A Grammar for New Testament Greek

Errata and Corrigenda

As you can see, much remains to be fixed in this edition of the book, which was produced under a cloud of vexatious circumstances. I apologize to students and instructors for my part in the deficiencies of the first edition, and promise a cleaner revised edition as soon as I am permitted to produce one.

Contributors to this list of corrections (most recent contributors first)

Special thanks and recognition to Michael Compton of the University of Richmond and BTSR, who (in anticipation of using the book for the 2001-2002 academic year) brought a classicist's fresh eyes to the whole book and spotted new mountains of errata and potential improvements.

For the 2000-2001 academic year, Sandra Hack Polaski has lent her generous attention to spotting errata in her classes at Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, and Dwight Peterson chipped in from Eastern College.

My 1999-2000 Introductory Greek class at Seabury-Western spotted a number of problems; I should acknowledge especially Mary Ann Garrett, Joseph Atem, David Bailey, Jay Angerer, Mollie Ward, Mary Vidmar, and Mary Koppel.

Online correspondent Robert S. Rudesill spotted several glitches, and my neighbor to the south Robert Brawley spotted a couple of other typos.

My Princeton Theological Seminary Summer Greek class of 1999, among whom especially Carrie Neff, Millicent Wess, Renita Mercado Heinzl, Judson Odell, Lawrence Stratton, and Anna Kim vigilantly pointed out defects in the text, will always be very dear to me. Many heartfelt thanks to them.

Steven Matthies was the first to go over the published text with a fine toothcomb and spotted numerous other problems.

If you find a mistake or other problem, please email me, and I will give due credit here and in subsequent editions for any corrections I make on the basis of your mail. Don't feel constrained to cite only typos; any infelicities, refinements, or substantive improvements that you can point out are welcome.

One way to fend off wearisome questions in class would involve handing out photocopies of the errata for a lesson at the beginning of the class that will consider that lesson; that's what I'll do next year. Alternatively, one might go over the errata orally at the beginning of the lesson and have the students make corrections in class.

back to Grammar home page

p. 3, Breathing Marks section: Michael Compton reminds me that Modern Greek retains the rough breathing for spelling purposes, but ignores it in pronunciation.

p. 4, in the paragraph on Accent, he also points out that oi}koj takes a circumflex, not an acute, so a more appropriate example would be a!gw.

p. 5 line 7 "takes" should be singular ("take")

p. 5 In the "Punctuation" section, I ought also to have noted that editors of Greek texts use an apostrophe to indicate elision or contraction, just as in English.

p. 10, in the vocabulary list, the first principal part of ginw/skw should have only one accent, on the penult.

p. 13: Michael Compton writes, "Perhaps add an example for the predicate nominative? ('I am Adam.')"; this makes sense to me, though I'd probably not choose a proper noun for my example. Since English distinguishes cases most obviously with pronouns, I might print "It is I" or "I am he."

p. 14: Michael Compton writes, "p. 14ff - you might add that this discussion is of the cases themselves, not as objects of prepositions (which is why I'm guessing u)po + gen as agent wasn't included in discussion of the genitive case, tho' the instrumental dative is on p. 15). If, however, your discussion is only of cases apart from prepositions, then the example of pisteu&w with various cases (p. 15) may not be the best example, as pisteu&w often takes its object after a preposition like ei)j. Perhaps a)kolouqe&w (follow) would be a better example (at this stage) of a verb which can take its object in the dative?"

My response is that, yes, I was concentrating on cases apart from prepositions, and I opted not to use a)kolouqe&w because I didn't want to introduce a contract verb at this point, and the students will be working with pisteu&w from the early chapters. I'm open to better advice, but I'm inclined to stick with what I've got here.

p, 17: Michael Compton asks, "would it be useful to point out the duplicate forms of the neuter sg n/a/v and pl n/a/v?" I say, "Sure."

He then goes on to note that I use 'Ihsou~j without translating it. I suppose I assumed that at this point, students would be ready for a little game of "Does anyone recognize that name? Sound it out...." But that may be off-target for me, so feel free to emend this.

p. 17-18: Michael Compton observes, "I believe the more reasonable explanation for the missing article is that Greek often omits the article in a prepositional phrase. Even if you keep the present explanation, perhaps *add* (with an example or two) that Greek will often omit in prep phrase when we add it in English?" Here we encounter one of the headaches of writing a grammar textbook; how many explanations do we want to give for a phenomenon, and how early? I usually tried to err on the side of honoring the ambiguity of grammatical explanation by giving more explanations than strictly necessary, but here I chose to stay with just one, partly because the examples I see in Scripture don't seem distinctly to exemplify the preposition + anarthrous noun principle (many such examples look as though the nouns are specifically definite or indefinite, so that the preposition doesn't in itself explain the article's absence). Maybe next time around I'll change this; in the meantime, teachers should feel free to call attention to the other possibility as well.

p. 19 Students won't find "apposition" in the Study Checklist; teachers should emphasize this phenomenon accordingly, since it's relatively common.

The plural of a!rtoj should be represented, of course, by "loaves." In fact, the whole gloss for a!rtoj might best be given as "loaf, bread."

Michael Compton rightly advises, "p. 23 - near the top, you should explain the elision of omicron when the augment is added for a)polu&w."

p. 23 Michael Compton notes, "It would be helpful on this page to note how an initial 'eta' could be the result of the augment added to verbs beginning with alpha as well as epsilon (thus a!rxomai and e!rxomai each have the impf h)rxo&mhn)." Yes, this is true, even though one can infer this readily enough from the information given. The trouble with giving these examples is that the students woun't get these forms for a few chapters yet, and I try to keep out-of-order examples to a minimum (not successfully, granted, but I'm not sure I want to go even further down that road).

p. 23 line 17 "It" refers to the stem consonant, but the way the sentence reads, "it" could be construed as the sigma suffix. "The stem consonant" should be substituted for "it."

p. 23-24 Michael Compton points out that I should include liquid-stem verbs among those whose interactions with the aorist -s- need explanation. Thus, I would add the following:

Verbs whose stems end with a liquid consonant (l, m, n, r) can take a variety of first aorist forms. The most common such liquid-stem verbs omit the aorist's -s- suffix altogether. and lengthen the stem vowel (from a to h, from e to ei) to compensate for the missing s. For instance, the liquid-stem verb me&nw takes the first-aorist form e!meina. Be sure to note the ways tha liquid-stem verbs form their aorist active principal part as you memorize your vocabulary.

p. 24 - Michael Compton observes that "not everyone agrees, but the 'unusual first aorist' of eu(ri/skw is (I think) better explained as an example of how some 2nd aorists (esp ei!pon) at times take first aorist endings (minus the sigma). ADDENDUM: Your Ex #15 p.184 (from Apoc 16:19a) - how else to explain this form of e!pesan?"

Good point. I should have offered the "2nd-aorist with 1st-aorist ending" explanation.

p. 25 The sixth principal part of katalu&w should have the acute accent on the penult (katelu&qhn), not the antepenult (kate&luqhn).

p. 26 In exercise 17, no/mou ought to be no/mon.

This is about as big an erratum as you can get, and it boggles my mind that it persisted through the production process. In the first paragraph, the text reverses the rule for determining whether a noun follows the "mixed" declension pattern or the alpha-only declension pattern. As subsequent paradigms indicate, it is the stems that end in i, e, or r that maintain alpha as the vowel in their ending; stems that end in any letter except i, e, or r alternate between alpha and eta (not that there are very many of these nouns relative to the alpha-only or eta-only patterns).

On page 30, just before the introduction of "Understanding Sentence Structure," the word "Lesson" should have an upper-case "L." A small thing, in this context, but one wants to catch every single slip.

In exercise 10, the accent on yuxaj should be a grave accent: yuca_j.

On page 33, the header has "Excercises" where it should read "Exercises."

p. 38 #10 Michael Compton nicely notes that "Since ma&xaira (sword) goes against the expected 'alpha-type' pattern (it's a hybrid like do&ca), I've found it helpful not to introduce that word so early - most students, of course, won't realize that it is exceptional, however. Perhaps use r(omfai/a (sword) instead (tho' I know this isn't as close to the verse you're using)?"

I think that since I'm not introducing the word as a vocabulary item, and since (as you note) students can work out the sentence without stumbling over the eccentricity of the word's morphology, I won't lose sleep over this one. Of course, a deluge of dissenting letters from users will quickly change my mind.

p. 44 ex. 5 h0ne&gkamen should be accented over the first epsilon

p.47 Michael Compton observes, " I'm surprised you don't offer a translation of the present passive, nor discuss how some see it as on-going "am being saved" etc. All your examples, even in the chapter's opening graph, are of aorist passives (was x'ed). Then again, you don't offer a model translation of the aorist in Lesson IV, so maybe this is a deliberate choice.....

Hmmm; I didn't notice either of these. There's nothing deliberate about this, and I'm not sure where I'd go with it now that you call this to my attention.

p. 47, below the heading "Aorist Passive Indicative": The description of the aorist passive includes the redundant phrase "then the connecting vowel h...." The h has already been accounted for in the description of the qh suffix.

p. 48 - Michael Compton asks, "Is an explanation of what the Septuagint is in order? Maybe a footnote here?" I don't feel especially urgency on this one; by the time a seminarian gets halfway into the first term of Greek class, she or he probably ought already to know what the Septuagint is. This textbook introduces so many things that adding to the quantity seems redundant--but, having gotten that off my chest, I'll reconsider when (if?) Abingdon agrees to a revised edition.

In exercise 2 on page 51, the accent should fall on the penult of ko&smon.

In exercise 19, the lexical form of qa&lassa is misspelled as qa&lassh.

p.54 - Michael Compton thinks it would be useful to refer the student to p. 47, when the forms of the present passive (= present middle) are given. I agree.

p. 55 - (MC) This may not be helpful at the elementary stage to say, but personal pronouns do not "always" agree in number with the antecedent, esp when the noun is lao&j or o!xloj (e.g., Matt 1:21, which you adapt for #1 p.58); nor is there agreement in gender when the antecedent is, e.g, a neuter noun such as te&knon, pneu~ma, or daimo&nion. Your "typically" on p. 112 for the relative pronoun should at least replace the "always" on p.55 if you don't want to elaborate. ADDENDUM: your explanation of the constructio ad sensum in ex #2 p. 133 should come earlier in your text.

(AKMA) I suppose so. I expect that my rationale for putting this so strongly was to impress the principle on students' minds before I acquainted them with the exceptions, since so often students seem resistant to even this relatively straightforward premise. I do believe in grammatical honesty, though, so that "typically" makes a fairer modifier here.

p.56 (MC) The u(mi=n in your example from Matt 5:22 should have a circumflex over the iota. (AKMA) Yup.

p.57 (MC) Re the discussion of enclitics, I have found Mt's version of the Lord's Prayer, esp 6:9-10, a good place to illustrate the rules of enclitics. (AKMA) Thanks for the tip; that's a very helpful pointer.

p.58 - (MC) vocab: I disagree that "I get baptized" is a middle voice meaning of baptizomai; surely this is a passive meaning?

(AKMA) My point in offering this approach to the M/P form of bapti/zw was that the uses of that form suggest to me a degree of agency inappropriate to the passive, and that one might catch some of the middle sense of self-oriented activity by "get baptized." If I propose an idiosyncratic reading of the Greek, though, I ought to do the homework to mount a thorough exegetical case--which I haven't done in this case. For the time being, I suspect I'm on track, but I'll be sure to check it out before I perpetuate this suggestion in a revised edition.

p.59 #19 (MC) e)pei/sqhsan de_ au)tw|~ - makes me think that you may want to revise your blanket statement in Lesson VIII p.49 about the 2 ways Greek expresses agent: your discussion of the passive voice hasn't really allowed for the meaning of "follow" or "obey" or "believe" (which sound more active) here. I know you want students to become familiar with a lexicon, but this expression may be too demanding here. (AKMA) This sounds right to me. I'll re-examine this sentence in a future edition.

