2.40
214
8.84
978 40.40
147
6.07
10
0.41
2421 100.00
855 57.34
27
1.81
41
2.75
433 29.04
135
9.05
0
0.00
1491 100.00
Shepherd
Barnabas
present
imperfect
future
aorist
perfect
pluperfect
all Vs
2899 48.54
286
4.79
438
7.33
2002 33.52
327
5.47
21
0.35
5973 100.00
638 46.16
30
2.17
175 12.66
456 33.00
83
6.01
0
0.00
1382 100.00
Polycarp
99 49.50
1
0.50
12
6.00
74 37.00
14
7.00
0
0.00
200 100.00
Diognetus
335 59.93
8
1.43
23
4.11
155 27.73
36
6.44
2
0.36
559 100.00
99
Martyrdom
196 36.77
38
7.13
6
1.13
263 49.34
27
5.07
3
0.56
533 100.00
Total
6234 48.01
449
3.46
1004
7.73
4481 34.51
780
6.01
36
0.28
12984 100.00
Total
1301 25.03 7035 22.27
59
1.14
869
2.75
1629 31.35 7137 22.59
1942 37.37 15212 48.15
257
4.95 1285
4.07
9
0.17
55
0.17
5197 100.00 31593 100.00
Didache
198 46.59
1
0.24
95 22.35
120 28.24
11
2.59
0
0.00
425 100.00
Table B.20 Present and aorist tenses of PVs in LXX Corpus
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek/ex
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek/ex
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
Pentateuch
Present
Aorist
5.42
50 36.23
334
4.95
5 11.88
12
5.73
100 37.63
657
12.77
59 27.49
127
12.27
60 42.94
210
6.98
110 37.75
595
14.81
56 39.42
149
5.65
57 34.79
351
10.81
4 37.84
14
20.27
30 25.68
38
9.34
136 28.71
418
1.69
1 37.29
22
8.01
45 40.21
226
6.08
11 29.28
53
20.95
22 17.14
18
12.88
85 32.27
213
6.16
42 39.00
266
8.26
873 35.02 3703
11.17 3529 29.66 9371
12.64 2656 26.96 5668
19.08
80.92
Chronicles
Present
Aorist
2.93
27
9.87
91
0.00
0 10.89
11
0.63
11 10.82
189
1.52
7
9.09
42
1.84
9
8.59
42
1.97
31 10.34
163
0.00
0 10.05
38
1.78
18
9.02
91
0.00
0
2.70
1
4.73
7
5.41
8
3.91
57 13.26
193
0.00
0 15.25
9
1.96
11
7.12
40
3.87
7
0.55
1
3.81
4 12.38
13
1.21
8
6.21
41
0.88
6
9.53
65
1.92
203
9.82 1038
2.29
724
9.66 3052
2.48
521
9.58 2014
16.36
83.64
Proverbs
Present
Aorist
1.63
15
0.65
6
3.96
4
0.00
0
2.92
51
2.52
44
4.55
21
1.30
6
0.61
3
1.64
8
2.86
45
1.90
30
3.70
14
0.79
3
4.66
47
2.87
29
10.81
4
8.11
3
14.19
21
6.76
10
3.64
53
1.58
23
10.17
6
5.08
3
4.98
28
1.78
10
4.97
9
3.31
6
0.00
0
5.71
6
2.73
18
1.36
9
6.16
42
1.17
8
3.60
381
1.93
204
3.90 1233
1.54
487
4.05
852
1.35
283
65.13
34.87
Ecclesiastes
Present
Aorist
0.33
3
0.22
2
0.99
1
0.99
1
0.23
4
0.92
16
0.22
1
0.65
3
0.00
0
0.20
1
0.57
9
0.70
11
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.40
4
1.78
18
0.00
0
0.00
0
1.35
2
1.35
2
0.21
3
0.48
7
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.53
3
0.36
2
3.31
6
1.66
3
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.30
2
0.61
4
0.00
0
0.88
6
0.36
38
0.72
76
0.78
248
1.14
360
1.00
210
1.35
284
33.33
66.67
Isaiah
Present
Aorist
2.06
19
89
20.79
21
8.91
9
2.00
35
7.62
133
4.33
20
4.55
21
0.61
3
4.50
22
1.71
27
6.35
100
6.61
25
6.08
23
3.07
31
4.86
49
0.00
0
0.00
0
4.73
7
4.73
7
3.91
57
6.25
91
0.00
0
6.78
4
4.80
27
7.12
40
0.00
0
6.63
12
1.90
2
2.86
3
3.03
20
3.03
20
2.93
20
6.45
44
2.97
314
6.31
667
4.12 1301
6.15 1942
4.70
987
6.07 1275
32.01
67.99
Whole Corpus
Present
Aorist
12.36
114 56.62
522
30.69
31 32.67
33
11.51
201 59.51 1039
23.38
108 43.07
199
15.34
75 57.87
283
14.09
222 57.04
899
25.13
95 56.35
213
15.56
157 53.32
538
21.62
8 48.65
18
45.27
67 43.92
65
21.02
306 50.27
732
11.86
7 64.41
38
20.28
114 56.58
318
18.23
33 41.44
75
26.67
28 38.10
40
20.15
133 43.48
287
16.13
110 57.04
389
17.11 1809 53.80 5688
22.27 7035 48.15 15212
24.86 5226 45.31 9524
24.13
75.87
PV tense-form as percentage of all PVs in whole corpus
All verb tense-forms as percentage of all verbs in whole corpus
All non-PV tense-forms as percentage of all non-PVs in whole corpus
Each tense as percentage of sum of present and aorist forms in its group (a ‘two-party-preferred’ rate)
100
Table B.21 Present and aorist tenses of PVs in AF Corpus
Clement
Present
Aor
ana
10.94
28 12.11
31
anti
14.29
5 2.86
1
apo
4.93
27 9.85
54
dia
9.70
13 14.93
20
eis
1.56
1 21.88
14
ek/ex
2.54
6 2.97
7
en
11.36
15 38.64
51
epi
8.56
37 8.33
36
huper
9.38
3 0.00
0
hupo 20.63
33 9.38
15
kata
3.99
16 9.48
38
meta
2.50
4 10.63
17
para
7.08
16 9.73
22
peri
4.08
4 3.06
3
pro
3.19
3 7.45
7
pros
8.90
17 10.99
21
sun
2.84
6 8.53
18
6.86 234 10.41 355
7.81 1014 7.53 978
8.15 780 6.51 623
39.73
60.27
Ignatius
Present
Aorist
3.91
10 7.03
18
8.57
3 5.71
2
2.92
16 6.02
33
3.73
5 5.22
7
1.56
1 0.00
0
3.81
9 0.85
2
3.79
5 1.52
2
2.55
11 6.25
27
21.88
7 6.25
2
9.38
15 3.75
6
2.99
12 3.49
14
1.88
3 3.75
6
8.85
20 4.42
10
7.14
7 0.00
0
10.64
10 4.26
4
7.85
15 2.09
4
9.48
20 5.69
12
4.96 169 4.37 149
6.59 855 3.33 433
7.17 686 2.97 284
53.14
46.86
Polycarp
Present
Aor
0.78
2 1.17
3
5.71
2 0.00
0
0.91
5 1.09
6
0.75
1 0.00
0
1.56
1 4.69
3
0.42
1 0.42
1
3.03
4 0.76
1
2.78
12 0.69
3
0.00
0 0.00
0
3.75
6 2.50
4
1.25
5 0.50
2
1.25
2 0.00
0
3.10
7 0.88
2
0.00
0 0.00
0
2.13
2 3.19
3
5.76
11 0.00
0
1.42
3 0.95
2
1.88
64 0.88
30
1.51 196 0.57
74
1.38 132 0.46
44
50.82
49.18
Martyrdom
Aor
Present
0.78
2 3.13
8
5.71
2 2.86
1
0.91
5 2.55
14
0.75
1 0.75
1
1.56
1 3.13
2
0.42
1 0.42
1
3.03
4 5.30
7
2.78
12 3.47
15
0.00
0 0.00
0
3.75
6 5.00
8
1.25
5 3.24
13
1.25
2 5.00
8
0.88
2 2.21
5
7.14
7 1.02
1
0.00
0 1.06
1
1.05
2 5.24
10
5.21
11 5.69
12
1.94
66 3.14 107
1.51 196 2.03 263
1.36 130 1.63 156
37.43
62.57
Didache
Present
Aor
0.39
1 0.39
1
0.00
0 0.00
0
1.09
6 0.36
2
1.49
2 0.75
1
0.00
0 1.56
1
0.85
2 0.00
0
2.27
3 0.76
1
0.23
1 0.23
1
0.00
0 3.13
1
0.63
1 0.63
1
1.25
5 0.50
2
0.63
1 0.63
1
0.00
0 0.88
2
1.02
1 0.00
0
0.00
0 4.26
4
4.19
8 0.52
1
0.95
2 2.37
5
0.97
33 0.70
24
1.52 198 0.92 120
1.72 165 1.00
96
57.89
42.11
Shepherd
Present
Present
10.55
27 23.83
61
8.57
3 25.71
9
16
11.68
64 30.84
9
11.94
16 14.18
19
6.25
4 23.44
15
7.20
17 14.41
34
22.73
30 25.76
34
10
16.44
71 23.15
0
25.00
8 0.00
11.25
18 10.63
17
22.19
89 19.45
78
14.38
23 41.25
66
10.18
23 19.47
44
31.63
31 12.24
12
10.64
10 5.32
5
7.85
15 10.99
21
12.80
27 14.22
30
71
13.96 476 20.94
4
20
22.33 289 15.42
9 13.45
02
12
25.31 242
3
88
40.00
60.00
Barnabas
Aorist
Present
3.91
10 4.30
11
2.86
1 5.71
2
1.28
7 1.64
9
2.99
4 1.49
2
3.13
2 4.69
3
2.54
6 1.69
4
9.09
12 12.88
17
2.31
10 2.31
10
9.38
3 6.25
2
0.63
1 5.63
9
4.24
17 4.24
17
0.00
0 1.88
3
1.33
3 2.65
6
6.12
6 6.12
11
4.26
4 11.70
4
10.47
20 2.09
8
7.11
15 3.79
9
3.55 121 3.72 127
4.91 638 3.51 456
5.40 517 3.44 329
48.79
51.21
Diognetus
Aor
Aorist
2.73
7 1.95
5
2.86
1 0.00
0
1.82
10 1.46
8
5.97
8 0.75
1
0.00
0 3.13
2
0.85
2 1.69
4
0.76
1 1.52
2
1.62
7 1.85
8
9.38
3 0.00
0
1.25
2 1.25
2
2.49
10 0.75
3
1.25
2 0.63
1
6.19
14 2.21
5
1.02
1 0.00
0
2.13
2 2.13
2
6.28
12 1.57
3
2.84
6 0.00
0
2.58
88 1.35
46
33 1.19 155
2.58
5 1.14 109
24
2.58
7
65.67
34.33
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek/ex
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
PV tense-form as percentage of all PVs in whole corpus
All verb tense-forms as percentage of all verbs in whole corpus
All non-PV tense-forms as percentage of all non-PVs in whole corpus
Each tense as percentage of sum of present and aorist forms in its group (a ‘two-party-preferred’ rate)
101
Table B.22 Summary of PV usage by tense in three corpora
PV usage for each tense as percentage of total usage of each PV
NT
Present
LXX
Aorist
Present
AF
Aorist
Present
Aorist
ana
22.20
65.68
12.36
56.62
16.80
23.83 ana
anti
48.61
30.56
30.69
32.67
28.57
11.43 anti
apo
17.89
69.24
11.51
59.51
11.68
19.89 apo
dia
35.96
38.67
23.38
43.07
16.42
21.64 dia
eis
15.98
76.64
15.34
57.87
4.69
31.25 eis
ek/ex
24.80
61.11
14.09
57.04
8.05
en
40.00
40.65
25.13
56.35
20.45
46.97 en
epi
30.06
53.78
15.56
53.32
15.05
18.98 epi
huper
78.57
21.43
21.62
48.65
31.25
hupo
61.09
28.94
45.27
43.92
35.00
21.25 hupo
kata
41.96
42.31
21.02
50.27
9.73
17.21 kata
meta
34.88
54.26
11.86
64.41
6.88
20.00 meta
para
35.25
44.10
20.28
56.58
17.70
18.14 para
peri
53.57
29.76
18.23
41.44
22.45
4.08 peri
pro
28.90
44.51
26.67
38.10
17.02
20.21 pro
pros
36.40
52.51
20.15
43.48
23.04
18.85 pros
sun
38.72
43.81
16.13
57.04
18.48
23.22 sun
31.72
53.04
17.11
53.80
15.54
19.50
41.10
41.28
22.27
48.15
48.01
34.51
44.78
36.98
24.86
45.31
59.58
39.86
37.42
62.58
24.13
75.87
44.35
55.65
4.66 ek/ex
9.38 huper
PV tense-form as percentage of all PVs
All verb tense-forms as percentage of all verbs
All non-PV tense-forms as percentage of all non-PVs
Each tense as percentage of sum of present and aorist forms (a ‘two-party-preferred’ rate)
102
Table B.23 Frequency of PVs in NT according to tense
Present tense - least to most
frequent
Aorist tense – most to least
frequent
15.98 eis
76.64 eis
17.89 apo
69.24 apo
22.20 ana
65.68 ana
24.80 ek
61.11 ek
28.90 pro
54.26 meta
30.06 epi
53.78 epi
34.88 meta
52.51 pros
35.25 para
44.51 pro
35.96 dia
44.10 para
36.40 pros
43.81 sun
38.72 sun
42.31 kata
40.00 en
40.65 en
41.96 kata
38.67 dia
48.61 anti
30.56 anti
53.57 peri
29.76 peri
61.09 hupo
28.94 hupo
78.57 huper
21.43 huper
The four preverbs at each end of the table (printed in red) correlate very strongly with one tense
and appear in the same order, while the others are more evenly distributed between the tenses.
