Talk:ἐξίστημι

Is it possible to add to Active Perfect the parallel forms "ἐξέσταμεν, ἐξέστατε, ἐξεστᾶσι" (indicative), "ἐξεστάναι" (infinitive), "ἐξεστώς, ἐξεστῶσα, ἐξεστός" (participle) ? --flyax 15:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, second perfect forms....I'll have to write up a template for that.....*sigh* -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tea room discussion
I've gotta make this fast, as AutoFormat is probably only seconds away from undoing my work. Take a look at how I've arranged the definitions on. Pretty weird, huh? Now, take a look at the usage note. Now, I realize this arrangement is really not kosher, and, honestly, I'm not really happy with it myself. I used a more standard approach on, and it works. However, the contags for  would be enormous, and would just look silly in front of all the defs. I can't really divide the defs by etymology, as the ety does not differ between them. This is not an isolated incident in Ancient Greek, and so I'm hoping to figure out a practical solution which I can use in this and other entries. Thoughts? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If the second group of definitions do not apply to the entry form, then shouldn't there be another lemma? In Latin, this would be a deponent / no-passive pair of verbs, and each would get a separate lemma page.  I'm not sure I could locate an example quickly, but I know I came across some similar verb pairs recently. --EncycloPetey 05:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm a little hesitant to split them up, perhaps for no other reason than the fact that there is not a nice even split. This is not a matter of active vs passive (or at least, not simply).  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am looking at my Greek edition of Liddell-Scott dictionary and I see that the entry is divided into two main sections. The first one includes the transitive meanings and it relates them to Present, Imperfect, Future and first Aorist. The second section includes the intransitive meanings which are related to the middle/passive tenses, the second Aorist (ἐξέστην) and active the Perfect-Pluperfect. So, I don't see any sign of middle/passive Perfect-Pluperfect. --flyax 07:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weird. Both my LSJ and my BDAG agree, perfect and pluperfect active, with no mention of their middle/passives.  However, some of their quotes have them, so they exist......  Oh, also, I've got a ἐξίσταμαι (don't know where it's from), so it looks like the perfect can have both an alpha and eta linking vowel.  And if you think that ἐξέσταμαι also exists, then we've got that as well.  *sigh*  As if  didn't have a complex enough inflection, we have to deal with compound craziness as well (such as the fact that the initial epsilon can't take an accent, even though it should, or the κσ weirdness.  Is that because τ has no aspiration, and ξ does?).  Note, if you're reading this and have no idea what this and the preceding comment mean, don't worry about it.  You do not need to understand them in order to discuss the initial issue.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it looks so complicated, I suggest that we stick to what seems to be clear and safe and be very careful about anything else. The only thing we can do in addition is to find quotes with different tenses and write them down. I've started doing it and I intend to go on for a little while. Another thing: this middle Aorist 2 «ἐξεστάμην», where does it come from? It looks to me more like a pluperfect. Also «ἐξίσταμαι» is the middle present and doesn't look like perfect at all. --flyax 14:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)