On p. 62, the text of the last example should probably italicize the translated he as well as used to release, since the verb form a0pe/luen implies its subject.

p.62-3 (MC) Since on p.63 you mention still other nuances of the imperfect, is it proper to say "finally" (as opposed to "fourth") at the bottom of p.62? (AKMA) No, "fourth" is better. Thanks!

p.63 (MC) "ei)mi/ takes its object" in the nominative - these verbs have a predicate (as you rightly say in the next graph) but not an "object." You use the word "object" in this way also in the final sentence of the graph. (AKMA) You're exactly right, Michael--I wrote too casually.

p.63 (MC) pisto\j o( lo&goj - pisto\j should have a grave on the ultima, not an acute on the penult.

On page 64, in the paragraph at the top of the page, the last sentence should say that if neither (not "either") nominative noun is more definite, the word that comes first is probably the subject.

p.65 (MC) your parenthetical re a)llo&j: why not say "the accent on the alpha helps distinguish the neuter plural a!lla from a)lla&." (AKMA) Indeed, even better would be "distinguish the neuter plural adjective a!lla from the hard adversativea)lla&."

p.65 #2 (MC) Final word dikai/ws should have an acute on the penult, not ultima.

In exercise 4, a nu is missing; the first word should be e0kei~noi.

p.65 #8 (MC) hge&rqhsan should have an acute on the antepenult, not the penult.

(MC) The opening sentence should include "except, of course, for ei0mi/." (AKMA) I suppose--though I had never heard from a student who was confused by this.

p.68 Michael Compton points out that my explanation of -mi verbs is incorrect: this class of verb does not take a connecting vowel, so it is incorrect to explain the "omega" in the present active indicative (singular!) as the result of such a contraction (which would result in ou, not w, anyway). (AKMA) Thank you for pointing this out. I wonder where I got the idea that this was a process of contraction, rather than lengthening. Yes, this ought to say that the vowel lengthens for the present active indicative singular forms.

p.71 (MC) The protasis and apodosis of contrary to fact conditions need not "begin with" ei or an (respectively; you go on to say the apodosis "continues with..."); in fact more often than not they do not (as your first example p. 72 shows: episteuete an). Would it be better to say "include" or simply "have"? (AKMA) That makes sense to me; the "begins" and "continues with" were not meant, I think, to suggest that these words appear first in their clauses, but I see that the way I phrased the description would imply that.

On page 72-3, the principal parts of a0ni/sthmi, di/dwmi and kaqi/sthmi need correction. The fifth principal part of a0ni&sthmi is a0ne&stamai, and the fifth principal part of di/dwmi is de&domai. The 4th and 5th principal parts of kaqi/sthmi are kaqe&staka and kaqe&stamai (apud MC).

The vocabulary list should stipulate that a1n is postpositive.

(MC) suggests a warning not to confuse ei0 "if" with ei] "you are."

p.73 #1 (MC) The egw_ should have a grave accent on the ultima.

In exercise 3, the word a(marwtloi_ should have an asterisk.

Exercise 5 demonstrates an exasperating dimension of Greek syntax; the transitive e1sthsen should have a direct object, but none is apparent in that verb's clause. The verb is presumably the same au0to\n as in the first clause.

In exercise 9, the word h3marton should have an asterisk.

In exercise 10 (MC), su&n moi - su&n should have an acute accent, not a grave, as moi is enclitic.

In exercise 11 (MC), the last word, a(gi/a, should have an acute on the penult, not the antepenult.

p.74 - In exercise 14, the imperfect verb ei1xosan should be the aorist e1sxon.

