Advanced search
1 file | 590.36 KB

HAVE-perfects in post-classical and early Byzantine Greek

Klaas Bentein (UGent)
(2013) EMERITA. 81(1). p.151-182
Author
Organization
Abstract
In this article, I analyze the use and development of periphrastic perfect constructions with the Ancient Greek verb ‘have’ (ἔχω) in Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek. To be more specific, I discuss the following four constructions: (a) ἔχω with active/middle aorist participle (anterior), (b) ἔχω with passive perfect participle (resultative), (c) ἔχω with passive aorist or present participle (resultative), and (d) ἔχω with active/middle aorist or present participle and a temporal adjunct (anterior). My analysis is based on a register-balanced corpus of texts, whereby I distinguish between works of a ‘low’, ‘middle’ and ‘high’ register.
Keywords
perfect, Ancient Greek, HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS, register, diachrony, periphrasis

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 590.36 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
Bentein, Klaas. 2013. “HAVE-perfects in Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek.” Emerita 81 (1): 151–182.
APA
Bentein, K. (2013). HAVE-perfects in post-classical and early Byzantine Greek. EMERITA, 81(1), 151–182.
Vancouver
1.
Bentein K. HAVE-perfects in post-classical and early Byzantine Greek. EMERITA. 2013;81(1):151–82.
MLA
Bentein, Klaas. “HAVE-perfects in Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek.” EMERITA 81.1 (2013): 151–182. Print.
@article{2987515,
  abstract     = {In this article, I analyze the use and development of periphrastic perfect constructions with the Ancient Greek verb {\textquoteleft}have{\textquoteright} (\unmatched{1f14}\ensuremath{\chi}\ensuremath{\omega}) in Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek. To be more specific, I discuss the following four constructions: (a) \unmatched{1f14}\ensuremath{\chi}\ensuremath{\omega} with active/middle aorist participle (anterior), (b) \unmatched{1f14}\ensuremath{\chi}\ensuremath{\omega} with passive perfect participle (resultative), (c) \unmatched{1f14}\ensuremath{\chi}\ensuremath{\omega} with passive aorist or present participle (resultative), and (d) \unmatched{1f14}\ensuremath{\chi}\ensuremath{\omega} with active/middle aorist or present participle and a temporal adjunct (anterior). My analysis is based on a register-balanced corpus of texts, whereby I distinguish between works of a {\textquoteleft}low{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}middle{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}high{\textquoteright} register.},
  author       = {Bentein, Klaas},
  issn         = {0013-6662},
  journal      = {EMERITA},
  keyword      = {perfect,Ancient Greek,HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS,register,diachrony,periphrasis},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {151--182},
  title        = {HAVE-perfects in post-classical and early Byzantine Greek},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2013.08.1130},
  volume       = {81},
  year         = {2013},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: