• I can see how this is assimilation, but it is more like deletion since a vowel is being removed entirely. Isn't that right?
    1. Do you mean when followed by a consonant?
      1. Again, I'm having a hard time seeing how this example is an example of compensatory lengthening.
        1. In this example δέρω } ἔδειρα, no consonant is dropped. Why then is this an example of compensatory lengthening?
          1. Wouldn't it be better to use the common understanding of what morphology is, which is, as you know, not the study of a written form of a language, but the study of the way words are formed and the rules that govern how words are formed in a language? I think this is actually more helpful to the readers than the definition that states that morphology is 'the study of the written form of a language'.
            1. "For whoever continually wishes to his life will lose it." Should there be a "save" before "his?"
              1. Hi guys! I was looking up on the word “Rhaka” in Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) and I found this entry: ῥακά (also written ῥαχά; so as an uncomplimentary, perh. foul epithet in a Zenon pap of 257 B.C.: Sb 7638, 7 ʼ Αντίοχον τὸν ῥαχᾶν [s. on this Colwell, JBL 53, ’34, 351–54; Goodsp, Probs. 20–23; MSmith, JBL 64, 1945, 502f]) a term of abuse/put-down relating to lack of intelligence, numskull, fool (in effect verbal bullying) Mt 5:22, a term of abuse, as a rule derived fr. the Aramaic רֵיקָא or רֵיקָה ‘empty one’, found (Billerb. I 278f) in the Talmud (EKautzsch, Gramm. des Biblisch-Aramäischen 1884, 10; Dalman, Gramm.2 173f; SFeigin, JNES 2, ’43, 195f; Mlt-H. 152 w. note 3), empty-head. Doubt as to the correctness of this derivation is expressed by Wlh. and Zahn ad loc.; FSchulthess, ZNW 21, 1922, 241–43. Among the ancient interpreters, the Gk. Onomastica, Jerome, Hilary, and the Opus Imperfectum p. 62 (MPG LVI, 690) take ῥ. as= κενός=Lat. vacuus=empty-head, numskull, fool. Chrysostom says (MPG LVII, 248): τὸ δὲ ῥακὰ οὐ μεγάλης ἐστὶν ὕβρεως ῥῆμα … ἀντὶ τοῦ σύ=‘ῥ. is not an expression denoting a strong put-down … but is used in place of σύ.’ The same thing in somewhat different words in Basilius, Regulae 51 p. 432c: τί ἐστί ῥακά; ἐπιχώριον ῥῆμα ἠπιωτέρας ὕβρεως, πρὸς τοὺς οἰκειοτέρους λαμβανόμενον ‘what is the mng. of ῥ.? It is a colloquial term of rather gentle cheek and generally used in familiar surroundings’. Sim., Hecataeus: 264 Fgm. 4 p. 13, 21f Jac. (in Plut., Mor. 354d) explains the name Ammon as coming fr. a form of address common among the Egyptians: προσκλητικὴν εἶναι τὴν φωνήν.—SKrauss, OLZ 22, 1919, 63; JLeipoldt, CQR 92, 1921, 38; FBussby, ET 74, ’64, 26; RGuelich, ZNW 64, ’73, 39–52; Betz, SM ad loc. S. the lit. s.v. μωρός.—TRE III 608. EDNT. M-M. TW. William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and It is a colloquial term of rather gentle cheek and generally used in familiar surroundings’.Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 903. Basilius the Great said this, “It is a colloquial term of rather gentle cheek and generally used in familiar surroundings’.” Can anyone tell me what does it mean by “rather gentle cheek”?
                1. Hi, It means slightly vulgar.
                2. Cheek, or cheekiness, means disrespect, rudeness, audacity, crassness, insolence, impudence, inappropriateness, etc., just to give some further depth.
              2. In §2.13b there is an example: ο + ου } ουυ } ου α + αι } αι } ᾳ But §2.13b assumes that a single vowel should be different from the first vowel of a diphthong. So, should not it be ε + ου } ουυ } ου α + ει } αι } ᾳ, for example?
                1. It looks like that "εαι } εᾳ } ῃ" in $2.8 contradicts a little to its example "ποιεσαι } ποιεαι } ποιηι } ποιῇ". Shouldn't it be "εαι } ηι } ῃ" instead?
                  1. Here on 30.6, it says that in the feminine, οτ has been replaced by "νια", but it seems that it should be "υια" instead. Is that right, or am I missing something?