In exercise 19 (MC) ponhra&j should have an acute, not a grave, on the ultima, as it is followed by a comma.

p.77 MC suggests "to form compound consonants, as in the first aorist" - i.e., add the word "first." On the next line is an unnecessary comma after diw&kw. A parenthetical reference somewhere in this paragraph to p. 23, where you show the groups of consonants interacting with sigma, would be helpful.

p.78 MC suggests a note that the aorist passive principal part is the 6th. He also thinks an example of how the augment disappears for the future passive would be helpful; his favorite is h!xqhn to a)xqh&somai (aor pass to fut pass of a!gw).

p.78 re deponents: MC would suggest adding that any present deponent will have an imperfect deponent, as that tense is built off the 1st principal part. This is especially helpful for e!rxomai - h)rxo&mhn (impf of e!rxomai) and also for gi/nomai / e)gino&mhn (especially to help distinguish from the 2nd aorist e)geno&mhn). (AKMA) This is good; I knew I didn't want to include imperfect forms in the principal parts, to avoid confusing the lists, but it would indeed be helpful to direct attention to these common forms.

p. 80 - Regarding #3, MC observes, "I don't recall a discussion of the 'historical present' which may cause students grief when seeing le&gei (present) with the aorist a)pekri/qh. Would it be helpful either to alter le&gei to ei]pen, or go back to pp.8-9 to talk about the historical present?" (AKMA) In this case, I deliberately opted to soft-pedal "the historical present," since the term frequently cues descriptions of this usage as "bad grammar" (a description from which I dissent). I do mention on p. 7 that the present tense works for past time, and in class I always hammer away at the "aspect, not time" premise. In the second edition, though, it's probably worth mentioning this specifically.

The first person plural, Future Middle Indicative form of luso/meqa should have its accent on the omicron, not the upsilon.

The textbook ought to describe the way that liquid stem verbs (verbs whose stem ends with l, m, n, or r--the liquid consonants) form their future principal parts.

Liquid stem verbs typically form the future principal in a somewhat complicated way. First, the liquid consonant eclipses the characteristic -s- consonant of the future. Verbs that end in a double lambda shift to a single lambda (compare this to the aorist stem of these verbs). Then liquid-stem verbs customarily take their accent on a lengthened connecting vowel (or the final vowel of the form), because an invisible short e is being contracted--"mooshed"--into the connecting vowel, lengthening that vowel.

Some verbs have both a deponent aorist form (in which the middle displaces the active form) and an aorist passive form that is used with active force. 'Apokri/nomai is a good example of this; a0pekrina&mhn and a0pekri/qhn both can be used to for "I answered."

Kata&, when used with the accusative, sometimes stretches what colloquial English associates with "according to." Sometimes it is used in a local sense, meaning something like "throughout" (for a general location) or "at" (for a specific location). Other times it has the sense of "by" as English uses it in "two by two" or "day by day" (the "distributive" sense of kata&). Kata& appears in the common idiomatic phrase, kat' i)di&an, "by himself."

The third principal part of a0pokri/nomai has an extra accent on the augmented syllable; the proper accentuation should be a0pekrina&mhn.

The sixth principal part of de&xomai is missing a x; it should be e0de&xqhn.

In the nineteenth exercise, the verbs e0kbalou~sin and a)polu&sei lack their requisite smooth breathing marks.

The text incorrectly gives two accents on the first person plural Present Middle/Passive Subjunctive; only the accent on the omega should be there (luw/meqa).

p.84, second paragraph: (MC) Perhaps you should also specify that epsilon and omicron lengthen "to eta and omega, respectively." Also in the last sentence in the paragraph, specify that you're talking about the first aorist, not just the aorist (twice in this sentence, and in the chart that follows). I think it would be useful to show an instance of the 2nd aor subjunctive, and perhaps also to say that the present subj and 2nd aorist subjunctive are identical save for the verb stem (ba&llw and ba&lw, e.g.). There are also several duplicate forms in the subjunctive (lu&w, lu&h|, lu&sw, lu&sh|) - I know most teachers would call attention to these duplicate forms, but perhaps you could note (even in a footnote?) the existence of them. (AKMA) That would be all right with me; thanks for the suggestions.

p.86 First paragraph, "Uses of the Subjunctive." Something's odd in the typesetting here; I believe your final sentence ("If the subj appears in a main clause...") belongs after your example of John 8:59, which shows i3na + subj in a purpose clause. In your 2nd sentence I would add that the subj "typically but not always" indicates purpose or result, especially since you go on to show many examples of how the subj is not used for purpose or result. (AKMA) Yes, the layout differs from my specifications in a number of ways. The sentence you cite manifestly belongs below the example quotation.