103
Table B.24 NT usage of PVs by author
1. amphi
PV
count
PV % all
verbs
PV % all
words
4. apo
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
Matthew
2
0.050
0.011
Matthew
292
7.300
1.590
Mark
1
0.038
0.009
Mark
201
7.628
1.777
Luke-Acts
2
0.024
0.005
Luke-Acts
455
5.415
1.198
Johannine
0.000
0.000
Johannine
261
4.571
0.928
Pauline
0.000
0.000
Pauline
189
3.421
0.583
Peter
0.000
0.000
Peter
25
5.241
0.898
James
0.000
0.000
James
11
3.081
0.630
Jude
0.000
0.000
Jude
6
7.059
1.302
Hebrews
0.000
0.000
Hebrews
36
3.909
0.726
1476
5.250
1.068
5
2. ana
PV
count
0.018
PV %
verbs
0.004
PV % all
words
5. dia
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
Matthew
66
1.650
0.359
Matthew
41
1.025
0.223
Mark
60
2.277
0.530
Mark
34
1.290
0.301
Luke-Acts
281
3.344
0.740
Luke-Acts
214
2.547
0.564
Johannine
103
1.804
0.366
Johannine
17
0.298
0.060
Pauline
97
1.756
0.299
Pauline
69
1.249
0.213
Peter
10
2.096
0.359
Peter
9
1.887
0.323
James
4
1.120
0.229
James
3
0.840
0.172
Jude
0
0.000
0.000
Jude
3
3.529
0.651
21
2.280
0.424
Hebrews
13
1.412
0.262
Hebrews
642
3. anti
PV
count
2.284
PV %
verbs
403
0.465
PV % all
words
6. eis
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
Matthew
2
0.050
0.011
Matthew
39
0.975
0.212
Mark
0
0.000
0.000
Mark
38
1.442
0.336
Luke-Acts
27
0.321
0.071
Luke-Acts
115
1.369
0.303
Johannine
5
0.088
0.018
Johannine
21
0.368
0.075
29
0.525
0.089
Pauline
7
0.127
0.022
Peter
3
0.629
0.108
Peter
0
0.000
0.000
James
3
0.840
0.172
James
3
0.840
0.172
Jude
0
0.000
0.000
Jude
0
0.000
0.000
Hebrews
3
0.326
0.061
Hebrews
21
2.280
0.424
72
0.256
0.052
244
0.868
0.177
Pauline
104
7. ek
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
10. huper
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
Matthew
122
3.050
0.664
Matthew
0
0.000
0.000
Mark
109
4.137
0.963
Mark
0
0.000
0.000
Luke-Acts
266
3.166
0.701
Luke-Acts
5
0.060
0.013
Johannine
99
1.734
0.352
Johannine
0
0.000
0.000
104
1.882
0.321
Pauline
22
0.398
0.068
Peter
9
1.887
0.323
Peter
1
0.210
0.036
James
7
1.961
0.401
James
0
0.000
0.000
Jude
3
3.529
0.651
Jude
0
0.000
0.000
19
2.063
0.383
Hebrews
0
0.000
0.000
738
2.625
0.534
28
0.100
0.020
Pauline
Hebrews
8. en
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
11. hupo
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
Matthew
13
0.325
0.071
Matthew
28
0.700
0.152
Mark
12
0.455
0.106
Mark
20
0.759
0.177
Luke-Acts
27
0.321
0.071
Luke-Acts
119
1.416
0.313
Johannine
9
0.158
0.032
Johannine
46
0.806
0.163
81
1.466
0.250
Pauline
60
1.086
0.185
Peter
1
0.210
0.036
Peter
15
3.145
0.539
James
2
0.560
0.115
James
6
1.681
0.344
Jude
1
1.176
0.217
Jude
2
2.353
0.434
Hebrews
9
0.977
0.182
Hebrews
15
1.629
0.303
155
0.551
0.112
311
1.106
0.225
Pauline
9. epi
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
12. kata
Matthew
63
1.575
0.343
Matthew
Mark
76
2.884
0.672
Mark
Luke-Acts
295
3.511
0.777
Johannine
29
0.508
130
Peter
James
Pauline
Jude
Hebrews
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
107
2.675
0.583
75
2.846
0.663
Luke-Acts
296
3.523
0.780
0.103
Johannine
122
2.137
0.434
2.353
0.401
Pauline
177
3.204
0.546
20
4.193
0.718
Peter
16
3.354
0.575
13
3.641
0.745
James
20
5.602
1.146
6
7.059
1.302
Jude
30
3.257
0.605
Hebrews
662
2.355
0.479
105
0
0.000
0.000
43
4.669
0.868
856
3.045
0.620
13. meta
Matthew
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
16. pro
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
18
0.450
0.098
Matthew
14
0.350
0.076
6
0.228
0.053
Mark
12
0.455
0.106
Luke-Acts
45
0.536
0.119
Luke-Acts
46
0.547
0.121
Johannine
18
0.315
0.064
Johannine
6
0.105
0.021
Pauline
27
0.489
0.083
Pauline
80
1.448
0.247
Peter
0
0.000
0.000
Peter
5
1.048
0.180
James
3
0.840
0.172
James
0
0.000
0.000
Jude
1
1.176
0.217
Jude
4
4.706
0.868
Hebrews
9
0.977
0.182
Hebrews
6
0.651
0.121
127
0.452
0.092
173
0.615
0.125
Mark
14. para
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
17. pros
Matthew
84
2.100
0.457
Matthew
Mark
68
2.581
0.601
Mark
Luke-Acts
215
2.559
0.566
Johannine
32
0.560
168
Peter
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
119
2.975
0.648
44
1.670
0.389
Luke-Acts
172
2.047
0.453
0.114
Johannine
41
0.718
0.146
3.041
0.518
Pauline
49
0.887
0.151
14
2.935
0.503
Peter
7
1.468
0.251
James
4
1.120
0.229
James
6
1.681
0.344
Jude
4
4.706
0.868
Jude
2
2.353
0.434
21
2.280
0.424
Hebrews
38
4.126
0.767
610
2.170
0.441
478
1.700
0.346
Pauline
Hebrews
15. peri
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
18. sun
PV
count
PV %
verbs
PV % all
words
Matthew
23
0.575
0.125
Matthew
67
1.675
0.365
Mark
26
0.987
0.230
Mark
37
1.404
0.327
Luke-Acts
58
0.690
0.153
Luke-Acts
182
2.166
0.479
Johannine
53
0.928
0.188
Johannine
28
0.490
0.100
Pauline
83
1.502
0.256
Pauline
116
2.100
0.358
Peter
2
0.419
0.072
Peter
8
1.677
0.287
James
1
0.280
0.057
James
2
0.560
0.115
Jude
0
0.000
0.000
Jude
Hebrews
6
0.651
0.121
Hebrews
252
0.896
0.182
106
1
1.176
0.217
11
1.194
0.222
452
1.608
0.327
Table B.25
Data for calculation of p-values for comparison of
preverb frequency in three corpora
B.25.a Means and standard deviations
n
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
All PVs
MEANS
5
9
8
A - LXX B - NT C - AF
1.48
1.81
2.01
0.17
0.31
0.30
3.15
5.29
4.30
0.88
1.57
1.12
0.76
0.82
0.55
2.90
2.60
1.76
0.49
0.63
0.96
2.05
3.22
3.14
0.05
0.07
0.29
0.29
1.51
1.63
2.65
3.11
2.72
0.09
0.56
0.90
0.88
2.43
2.01
0.44
0.67
0.73
0.18
1.03
1.17
1.05
1.99
2.12
1.16
1.38
1.97
30.07 29.02 27.64
5
A - LXX
1.41
0.12
2.52
0.65
0.92
2.41
0.60
1.55
0.05
0.31
2.57
0.09
0.74
0.46
0.19
1.04
0.86
6.34
STDEVS
9
8
B - NT
C - AF
0.91
0.65
0.30
0.18
1.71
2.28
0.97
0.70
0.89
0.44
0.88
0.95
0.47
0.41
1.83
1.35
0.14
0.28
0.82
1.02
1.57
0.83
0.38
0.62
1.18
0.88
0.44
0.50
1.45
0.80
1.06
1.08
0.60
0.76
6.54
5.80
B.25.b Calculation of p-values between LXX & NT
A - LXX
mean
n
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
All PVs
sd
5
1.48
0.17
3.15
0.88
0.76
2.90
0.49
2.05
0.05
0.29
2.65
0.09
0.88
0.44
0.18
1.05
1.16
30.07
B - NT
mean
sd
t-stat
0.91
0.30
1.71
0.97
0.89
0.88
0.47
1.83
0.14
0.82
1.57
0.38
1.18
0.44
1.45
1.06
0.60
6.54
-0.54
-0.99
-1.90
-1.41
-0.13
0.34
-0.48
-1.20
-0.37
-3.18
-0.42
-2.68
-2.64
-0.93
-1.29
-1.61
-0.57
0.29
9
1.41
0.12
2.52
0.65
0.92
2.41
0.60
1.55
0.05
0.31
2.57
0.09
0.74
0.46
0.19
1.04
0.86
6.34
1.81
0.31
5.29
1.57
0.82
2.60
0.63
3.22
0.07
1.51
3.11
0.56
2.43
0.67
1.03
1.99
1.38
29.02
107
p-value
1-tailed
0.30
0.17
0.04
0.09
0.45
0.37
0.32
0.12
0.36
0.00
0.34
0.01
0.01
0.18
0.11
0.06
0.29
0.39
p-value
2-tailed
0.60
0.34
0.08
0.18
0.90
0.74
0.64
