Lemma vs Root

This is not the right place to ask this question, but I am not sure where to go. I understand what a lemma and the root of a Greek word is, but how does one distinguish between the lemma and the root when they are the same word. I am beginning a study of Mark 1 and examing the word "gospel". When I click on the word "gospel", I see that the lemma and the root are the same word in the Greek:

When I do a search in the Greek text (NA28), I find more hits for the root than I do the lemma. In general, this makes sense, if the lemma. But if the lemma and the root are the same word, why do I get more hits for the root than for the lemma?

Also, where should this kind of question be asked?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Damian McGrath

Also, where should this kind of question be asked?

No idea

But if the lemma and the root are the same word, why do I get more hits for the root than for the lemma?

This is also the root for some verbal forms, which have a different lemma, eg. εὐαγγελίζω

Mike Binks

This is exactly the right place to ask the question. [<:o)]

I am exactly the wrong person to be replying. [^o)]

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

But if the lemma and the root are the same word, why do I get more hits for the root than for the lemma?

Analysis of <Root = lbs/el/ευαγγελιον> search shows noun occurs the most for related lemma's:

Analysis of <Root = lbs/el/πιστευω> shows noun πίστις occurs 242 times while verb πιστεύω occurs 241 times:

Keep Smiling [:)]

Al Het

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1173343#Comment_1173343

This was a GREAT answer, using Logos to get it done. My answer would have been far more verbose, and perhaps much less clear...

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1173343#Comment_1173343

Analysis of <Root = lbs/el/πιστευω> shows noun πίστις occurs 242 times while verb πιστεύω occurs 241 times:

I do not consider myself a Greek expert, but my understanding of the concept of "root" as it applies to languages generally is that the root of the various Greek words above would be "pist", as it is the "central core unit" to which other word meaning segments are affixed either as prefixes or suffixes. The idea is that if "pist" is reduced any further in terms of letter structure, the meaning associated with "pist" is also lost.

Also, fwiw, the definition of pistis in the listing above is incomplete. In Biblical Greek, pistis is used to mean both "faith" and "faithfulness", which are vastly different concepts. Faith is abstract and intangible and can only be audibilized, while faithfulness is concrete and tangible and/or visible.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1173630#Comment_1173630

When dealing with Indo-European languages such as Greek, Latin, or Gothic, I think of the root as being the PIE root as that makes it easier to recognize cognate forms. Put another way, I think of it as what is sometimes referred to as a reconstructed (etymological root).

[quote]πείθομαι [v.] ‘to trust, rely, obey, be persuaded’ (Il.). «IE *bhidh- ‘convince, trust’»

•VAR fut. πείσομαι, aor. πιθέσθαι, πεπιθέσθαι, perf. πέποιθα (all Il.), aor. pass. πεισθῆναι, fut. -θήσομαι, perf. πέπεισ-μαι (Att.), med. πείσασθαι (Hell.), aor. ptc. πιθήσας (Il.), fut. πιθήσω (φ 369); act. πείθω, πείσω, πεπιθεῖν with fut. πεπιθήσω, πεῖσαι (all Il.), πιθεῖν (Pi., A.), πέπεικα (young Att.) ‘to convince, persuade’.

•COMP Also with prefix, e.g. ἀνα-, ἐπι-, παρα-, συν-. As a first member in governing compounds, e.g. πείθαρχος ‘obedient to the authorities’ (A.), PN Πεισίστρατος; as a second member in ἀ-, εὐ-π(ε)ιθής (Thgn., A., Att.), aor. ἀπίθησε (Il.), fut. ἀπιθήσω (Κ 129, Ω 300); thence πιθήσας and πιθήσω.

•DER A. From the root aorist: 1. πιστός ‘faithful, reliable, credible’ (Il.), πιστό-της ‘faith’ (IA), πιστεύω (δια-, κατα-, etc.) [v.] ‘to rely, trust, believe, confide’ (IA), whence -ευμα, -ευσις, -ευτικός; πιστόομαι (κατα-, συν-, προ-), -όω [v.] ‘to trust entirely, warrant, assure; to make reliable’ (Il.), whence -ωμα, -ωσις, -ωτής, -ωτικός. 2. πίστις [f.] ‘faith, trust, authentication, assurance’ (IA), whence πιστικός ‘faithful’ (Plu., Vett. Val.; if not for πειστικός; see below). 3. πιθανός ‘trustworthy, reliable, believable, obedient’ (IA), πιθαν-ότης, -όω (Pl., Arist.). 4. πίσυνος ‘relying on somebody or something’ (mostly epic poet. Il.), probably after θάρσυνος.

B. From the present: 1. Πειθώ [f.] ‘(goddess of) persuasion, conviction, obedience’ (Hes.), thence Boeot. aor. ἐπίθωσε, -σαν (IIIa)?; 2. πειθός ‘pesuading (easily), persuasive’ (Ep. Cor.). 3. πειθήμων ‘obedient, persuasive’ (late epic).