(MC) Also: I realize you've not yet introduced Indirect discourse nor the infinitive, but it is worth a note here that there is (at least one) further use of the subj which you'll take up later. In this light, your exercise #3 p.90 is, I think, inappropriate here, but would work better in XXV (unless you think the i3na + subj is here purpose or result?). (AKMA) No, you're right; #3 should be delayed till XXV.

(MC) Further: there is also the use of the i3na + subj to replace an infinitive, as in (e.g.) I Jn 3:11. This construction occurs frequently enough that I think it warrants mention (or do you think this is similar to your discussion on p.173 at the bottom?). (AKMA) That's what I'd been thinknig; I'm not sure the distinction (if any) is so great as to warrant introducing it here.

p.86 (MC) Fourth paragraph: should read "These are the principal uses that permit the subjunctive mood (not "voice") in the main clause.

p.87 (MC) First paragraph: "The fourth use" is rather jarring as you have not enumerated the others; I would also suggest "A fourth (and fifth, and sixth, below) use" rather than "The." (AKMA) Good point.

p.87 (MC) The example from Matt 9:21 is lacking a circumflex on the ultima of au)tou~.

In the example at the top of page 88, the text omits the chi in the word ptwxou/v.

p.89 (MC) Vocab: perhaps show that e)a&n is (ei0 + a!n) and that o#tan is (o#te + a!n), since students already know ei0 and o#te.

p.90 #1 (MC) The acute accent in e)qera&peusen (he healed) should be on the antepenult, not the penult.

p.90 #6 (MC) The final word a)mpelw~noj is lacking a smooth breathing.

p.90 #8 (MC) Re: your comments on p. 14 on the object of a)kou&w, would it helpful to make the h(ma~s to h(mw~n (you have a genitive object in #15 on p.91).

p.90 #9 second line (MC): should be oi!kou, not oi!kon, and the accent should be acute, not circumflex.

p. 90 #12 3rd word (MC): u(mw~n should have a rough breathing, not a smooth.

p.91 #15 fourth word (MC): the breathing of Ei0 should be over the iota, not before the epsilon.

p. 93, second paragraph, final sentence: MC suggests that I specify, "The aoristinfinitive, like the subjunctive, has no e-augment" (add "aorist"). (AKMA) Do any aorists take an augment? I see the point that present infinitives wouldn't have an augment anyway, but I'm not sure I see the necessity of this emendation. Certainly a teacher might add this point of emphasis in class.

The textbook does not mention the ways that -mi verbs form their infinitive. The two -mi verb patterns that have already appeared in the vocabulary follow this pattern:

i#stasqai

		di/dwmi		i#sthmi
Present Active Infinitive		dido/nai		i9sta/nai
Present Mid/Pass Infinitive		di/dosqai
1st Aorist Active Infinitive				sth~sai
2nd Aorist Active Infinitive		dou~nai		sth~nai
Aorist Passive Infinitive		doqh~nai		staqh~nai

These verbs do not appear in the aorist middle in the Greek New Testament.

p.94 - "Uses of the infinitive" first paragraph, first sentence: MC observes, "The use of 'requires' is not clear ('Whenever the infinitive's verbal element requires a subject....'). Some elaboration about how the subject of the infinitive is often omitted if it can be assumed from the context (if it's the same as subject of main verb, etc) would be helpful. [In what sense is the phrase 'son of man' required in #2 p.97, or the Greek "me" in #8, p.103?] (AKMA) True, these are not required in a strong sense; when (if?) I'm allowed to produce the corrected edition, I'll think this one over.