0.25
0.72
0.01
0.68
0.02
0.02
0.37
0.22
0.13
0.58
0.78
B.25.c Calculation of p-values between LXX & AF
A - LXX
mean
n
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
All PVs
sd
5
1.48
0.17
3.15
0.88
0.76
2.90
0.49
2.05
0.05
0.29
2.65
0.09
0.88
0.44
0.18
1.05
1.16
30.07
C - AF
mean
sd
t-stat
0.65
0.18
2.28
0.70
0.44
0.95
0.41
1.35
0.28
1.02
0.83
0.62
0.88
0.50
0.80
1.08
0.76
5.80
-0.93
-1.42
-0.85
-0.62
0.56
1.22
-1.70
-1.34
-1.86
-2.80
-0.07
-2.86
-2.38
-1.04
-2.66
-1.78
-1.78
0.71
8
1.41
0.12
2.52
0.65
0.92
2.41
0.60
1.55
0.05
0.31
2.57
0.09
0.74
0.46
0.19
1.04
0.86
6.34
2.01
0.30
4.30
1.12
0.55
1.76
0.96
3.14
0.29
1.63
2.72
0.90
2.01
0.73
1.17
2.12
1.97
27.64
p-value
1-tailed
0.18
0.09
0.20
0.27
0.29
0.12
0.06
0.10
0.04
0.01
0.47
0.01
0.02
0.16
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.25
p-value
2-tailed
0.37
0.18
0.41
0.55
0.59
0.24
0.11
0.20
0.09
0.01
0.95
0.01
0.03
0.32
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.49
p-value
1-tailed
0.31
0.47
0.16
0.15
0.22
0.04
0.07
0.46
0.03
0.40
0.27
0.09
0.21
0.40
0.41
0.40
0.05
0.33
p-value
2-tailed
0.61
0.94
0.32
0.29
0.44
0.08
0.14
0.92
0.06
0.80
0.53
0.18
0.42
0.81
0.82
0.80
0.09
0.65
B.25.d Calculation of p-values between NT & AF
B - NT
mean
n
ana
anti
apo
dia
eis
ek
en
epi
huper
hupo
kata
meta
para
peri
pro
pros
sun
All PVs
sd
9
1.81
0.31
5.29
1.57
0.82
2.60
0.63
3.22
0.07
1.51
3.11
0.56
2.43
0.67
1.03
1.99
1.38
29.02
C - AF
mean
sd
t-stat
0.65
0.18
2.28
0.70
0.44
0.95
0.41
1.35
0.28
1.02
0.83
0.62
0.88
0.50
0.80
1.08
0.76
5.80
-0.52
0.08
1.02
1.08
0.79
1.89
-1.56
0.10
-2.04
-0.26
0.64
-1.38
0.83
-0.25
-0.23
-0.25
-1.79
0.46
8
0.91
0.30
1.71
0.97
0.89
0.88
0.47
1.83
0.14
0.82
1.57
0.38
1.18
0.44
1.45
1.06
0.60
6.54
2.01
0.30
4.30
1.12
0.55
1.76
0.96
3.14
0.29
1.63
2.72
0.90
2.01
0.73
1.17
2.12
1.97
27.64
108
B.26 Prepositions and Preverbs in Modern Greek
All the ancient P-words which were used as preverbs in ancient Greek are still productive as
preverbs in Modern Greek, in spite of the fact that most are no longer used as prepositions.
Holton et al 1997 provide examples of prefixation for the 12 prepositions most common in
compound formation, along with their current meanings (1997: 179-181).71 amfiv amphi, eiV eis,
en en, epiv epi, periv peri and proV pros are now less productive than the others.
Holton et al 1997 give a checklist of 39 prepositions in Modern Greek, of which 19 are in use in
standard speech, the others being of Katharevousa origin (pp 407-8).72 Of the 19, only 9 are
derived from the ancient proper prepositions (not counting compound prepositions). These are:
Table B.26.a Modern Greek reflexes of the ancient prepositions
antiv
apov
gia
katav
me
metav
parav
proV
se
MGk
andi
apo
ya
kata
me
meta
para
pros
se
ajntiv
ajpov
diav
katav
metav
metav
parav
provV
eijV
AncGk
anti
apo
dia
kata
meta
meta
para
pros
eis
All these demotic prepositions govern the accusative case. Me me ‘with’ comes from the ancient
metav meta + genitive, while metav meta ‘after’ is from metav + accusative. Both gia ya and se se
exist alongside their ancient forms, which are still available in restricted usages. In Modern
Greek se, apov , gia and m e are by far the most frequent prepositions, and se and apov are
particularly common as elements of the many compound prepositions of the modern language.
71
Modern meanings often differ from the ancient meanings of the compound elements, which often
results in Modern Greek words having a meaning unlike that of the equivalent word borrowed from ancient
Greek or constructed from Greek elements in modern European languages (Janni 1993).
72
Katharevousa (‘Purifying [language]’) is the name of the archaising form of Greek developed in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and made the official language of the modern Greek state. It was
formally abandoned in favour of demotic Greek in 1976.
109
The following prepositions derived from the ancient prepositions are available in formal registers
or with specialised meanings in specific fields, and may take the genitive case or even the dative
in fixed expressions (Holton et al 1997: 405-7). (In Modern Greek the dative case survives only
in lexicalised expressions derived from Katharevousa.)
Table B.26.b Katharevousa prepositions in limited use in Modern Greek
MGk
AncGk
anav
ajnav
ana
ana
diav
diav
dia
!ya
eiV
eij
V
is
eis
ek
ejk
ek
ek
en
ejn
en
en
epiv
ejpiv
epi
epi
periv
periv
peri
peri
pro
prov
pro
pro
sun
suvn
sin
sun
upevr
uJ
p
J
ev
r
iper
huper
upov
uJpov
ipo
hupo
110
Appendix C – NT uses of ejpitivqhmi epitithemi
First column is NT text (NA27), second column is NRSV translation, both from Accordance
Bold: verb epitithemi
Red: Accusative direct object
Green: PP with epi + accusative
Purple: PP with epi + genitive
Blue: dative NP
(Corresponding words in translation in same colour)
Matt. 9:18
Tauvta aujtouv lalouvntoß
aujtoi!ß, i˙dou\ a‡rcwn ei–ß e˙lqw»n proseku/nei
aujtwˆ" le÷gwn o¢ti hJ quga¿thr mou a‡rti
e˙teleu/thsen: aÓlla» e˙lqw»n e˙pi÷qeß th\n
cei!ra¿ sou e˙p# aujth/n, kai« zh/setai.
Matt. 9:18 While he was saying these
things to them, suddenly a leader of the
synagogue came in and knelt before him,
saying, “My daughter has just died; but
come and lay your hand on her, and she will
live.”
Matt. 19:13 To/te proshne÷cqhsan aujtwˆ"
paidi÷a iºna ta»ß cei!raß e˙piqhØv aujtoi!ß kai«
proseu/xhtai: oi˚ de« maqhtai« e˙peti÷mhsan
aujtoi!ß.
Matt. 19:13 Then little children were being
brought to him in order that he might lay his
hands on them and pray. The disciples
spoke sternly to those who brought them;
Matt. 19:15 kai« e˙piqei«ß ta»ß cei!raß
aujtoi!ß e˙poreu/qh e˙kei!qen.
Matt. 19:15 And he laid his hands on them
and went on his way.
Matt. 21:7 h¡gagon th\n o¡non kai« to\n
pw"lon kai« e˙pe÷qhkan e˙p# aujtw"n ta»
i˚ma¿tia, kai« e˙peka¿qisen e˙pa¿nw aujtw"n.
Matt. 21:7 they brought the donkey and the
colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he
sat on them.
Matt. 23:4 desmeu/ousin de« forti÷a bare÷a
[kai« dusba¿stakta] kai« e˙pitiqe÷asin e˙pi«
tou\ß w‡mouß tw"n aÓnqrw¿pwn, aujtoi« de« twˆ"
daktu/lwˆ aujtw"n ouj qe÷lousin kinhvsai
aujta¿.
Matt. 23:4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard
to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of
others; but they themselves are unwilling to
lift a finger to move them.
Matt. 27:29 and after twisting some thorns
into a crown, they put it on his head. They
put a reed in his right hand and knelt before
him and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of
the Jews!”