C. From the present or s-aor. (more recently): 1. πεῖσα [f.] ‘obedience’, 2. -πειστος as a second member in εὔ-, δυσανά-, ἀμετά-πειστος etc. (Att.), as opposed to older ἄπιστος. 3. πειστικός ‘fit for persuasion, convincing’ (Pl., Arist.), -ήριος ‘id.’ (E.). 4. πεῖσμα [n.] ‘conviction, confidence’ (Plu., Arr., S. E.), -μονή [f.] ‘id.’ (Ep. Gal., pap.). 5. πεῖσις (παρά-, κατά-) [f.] ‘conviction, etc.’ (Plot., Hdn., sch.). 6. πειστήρ ‘who obeys’ (Suid.) 7. Πειστίχη epithet of Aphrodite (Delos).

D. From the perfect: πεποίθ-ησις [f.] ‘trust’ (LXX, Phld.), -ίαν ‘hope, expectation’.

•ETYM Present πείθομαι < PIE pres. or aor. subj. *bheidh-e/o-, aor. πιθ- < PIE aor. *bheidh- /*bhidh-. Cognate with Lat. fīdō, -ere < IE *bheidh-e/o-, fīdus ‘faithful, reliable’, fidēs, -ēī ‘trust, guarantee’, foedus, -eris [n.] ‘treaty, agreement’; Alb. bē [f.] ‘oath’, besë [f.] ‘faith’, bindem ‘to be convinced, believe’; OCS běda ‘distress, necessity’ < *bhoidh- eh2, běditi ‘to force, persuade’, 1sg. běždǫ < *bhoidh-eie-. Probably also related to Go. beidan ‘to wait’, baidjan ‘to force’, OE bǣdan, OHG beitten ‘to demand’.

Robert Beekes, ed. Alexander Lubotsky, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 1161–1162.

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1173630#Comment_1173630

I do not consider myself a Greek expert, but my understanding of the concept of "root" as it applies to languages generally is that the root of the various Greek words above would be "pist", as it is the "central core unit" to which other word meaning segments are affixed either as prefixes or suffixes. The idea is that if "pist" is reduced any further in terms of letter structure, the meaning associated with "pist" is also lost.

This is definitely right - this creates quite erroneous results in the root section of the right click menu.

The root for βαλλω should be βαλ- not βαλλω. The root of διδακτός should be διδαχ not διδασκω. The root for διδασκω should also be διδαχ.

It obviously creates the confusion above between lemma and root when the root given is actually the lemma.

The root of εὐαγγέλιον is αγγελ-

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1173634#Comment_1173634

When dealing with Indo-European languages such as Greek, Latin, or Gothic, I think of the root as being the PIE root as that makes it easier to recognize cognate forms. Put another way, I think of it as what is sometimes referred to as a reconstructed (etymological root).

[quote]πείθομαι [v.] ‘to trust, rely, obey, be persuaded’ (Il.). «IE *bhidh- ‘convince, trust’»

•VAR fut. πείσομαι, aor. πιθέσθαι, πεπιθέσθαι, perf. πέποιθα (all Il.), aor. pass. πεισθῆναι, fut. -θήσομαι, perf. πέπεισ-μαι (Att.), med. πείσασθαι (Hell.), aor. ptc. πιθήσας (Il.), fut. πιθήσω (φ 369); act. πείθω, πείσω, πεπιθεῖν with fut. πεπιθήσω, πεῖσαι (all Il.), πιθεῖν (Pi., A.), πέπεικα (young Att.) ‘to convince, persuade’.

•COMP Also with prefix, e.g. ἀνα-, ἐπι-, παρα-, συν-. As a first member in governing compounds, e.g. πείθαρχος ‘obedient to the authorities’ (A.), PN Πεισίστρατος; as a second member in ἀ-, εὐ-π(ε)ιθής (Thgn., A., Att.), aor. ἀπίθησε (Il.), fut. ἀπιθήσω (Κ 129, Ω 300); thence πιθήσας and πιθήσω.

•DER A. From the root aorist: 1. πιστός ‘faithful, reliable, credible’ (Il.), πιστό-της ‘faith’ (IA), πιστεύω (δια-, κατα-, etc.) [v.] ‘to rely, trust, believe, confide’ (IA), whence -ευμα, -ευσις, -ευτικός; πιστόομαι (κατα-, συν-, προ-), -όω [v.] ‘to trust entirely, warrant, assure; to make reliable’ (Il.), whence -ωμα, -ωσις, -ωτής, -ωτικός. 2. πίστις [f.] ‘faith, trust, authentication, assurance’ (IA), whence πιστικός ‘faithful’ (Plu., Vett. Val.; if not for πειστικός; see below). 3. πιθανός ‘trustworthy, reliable, believable, obedient’ (IA), πιθαν-ότης, -όω (Pl., Arist.). 4. πίσυνος ‘relying on somebody or something’ (mostly epic poet. Il.), probably after θάρσυνος.