(MC) Also, in this section there is no discussion of the infinitive in Indirect Discourse; perhaps add that the infinitive has other uses, some of which are discussed later? (AKMA) Sure, okay.

On p. 96, the diagram of the noun declension has exchanged the accusative and dative cases (switch the A and D in the diagram).

On p. 96, in the Study Checklist, the articular construction with meta\ should be meta\ to\ rather than meta\ to\n.

On p. 98, exercise 17, the second occurrence of the word kardi/a| should have the iota subscript, just as the earlier kardi/a| does.

p. 97 Vocab (MC): e!cestin really should be e!cesti(n), tho' I don't think e!cesti without moveable nu appears in the NT. (AKMA) I take your point, but I reckon that by the time one of my students gets to wider reading in Greek literature, this won't be too confusing.

p. 97 #5 - (MC): re "sword" ma&xaira, see my note for p.38 #10.

p.98 #8 (MC) 7th word should be yuxh\n, not yuxa\n (4th letter eta not alpha).

p.98 #10 second line 3rd word (MC): a!rxein should have an acute on the penult, not a circumflex on the ultima.

On p. 98, exercise 18 should have the word a)postelei~ instead of a)posteilei~ (no iota), and (MC) there should not be an acute accent on the ultima of lo&gouj.

On p. 98, exercise 20 should begin kai\ e)a\n rather than kai\ a2n, and the word yunh\n should read yuxh\n.

p.101 (MC) Gen pl of to\ u#dwr (u(da/twn) has two accents; the first (on the antepenult) should be omitted.

p.102 #1 first line last word (MC): 'Ihsou~s should have a circumflex over the upsilon in the ultima.

p.102 #2 (MC): Since the students have not yet had indirect discourse, this exercise (e!grafh + infin) might be too difficult here. (AKMA) Quite so.

On p. 102, in the exercise 3, the form ei)de/nai will be strange to students, and it may be unreasonable to expect them to be able to look it up. The form should at least be starred, and one might even want to substitute the word ginw/skein.

On p. 103, exercise 4, the expression poreuqh/nai th\n o(do\n tou~ton gets the gender of o(do\n wrong (tou~ton should be tau&thn), and it doesn't sound like Greek; the sentence should be recast to read either poreuqh/nai e)n th|~ o(dw~| tau&th| or poreuqh/nai th|~ o(dw~| tau&th|.

In the same exercise, the last word of the sentence should have its accent on the ultima, not on the penult: i(ero/n.

On p. 103, exercise 5, the word spelled matro\j should be spelled mhtro\j.

p.103 #9 second line (MC): next to last word a)ndri\ should have grave on the ultima, not an acute on the penult.

p.103 #11 (MC): I don't think any use of the subjunctive you've given so far will help the students interpret i3na la&bh| on the 2nd line. (AKMA) Yes, this is so. We'll look for a replacement in the next edition.

p.103 #13 (MC): Even though oi!kei has the asterisk this could be confusing since the students have not yet seen contract verbs; I suggest substituting e)stin in its place.

On p. 104, exercise 19, the word ou)de\ should be starred.

On p. 105, in the diagram of the Perfect Active Indicative, the second person plural and third person plural have misplaced accents. The forms should be lelu/kate, lelu/kasin, and le/lukan.

p.105 final paragraph, second line (MC): "with a vowel or a diphthong must obviously....."

Steve Matthies suggests that my description of "omitting the non-existent reduplicated consonant" is more readily understood by someone who already knows the perfect tense than by someone who is struggling to learn it--and I think he's probably right. I'd now say something more like, "Since there is no consonant to reduplicate, the perfect is formed by adding the e connecting vowel directly to the stem."

p.106 (MC) The chart at the top showing various changes is quite helpful: would that you had similar charts in, e.g., Lesson IV. (AKMA) I'll look tha over for the corrected edition.

p. 108, section on "pluperfect" (MC): you should clarify that the distinctive ei diphthong is only in the pluperfect active. (AKMA) Good point; thanks!