Matt. 27:29 kai« ple÷xanteß ste÷fanon e˙x
aÓkanqw"n e˙pe÷qhkan e˙pi« thvß kefalhvß
aujtouv kai« ka¿lamon e˙n thØv dexiaˆ" aujtouv,
kai« gonupeth/santeß e¶mprosqen aujtouv
e˙ne÷paixan aujtwˆ" le÷gonteß: cai!re, basileuv
tw"n #Ioudai÷wn,
Matt. 27:37 Over his head they put the
charge against him, which read, “This is
Jesus, the King of the Jews.”
Matt. 27:37 Kai« e˙pe÷qhkan e˙pa¿nw thvß
kefalhvß aujtouv th\n ai˙ti÷an aujtouv
gegramme÷nhn: ou$to/ß e˙stin #Ihsouvß oJ
basileu\ß tw"n #Ioudai÷wn.
Mark 3:16 So he appointed the twelve:
Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter);
17 James son of Zebedee and John the
brother of James (to whom he gave the
name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);
Mark 3:16 [kai« e˙poi÷hsen tou\ß dw¿deka,]
kai« e˙pe÷qhken o¡noma twˆ" Si÷mwni Pe÷tron,
17 kai« #Ia¿kwbon to\n touv Zebedai÷ou kai«
#Iwa¿nnhn to\n aÓdelfo\n touv #Iakw¿bou kai«
e˙pe÷qhken aujtoi!ß ojno/ma[ta] boanhrge÷ß, o¢
e˙stin ui˚oi« bronthvß:
Mark 5:23 and begged him repeatedly, “My
little daughter is at the point of death. Come
and lay your hands on her, so that she may
be made well, and live.”
Mark 5:23 kai« parakalei! aujto\n polla»
le÷gwn o¢ti to\ quga¿trio/n mou e˙sca¿twß e¶cei,
iºna e˙lqw»n e˙piqhØvß ta»ß cei!raß aujthØv iºna
swqhØv kai« zh/shØ.
111
Mark 6:5 kai« oujk e˙du/nato e˙kei! poihvsai
oujdemi÷an du/namin, ei˙ mh\ ojli÷goiß
aÓrrw¿stoiß e˙piqei«ß ta»ß cei!raß
e˙qera¿peusen.
Mark 6:5 And he could do no deed of power
there, except that he laid his hands on a few
sick people and cured them.
Mark 7:32 They brought to him a deaf man
who had an impediment in his speech; and
they begged him to lay his hand on him.
Mark 7:32 Kai« fe÷rousin aujtwˆ" kwfo\n kai«
mogila¿lon kai« parakalouvsin aujto\n iºna
e˙piqhØv aujtwˆ" th\n cei!ra.
Mark 8:23 kai« e˙pilabo/menoß thvß ceiro\ß
touv tuflouv e˙xh/negken aujto\n e¶xw thvß
kw¿mhß kai« ptu/saß ei˙ß ta» o¡mmata aujtouv,
e˙piqei«ß ta»ß cei!raß aujtwˆ" e˙phrw¿ta aujto/n:
ei¶ ti ble÷peiß;
Mark 8:23 He took the blind man by the
hand and led him out of the village; and
when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid
his hands on him, he asked him, “Can you
see anything?”
Mark 8:25 ei•ta pa¿lin e˙pe÷qhken ta»ß
cei!raß e˙pi« tou\ß ojfqalmou\ß aujtouv, kai«
die÷bleyen kai« aÓpekate÷sth kai« e˙ne÷blepen
thlaugw"ß a‚panta.
Mark 8:25 Then Jesus laid his hands on
his eyes again; and he looked intently and
his sight was restored, and he saw
everything clearly.
Mark 16:18 [kai« e˙n tai!ß cersi«n] o¡feiß
aÓrouvsin ka·n qana¿simo/n ti pi÷wsin ouj mh\
aujtou\ß bla¿yhØ, e˙pi« aÓrrw¿stouß cei!raß
e˙piqh/sousin kai« kalw"ß eºxousin.
Mark 16:18 they will pick up snakes in their
hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it
will not hurt them; they will lay their hands
on the sick, and they will recover.”
Luke 4:40
Du/nontoß de« touv hJli÷ou
a‚panteß o¢soi ei•con aÓsqenouvntaß no/soiß
poiki÷laiß h¡gagon aujtou\ß pro\ß aujto/n: oJ
de« e˚ni« e˚ka¿stwˆ aujtw"n ta»ß cei!raß e˙pitiqei«ß
e˙qera¿peuen aujtou/ß.
Luke 4:40 As the sun was setting, all
those who had any who were sick with
various kinds of diseases brought them to
him; and he laid his hands on each of them
and cured them.
Luke 10:30 ÔUpolabw»n oJ #Ihsouvß ei•pen:
a‡nqrwpo/ß tiß kate÷bainen aÓpo\
#Ierousalh\m ei˙ß #Iericw» kai« lhØstai!ß
perie÷pesen, oi% kai« e˙kdu/santeß aujto\n kai«
plhga»ß e˙piqe÷nteß aÓphvlqon aÓfe÷nteß
hJmiqanhv.
Luke 10:30 Jesus replied, “A man was
going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and
fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped
him, beat him [put blows on him], and went
away, leaving him half dead.
Luke 13:13 kai« e˙pe÷qhken aujthØv ta»ß
cei!raß: kai« paracrhvma aÓnwrqw¿qh kai«
e˙do/xazen to\n qeo/n.
Luke 13:13 When he laid his hands on her,
immediately she stood up straight and
began praising God.
Luke 15:5 kai« euJrw»n e˙piti÷qhsin e˙pi« tou\ß
w‡mouß aujtouv cai÷rwn
Luke 15:5 When he has found it, he lays it
on his shoulders and rejoices.
Luke 23:26 Kai« wß aÓph/gagon aujto/n,
e˙pilabo/menoi Si÷mwna¿ tina Kurhnai!on
e˙rco/menon aÓp# aÓgrouv e˙pe÷qhkan aujtwˆ" to\n
stauro\n fe÷rein o¡pisqen touv #Ihsouv.
Luke 23:26 As they led him away, they
seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was
coming from the country, and they laid the
cross on him, and made him carry it behind
Jesus.
112
John 9:15 pa¿lin ou™n hjrw¿twn aujto\n kai«
oi˚ Farisai!oi pw"ß aÓne÷bleyen. oJ de« ei•pen
aujtoi!ß: phlo\n e˙pe÷qhke÷n mou e˙pi« tou\ß
ojfqalmou\ß kai« e˙niya¿mhn kai« ble÷pw.
John 9:15 Then the Pharisees also
John 19:2 kai« oi˚ stratiw"tai ple÷xanteß
ste÷fanon e˙x aÓkanqw"n e˙pe÷qhkan aujtouv
thØv kefalhØv kai« i˚ma¿tion porfurouvn
perie÷balon aujto\n
John 19:2 And the soldiers wove a crown of
thorns and put it on his head, and they
dressed him in a purple robe.
Acts 6:6 ou§ß e¶sthsan e˙nw¿pion tw"n
aÓposto/lwn, kai« proseuxa¿menoi e˙pe÷qhkan
aujtoi!ß ta»ß cei!raß.
Acts 6:6 They had these men stand before
the apostles, who prayed and laid their
hands on them.
Acts 8:17 to/te e˙peti÷qesan ta»ß cei!raß e˙p#
aujtou\ß kai« e˙la¿mbanon pneuvma a‚gion.
Acts 8:17 Then Peter and John laid their
hands on them, and they received the Holy
Spirit.
began to ask him how he had received
his sight. He said to them, “He put mud on
my eyes. Then I washed, and now I see.”
Acts 8:19 le÷gwn: do/te kaÓmoi« th\n
e˙xousi÷an tau/thn iºna wˆ— e˙a»n e˙piqw! ta»ß
cei!raß lamba¿nhØ pneuvma a‚gion.