B. From the present: 1. Πειθώ [f.] ‘(goddess of) persuasion, conviction, obedience’ (Hes.), thence Boeot. aor. ἐπίθωσε, -σαν (IIIa)?; 2. πειθός ‘pesuading (easily), persuasive’ (Ep. Cor.). 3. πειθήμων ‘obedient, persuasive’ (late epic).

C. From the present or s-aor. (more recently): 1. πεῖσα [f.] ‘obedience’, 2. -πειστος as a second member in εὔ-, δυσανά-, ἀμετά-πειστος etc. (Att.), as opposed to older ἄπιστος. 3. πειστικός ‘fit for persuasion, convincing’ (Pl., Arist.), -ήριος ‘id.’ (E.). 4. πεῖσμα [n.] ‘conviction, confidence’ (Plu., Arr., S. E.), -μονή [f.] ‘id.’ (Ep. Gal., pap.). 5. πεῖσις (παρά-, κατά-) [f.] ‘conviction, etc.’ (Plot., Hdn., sch.). 6. πειστήρ ‘who obeys’ (Suid.) 7. Πειστίχη epithet of Aphrodite (Delos).

D. From the perfect: πεποίθ-ησις [f.] ‘trust’ (LXX, Phld.), -ίαν ‘hope, expectation’.

•ETYM Present πείθομαι < PIE pres. or aor. subj. *bheidh-e/o-, aor. πιθ- < PIE aor. *bheidh- /*bhidh-. Cognate with Lat. fīdō, -ere < IE *bheidh-e/o-, fīdus ‘faithful, reliable’, fidēs, -ēī ‘trust, guarantee’, foedus, -eris [n.] ‘treaty, agreement’; Alb. bē [f.] ‘oath’, besë [f.] ‘faith’, bindem ‘to be convinced, believe’; OCS běda ‘distress, necessity’ < *bhoidh- eh2, běditi ‘to force, persuade’, 1sg. běždǫ < *bhoidh-eie-. Probably also related to Go. beidan ‘to wait’, baidjan ‘to force’, OE bǣdan, OHG beitten ‘to demand’.

Robert Beekes, ed. Alexander Lubotsky, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 1161–1162.

In English, it is commonly perceived that John is a derivative nickname of the fuller name Jonathan. Interestingly, when these two Biblical names are traced back, it turns out they are not, in fact, related. Jonathan is an epithet sourced from the Hebrew for "YHWH gives" or "YHWH's gift", from naatthan, which means "to give". In contrast, John is a reduced derivative epithet from the Hebrew for "YHWH graces" or "YHWH's grace", from hhaanan, which means "to show grace". Now it turns out that these two words are quite similar, as grace often takes the form of a gift. Generally speaking, naatthaan is a gift of something one could potentially acquire on one's own, whereas hhaanan is that which one receives but could not otherwise be attained through one's own effort. Similarities aside, there were people with both names, Naatthaan and Hhaanaan, and though conceptually related, they are clearly different names.

Again, not a Greek scholar by any means, so I don't have the background and wherewithal to perceive precisely how "peith" becomes "pist". Lexicons tell me they are related, and clearly the English meanings of the two are related, but so are naatthan and hhaanan (semantically), fundamentally seperate at the root (structural) level though they are. So, I get your general drift with regard to the "reconstructed" Proto-Indo-European roots, and I'm okay with that. However, that seems to be focused on a semantic thought kernal, which is all fine and good, but I am addressing something that I guess is more of a structural root. By that, I'm differentiating the "peith" lexemes from the "pist" lexemes. Perhaps there is another term beside "root" that definitionally focuses on that level of differentiation?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1173651#Comment_1173651

With a handful of exceptions, the path from root to stem to lemma is subject to phonetic and morphological rules that apply across a class of words. The path from a PIE root is similarly patterned across dialects, time, and languages. Think of it as a group originally speaking PIE migrating, having normal language change into a dialect, and when it finally becomes unintelligible to the original group it becomes a new language. Greek is a descendent of Proto-Indo-European while Hebrew is a descendent of Proto-Afroasiatic. Unfortunately, the available manuscripts for reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic are sparse compared to PIE but the concept is the same ... one still needs definable phonetic and morphological rules to relate the words.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1173649#Comment_1173649

I do not consider myself a Greek expert, but my understanding of the concept of "root" as it applies to languages generally is that the root of the various Greek words above would be "pist", as it is the "central core unit" to which other word meaning segments are affixed either as prefixes or suffixes. The idea is that if "pist" is reduced any further in terms of letter structure, the meaning associated with "pist" is also lost.

This is definitely right - this creates quite erroneous results in the root section of the right click menu.

Concur: wish <Root = lbs/el/πιστευω> had been <Root = lbs/el/πιστ> OR <Stem = lbs/el/πιστ> (instead of "Root" being a Lemma with grouping of related Lemma's).

Keep Smiling [:)]