Acts 8:19 saying, “Give me also this power
so that anyone on whom I lay my hands
may receive the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 9:12 kai« ei•den a‡ndra [e˙n oJra¿mati]
ÔAnani÷an ojno/mati ei˙selqo/nta kai«
e˙piqe÷nta aujtwˆ" [ta»ß] cei!raß o¢pwß
aÓnable÷yhØ.
Acts 9:12 and he has seen in a vision a
man named Ananias come in and lay his
hands on him so that he might regain his
sight.”
Acts 9:17 #Aphvlqen de« ÔAnani÷aß kai«
ei˙shvlqen ei˙ß th\n oi˙ki÷an kai« e˙piqei«ß e˙p#
aujto\n ta»ß cei!raß ei•pen: Saou\l aÓdelfe÷, oJ
ku/rioß aÓpe÷stalke÷n me, #Ihsouvß oJ ojfqei÷ß
soi e˙n thØv oJdwˆ" hØ$ h¡rcou, o¢pwß aÓnable÷yhØß
kai« plhsqhØvß pneu/matoß agi÷ou.
Acts 9:17 So Ananias went and entered the
house. He laid his hands on Saul and said,
“Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who
appeared to you on your way here, has sent
me so that you may regain your sight and be
filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 13:3 to/te nhsteu/santeß kai«
proseuxa¿menoi kai« e˙piqe÷nteß ta»ß cei!raß
aujtoi!ß aÓpe÷lusan.
Acts 13:3 Then after fasting and praying
they laid their hands on them and sent them
off.
Acts 15:10 nuvn ou™n ti÷ peira¿zete to\n qeo\n
e˙piqei"nai zugo\n e˙pi« to\n tra¿chlon tw"n
maqhtw"n o§n ou¡te oi˚ pate÷reß hJmw"n ou¡te
hJmei!ß i˙scu/samen basta¿sai;
Acts 15:10 Now therefore why are you
putting God to the test by placing on the
neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our
ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
Acts 15:28 e¶doxen ga»r twˆ" pneu/mati twˆ"
agi÷wˆ kai« hJmi!n mhde«n ple÷on e˙piti÷qesqai
uJmi!n ba¿roß plh\n tou/twn tw"n e˙pa¿nagkeß,
Acts 15:28 For it has seemed good to the
Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no
further burden than these essentials:
Acts 16:23 polla¿ß te e˙piqe÷nteß aujtoi!ß
plhga»ß e¶balon ei˙ß fulakh\n
paraggei÷lanteß twˆ" desmofu/laki
aÓsfalw"ß threi!n aujtou/ß.
Acts 16:23 After they had given them a
severe flogging, they threw them into prison
and ordered the jailer to keep them securely.
Acts 18:10 dio/ti e˙gw¿ ei˙mi meta» souv kai«
oujdei«ß e˙piqh/setai÷ soi touv kakw"sai÷ se,
dio/ti lao/ß e˙sti÷ moi polu\ß e˙n thØv po/lei
tau/thØ.
Acts 18:10 for I am with you, and no one
will lay a hand on you to harm you, for there
are many in this city who are my people.”
113
Acts 19:6 kai« e˙piqe÷ntoß aujtoi!ß touv
Pau/lou [ta»ß] cei!raß h™lqe to\ pneuvma to\
a‚gion e˙p# aujtou/ß, e˙la¿loun te glw¿ssaiß
kai« e˙profh/teuon.
Acts 19:6 When Paul had laid his hands on
them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and
they spoke in tongues and prophesied
Acts 28:3 Sustre÷yantoß de« touv Pau/lou
fruga¿nwn ti plhvqoß kai« e˙piqe÷ntoß e˙pi«
th\n pura¿n, e¶cidna aÓpo\ thvß qe÷rmhß
e˙xelqouvsa kaqhvyen thvß ceiro\ß aujtouv.
Acts 28:3 Paul had gathered a bundle of
brushwood and was putting it on the fire,
when a viper, driven out by the heat,
fastened itself on his hand.
Acts 28:8 e˙ge÷neto de« to\n pate÷ra touv
Popli÷ou puretoi!ß kai« dusenteri÷wˆ
suneco/menon katakei!sqai, pro\ß o§n oJ
Pauvloß ei˙selqw»n kai« proseuxa¿menoß
e˙piqei«ß ta»ß cei!raß aujtwˆ" i˙a¿sato aujto/n.
Acts 28:8 It so happened that the father of
Publius lay sick in bed with fever and
dysentery. Paul visited him and cured him
by praying and putting his hands on him.
Acts 28:10 oi% kai« pollai!ß timai!ß
e˙ti÷mhsan hJma"ß kai« aÓnagome÷noiß e˙pe÷qento
ta» pro\ß ta»ß crei÷aß.
Acts 28:10 They bestowed many honors on
us, and when we were about to sail, they
put on board all the provisions we needed.
1Tim. 5:22 cei!raß tace÷wß mhdeni« e˙piti÷qei
mhde« koinw¿nei amarti÷aiß aÓllotri÷aiß:
seauto\n agno\n th/rei.
1Tim. 5:22 Do not ordain anyone hastily,
and do not participate in the sins of others;
keep yourself pure.
Rev. 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the
words of the prophecy of this book: if
anyone adds to them, God will add to that
person the plagues described in this book;
Rev. 22:18 Marturw" e˙gw» panti« twˆ"
aÓkou/onti tou\ß lo/gouß thvß profhtei÷aß touv
bibli÷ou tou/tou: e˙a¿n tiß e˙piqhØv e˙p# aujta¿,
e˙piqh/sei oJ qeo\ß e˙p# aujto\n ta»ß plhga»ß
ta»ß gegramme÷naß e˙n twˆ" bibli÷wˆ tou/twˆ,
Configurational syntax of ejpitivqhmi epitithemi:
A.
with a PP
ejpiv epi
ejpiv epi
+ ACC
12
+ GEN
2
(Mt 21:7, 27:29)
+ a different preposition
1
(Mt 27:37)
(ejpavnw epano: compound preposition used only as an
adverb in classical Greek)
B.
with accusative NP (direct object)
32
C.
with dative NP (locative oblique object)
23
A. and C. never co-occur. They are different strategies for expressing the same meaning.
B and C frequently co-occur (20 times) (and the object is sometimes left unexpressed, as in Jn
19:1 and perhaps Ac 18:10)
A. and B. is not uncommon (9 times)
From this brief survey it appears that, although both PP and dative NP are available, the dative
NP is preferrred in a ratio of approximately 2:1.
114
Co-occurrences of tivqhmi tithemi and ejpiv epi in NT
Green: epi with accusative
Purple: epi with genitive
Matt. 5:15 oujde« kai÷ousin lu/cnon kai«
tiqe÷asin aujto\n uJpo\ to\n mo/dion aÓll# e˙pi«
th\n lucni÷an, kai« la¿mpei pa"sin toi!ß e˙n thØv
oi˙ki÷aˆ.
Matt. 5:15 No one after lighting a lamp puts
it under the bushel basket, but on the
lampstand, and it gives light to all in the
house.
Matt. 12:18 i˙dou\ oJ pai!ß mou o§n hØJre÷tisa,
oJ aÓgaphto/ß mou ei˙ß o§n eujdo/khsen hJ yuch/
mou: qh/sw to\ pneuvma¿ mou e˙p! aujto/n,
kai« kri÷sin toi!ß e¶qnesin aÓpaggelei!.
Matt. 12:18 “Here is my servant, whom I
have chosen, my beloved, with whom my
soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon
him,
and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
Mark 4:21
Kai« e¶legen aujtoi!ß: mh/ti
e¶rcetai oJ lu/cnoß iºna uJpo\ to\n mo/dion teqhØv
h£ uJpo\ th\n kli÷nhn; oujc iºna e˙pi« th\n lucni÷an
teqhØv;
Mark 4:21 He said to them, “Is a lamp
brought in to be put under the bushel basket,
or under the bed, and not [put] on the
lampstand?
Mark 10:16 kai« e˙nagkalisa¿menoß aujta»
kateulo/gei tiqei«ß ta»ß cei!raß e˙p# aujta¿.
Mark 10:16 And he took them up in his
arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed
them.
Luke 6:48 o¢moio/ß e˙stin aÓnqrw¿pwˆ
oi˙kodomouvnti oi˙ki÷an o§ß e¶skayen kai«
e˙ba¿qunen kai« e¶qhken qeme÷lion e˙pi« th\n
pe÷tran: plhmmu/rhß de« genome÷nhß
prose÷rhxen oJ potamo\ß thØv oi˙ki÷aˆ e˙kei÷nhØ,
kai« oujk i¶scusen saleuvsai aujth\n dia» to\
kalw"ß oi˙kodomhvsqai aujth/n.
Luke 6:48 That one is like a man building a
house, who dug deeply and laid the
foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the
river burst against that house but could not
shake it, because it had been well built.
Luke 8:16
Oujdei«ß de« lu/cnon a‚yaß
kalu/ptei aujto\n skeu/ei h£ uJpoka¿tw kli÷nhß
ti÷qhsin, aÓll# e˙pi« lucni÷aß ti÷qhsin, iºna oi˚
ei˙sporeuo/menoi ble÷pwsin to\ fw"ß.
Luke 8:16 “No one after lighting a lamp
hides it under a jar, or puts it under a bed,
but puts it on a lampstand, so that those who
enter may see the light.
Luke 11:33 Oujdei«ß lu/cnon a‚yaß ei˙ß
kru/pthn ti÷qhsin [oujde« uJpo\ to\n mo/dion]
aÓll# e˙pi« th\n lucni÷an, iºna oi˚
ei˙sporeuo/menoi to\ fw"ß ble÷pwsin.
Luke 11:33 “No one after lighting a lamp
puts it in a cellar, but on the lampstand so
that those who enter may see the light.
John 19:19 e¶grayen de« kai« ti÷tlon oJ
Pila"toß kai« e¶qhken e˙pi« touv staurouv: h™n
de« gegramme÷non: #Ihsouvß oJ Nazwrai!oß oJ
basileu\ß tw"n #Ioudai÷wn.
John 19:19 Pilate also had an inscription
written and put on the cross. It read, “Jesus
of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”
115
Acts 5:15 w‚ste kai« ei˙ß ta»ß platei÷aß
e˙kfe÷rein tou\ß aÓsqenei!ß kai« tiqe÷nai e˙pi«
klinari÷wn kai« kraba¿ttwn, iºna e˙rcome÷nou
Pe÷trou ka·n hJ skia» e˙piskia¿shØ tini« aujtw"n.
Acts 5:15 so that they even carried out the
sick into the streets, and laid them on cots
and mats, in order that Peter’s shadow might
fall on some of them as he came by.
Acts 21:5 o¢te de« e˙ge÷neto hJma"ß e˙xarti÷sai
ta»ß hJme÷raß, e˙xelqo/nteß e˙poreuo/meqa
propempo/ntwn hJma"ß pa¿ntwn su\n gunaixi«
kai« te÷knoiß eºwß e¶xw thvß po/lewß, kai«
qe÷nteß ta» go/nata e˙pi« to\n ai˙gialo\n
proseuxa¿menoi
Acts 21:5 When our days there were ended,
we left and proceeded on our journey; and all
of them, with wives and children, escorted us
outside the city. There we knelt [put knees]
down on the beach and prayed
2Cor. 3:13 not like Moses, who put a veil
over his face to keep the people of Israel
from gazing at the end of the glory that was
being set aside.
2Cor. 3:13 kai« ouj kaqa¿per Mwu¨shvß
e˙ti÷qei ka¿lumma e˙pi« to\ pro/swpon aujtouv
pro\ß to\ mh\ aÓteni÷sai tou\ß ui˚ou\ß #Israh\l
ei˙ß to\ te÷loß touv katargoume÷nou.
Rev. 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet
as though dead. But he placed his right hand
on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the
first and the last,
Rev. 1:17
Kai« o¢te ei•don aujto/n, e¶pesa
pro\ß tou\ß po/daß aujtouv wß nekro/ß, kai«
e¶qhken th\n dexia»n aujtouv e˙p# e˙me« le÷gwn:
mh\ fobouv: e˙gw¿ ei˙mi oJ prw"toß kai« oJ
e¶scatoß
Rev. 10:2 He held a little scroll open in his
hand. Setting his right foot on the sea and
his left foot on the land...
Rev. 10:2 kai« e¶cwn e˙n thØv ceiri« aujtouv
biblari÷dion hjnewˆgme÷non. kai« e¶qhken to\n
po/da aujtouv to\n dexio\n e˙pi« thvß qala¿sshß,
to\n de« eujw¿numon e˙pi« thvß ghvß
Apart from the double use in Rev. 10:2, only Luke uses PP+GEN, but he also uses (slightly
more often) PP+ACC.
As a verb requiring a locative argument (like English ‘put’), tivqhmi tithemi frequently occurs with
other prepositions (as in Lk 8:16 & 11:33 above); here only the occurrences with ejpiv epi are
considered, because of the variation in case government displayed. Although epi + DAT occurs
in NT almost as often as epi + GEN (but together less than epi + ACC), it never occurs with
tithemi. The variation is only between ACC and GEN: contrast the variation between GEN and
DAT in Chapter 2 examples (14) & (15).
Clearly by the middle or later Koine period the
distinction between orientation towards or away from the landmark, which previously
distinguished accusative and genitive cases, is no longer active. Compare the loss of the
distinction between motion and location in the confusion between eijV eis and ejn en.
116
References
ADRADOS 2005
Francisco Rodríguez Adrados, A History of the Greek Language from its
Origins to the Present (translation by Francisca Rojas del Canto of Adrados,
Historia de la lengua griega, Madrid 1999). Leiden: Brill.
ALAND & ALAND
1987
Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introducion to
the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism,
second edition. Translated by Erroll F Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
ALLEN 1987
W Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek,
third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BDAG
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, 2000, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, third edition, ed Frederick W
Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
BEEKES 1995
Robert S P Beekes, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
BERGLUND & MASON
2003
Ylva Berglund & Oliver Mason, ‘”But this formula doesn’t mean anything...!?”’,
in Andrew Wilson, Paul Rayson & Tony McEnery (eds), Corpus Linguistics by
the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
BERKOWITZ &
SQUITIER 1986
Luci Berkowitz & Karl A Squitier, Thesurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek
Authors and Works (with technical assistance from William A Johnson), second
edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BOTHA 1991
J Eugene Botha, ‘Style in the New Testament: The Need for Serious
Reconsideration’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43, 71-87.
BRINTON &
TRAUGOTT 2005
Laurel J Brinton & Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Lexicalization and Language
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BROWNING 1983
Robert Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, second edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
BUBENIK 1989
Vit Bubenik, Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
BUBENIK 1993
Vit Bubenik, ‘Dialect contact and Koineization: the case of Hellenistic Greek’, in
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 99 (1993) 9-23.
BURRIDGE 1997a
Richard A Burridge, ‘Biography’, pp 371-392 in Stanley E Porter (ed),
Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 BC – AD 400.
Leiden: Brill.
BURRIDGE 1997b
Richard A Burridge, ‘The Gospels and Acts’, pp 507-532 in Stanley E Porter
(ed), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 BC – AD
400. Leiden: Brill.
BYBEE ET AL 1994
Joan Bybee, Revere Perkin & William Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar:
Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
CAMPBELL 2004
Lyle Campbell, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (second edition).
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
CARSON & MOO
2005
D A Carson & Douglas J Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (second
edition). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
CHANTRAINE 1953
P Chantraine, Grammaire Homérique, Vol II Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck.
117
CHRISTIDIS 2007
A-F Christidis (ed), A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to late
Antiquity, edited for the Centre for the Greek Language by A-F Christidis with
the assistance of Maria Arapopoulou and Maria Chriti, Cambridge University
Press; originally published in Greek, as Istoriva thV ellhnikhvV glwvssaV: Apov
tiV arcevV evwV thn uvsterh arcaiovthta, by the Centre of the Greek Language
and the Institute of Modern Greek Studies [Manolis Triandafyllidis Foundation],
Thessaloniki, 2001. (Individual articles cited as ‘[Author] in Christidis 2007’.)
CLARKE 1997
Kent D Clarke, Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies’
Greek New Testament. Sheffield: Sheffiels Academic Press.
DINES 2004
Jennifer M Dines, The Septuagint. London: T & T Clark.
DUHOUX 1995
Yves Duhoux, ‘Études sur l’aspect verbal en grec ancien 1: présentation d’une
méthode’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 90.1, 241-99.
DUHOUX 1997
Yves Duhoux, ‘Grec écrit et grec parlé: Une étude contrastive des particules
aux Ve-Ive siècles’, in Albert Rijksbaron (ed), New Approaches to Greek
Particles. Amsterdam: Brill.
EVANS 2001
T V Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and
Hebrew Interference. Oxford: Oxford University press
FANNING 1990
Buist M Fanning, Verbal Aspect in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
FINKELBERG 1994
Margalit Finkelberg, ‘The dialect continuum of Ancient Greek’, in Harvard
Studies in Classical Philology 96 (1994) 1-36.
FORTSON 2004
Benjamin W Fortson IV, Indo-European language and Culture: An Introduction.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
FUNK 1973
Robert W Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek (3
volumes), second edition. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature.
GIGNAC 1981
Francis Thomas Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and
Byzantine Periods, Vol 1 (Phonology) & Vol 2 (Morphology). Milano: Istituto
Editoriale Cisalpino-La Goliardica
HARRIS & CAMPBELL
1995
Alice C Harris & Lyle Campbell, Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic
Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HEWSON & BUBENIK
2006
John Hewson & Vit Bubenik, From Case to Adposition: The Development of
Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins
HEINE 2003
Bernd Heine, ‘Grammaticalization’, Chapter 18 (575-600) in Brian D Joseph &
Richard Janda (eds), Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell
HOLMES 1999
Michael W Holmes (ed), The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English
Translations, second edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
HOLTON ET AL 1997
David Holton, Peter Mackridge & Irene Philippaki-Warburton, Greek: A
Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge.
HOPPER &
TRAUGOTT 2003
Paul J Hopper & Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Grammaticalization (second edition).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HORROCKS 1981
Geoffrey C Horrocks, Space and Time in Homer: Prepositional and Adverbial
Particles in the Greek Epic. New York: Arno Press
HORROCKS 1997
Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers.
London: Longman.
HOUSEHOLDER &
NAGY 1972
Fred W Householder & Gregory Nagy, Greek: A Survey of Recent Work. The
Hague: Mouton.
HORSLEY 1984
G H R Horsley, ‘Divergent Views on the Nature of the Greek of the Bible’, in
Biblica 65 (1984) 393-403.
118
JANNI 1993
Pietro Janni, ‘On the Treatment of Some Greek Prepositions in Modern
Language Dictionaries’, in Bela Brogyanyi & Reiner Lipp (eds), ComparativeHistorical Linguistics: Indo-European and Finno-Ugric. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
JASANOFF 2001
Jay H Jasanoff, Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
KENNEDY 1998
Graeme Kennedy, An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.
KENNY 1986
Anthony Kenny, A Stylometric Study of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon
KERSWILL 2002
Paul Kerswill, ‘Koineization and Accommodation’, Chapter 26 of JK Chambers,
Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds), The Handbook of Language
Variation and Change. Blackwell: Oxford
LEE 1983
John A L Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch.
Chico Ca: Scholars Press
LEE 1997
John A L Lee, ‘Translations of the Old Testament: 1 Greek’, pp 775-783 in
Stanley E Porter (ed), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period
330 BC – AD 400. Leiden: Brill.
LORD 1960
Albert B Lord, The Singer of Tales. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University
Press.
LSJ
Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and
augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with the assistance of
Roderick McKenzie. 1940. (Oxford: Clarendon). Available online through the
Perseus Project at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu. (The Supplements to LSJ of
1968 and 1996 are not yet freely available online.)
LURAGHI 2003
Silvia Luraghi, On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
LURAGHI 2005
Silvia Luraghi, Ancient Greek. Munich: Lincom Europa
MCKAY 1994
K L McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: AnAaspectual
Approach. New York: Peter Lang.
MALLORY 1989
J P Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and
Myth. London: Thames and Hudson.
MANDILARAS 1973
Basil G Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri. Athens:
Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences
MEECHAM 1923
Henry G Meecham, Light from Ancient Letters: Private Corrrespondence in the
Nonliterary Papyri of Oxyrhincus of the First Four Centuries, and its Bearing on
New Testament Language and Thought. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock.
MEILLET 1912
Antoine Meillet, ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’, Scientia (Rivista di
Scienza) 12, no.26.6: 384-400.
MORGENTHALER
1958
R Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes. Zurich:
Gotthelf Verlag.
MOULTON I & II
James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol 1:
Prolegomena (1908), Vol 2: Accidence and Word Formation (1919).
Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
MOULTON & GEDEN
1897
William Fiddian Moulton & Alfred Shenington Geden, Concordance to the
Greek New Testament according to the Texts of Westcott and Hort. Edinburgh:
T&T Clark.
NA 27
Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece 27 edition 1993, in the tradition of
Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, edited by Barbara & Kurt Aland, Johannes
Karavidopoulos, Carlo M Martini, Bruce M Metxger. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft.
th
119
NAGY 1996
Gregory Nagy, Homeric Questions. Austin: University of Texas Press.
O’DONNELL 2005
Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New
Testament (New Testament Monographs 6). Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.
O’DOWD 1998
Elizabeth M O’Dowd, Prepositions and Particles in English: A Discoursefunctional Account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PALMER 1980
Leonard R Palmer, The Greek Language. London: Faber & Faber.
PETROUNIAS 2007
E B Petrounias, ‘The pronunciation of Ancient Greek in modern times’
(translated by Andry Hendry), in Christidis 2007.
PORTER 1989
Stanley E Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with
Reference to Tense and Mood. New York: Peter Lang
PORTER 1991
Stanley E Porter (ed), The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
PORTER & CARSON
1993
Stanley E Porter & D A Carson (eds), Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics:
Open Questions in Current Research (JSNT SS 80). Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
RAHLFS 1935
A Rahlfs (ed), Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX
interpretes, 2 vol. Stuttgart.
SCHMIDT 1981
Daryl Schmidt, Hellenistic Greek Grammar and Noam Chomsky: Nominalizing
Transformations. Chico CA: Scholars Press.
SCHMIDT 1985
Daryl Schmidt, ‘The Study of Hellenistic Greek Grammar in the Light of
Contemporary Linguistics’, in Charles H Talbert (ed), Perspectives on the New
Testament: Essays in Honor of Frank Stagg. Macon: Mercer University Press.
SILVA 1980
Moises Silva, ‘Bilingulaism and the Character of Palestinian Greek’, in Biblica
61 (1980) 198-219.
STANIFORTH 1968
Maxwell Staniforth (translator), Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers,
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
TLG
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: data bank of Greek texts available by
subscription from University of California, Irvine.
TURNER 1963
Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol III: Syntax, by J H
Moulton. Edinburgh: T & T Clark
VILBORG 1960
Ebbe Vilborg, A Tentative Grammar of Mycenaean Greek. Göteborg: Elanders
Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.
VINCENT 1999
Nigel Vincent, ‘The evolution of c-structure: prepositions and PPs from IndoEuropean to Romance’, Linguistics 37.6:111-115.
WHITE 1986
John L White, Light from Ancient Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
WEBSITES:
ACCORDANCE
www.accordancebible.com
GRAMCORD
www.gramcord.org
LINEAR B
www.explorecrete.com/archaeology/linearB.pdf
LSJ
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu
PERSEUS PROJECT
www.perseus.tufts.edu, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_Project
TLG
www.tlg.uci.edu, www.tlg.uci.edu/demo.html
120