On p. 109, exercise 1 has jumped from chapter to chapter in the process of composition; I thought it was securely pinned to the next chapter, which will introduce the relative pronoun. Obviously, I was wrong. Better just to skip over this exercise, or to translate the o$ for students before they do the homework.

p.110 #13 first line (MC): a)pagge&llomen is the correct form--two not one lambdas.

On p. 110, exercise 16, the phrase meta\ to\n should be meta\ to\, (MC) 'Ihsou~n not 'Ihsou~s, and ei)j to\n a)rxierei=j should read ei)j tou\j a)rxierei=j.

Exceptions to the "article minus t" rule also include the masculine and feminine nominative plural pronouns, which--like the feminine singular nominative--lack the initial t in the first place.

The quotation on p.112 should read, "You (pl.) received a spirit of adoption," not "We have a spirit of adoption."

p. 113, examples toward bottom of page (MC) : Cannot the 2nd example ti/ni proseu&xetai also (and more naturally) be "to whom" is he praying? (AKMA) Yes, quite so.

p.114 bottom (MC): The dative plural line of o#stis needs moveable nu added in parentheses.

On p. 115, the second line should specify that the "neuter singular nominative and accusative" forms of the indefinite relative remain separate.

p.116 section on reciprocal pronouns (MC): You use "oblique," which I don't recall your defining in this textbook. An index, and/or a glossary of grammatical terms, would be much welcome in the 2nd edition. (AKMA): Point well taken.

On p. 116, students should be urged to pay special attention to the principal parts of katabai/nw.

p. 116, Study checklist (MC): You should repeat that the relative "typically" agrees in gender and number. I would also recommend a discussion of attraction (or apparent attraction) of GENDER in this chapter, esp given your exercise #10 p. 117 where h#tis agrees with e)kklhsi/a not its antecedent (see my comments re p. 55). (AKMA) Yes, though (he said, somewhat defensively) in this case I have specifically indicated that this agreement is not invariable (p. 113) and the Study Checklist doesn't say "always."

p.117 #2 2nd line (MC): ui(o\n should have a grave on the ultima, not an acute on the penult.

p. 117 #3 2nd line (MC): marturi/an is missing its tau as the 4th letter.

On p. 117, sentence 8, the word ai)wni/ou should have an asterisk.

Exercise 9 repeats a sentence from Lesson XVI.

p.118 #11 (MC): The fifth word, ei]don, should have a circumflex accent, not an acute.

p.118 #13 (MC) - The perfect active of ble&pw would here be beble&famen, not beble&fomen (incorrect vowel in the penult). I understand you want to adapt I Jn's e(wra&kamen, but since the perf of ble&pw is so rare (it isn't in the NT, or I couldn't find it, at least), however, why not simply omit this phrase? (AKMA) These are points well taken; I'll look into this.

On p. 118, sentence 15, the word ou)dei\v should have an asterisk, and in sentence 16, the word a)ph~lqon should not have an asterisk.

p.118 #19 (MC): The first word tine\j is indefinite, not interrogative, and so should have a grave on the ultima, not an acute on the penult.

p.118 #20 first line (MC): the article th~| requires po&lei not po&lin.

The chart at the top of page 121 is quite miscast. The column headings "Singular" and "Plural" ought not be there at all, and the diagram should distinguish the quadrants to emphasize that the forms of di&dwmi, i(sthmi, ti&qhmi, and a)fi&hmi are not part of a single paradigm, but are the nominative and genitive singular forms of four distinct verbs.

On p. 123, the textbook should alert students that a)fi&hmi takes its personal object ("I am forgiving her") in the dative, its impersonal object ("I am forgiving sins") in the accusative. Thus, the sentence

a)fi&hmi au)toi~j ta\j a(marti&aj au)tw=n

should be rendered, "I am forgiving them their sins."

As the book should have supplied the infinitive forms of -mi verbs earlier, so those forms of ti&qhmiand a)fi&hmi should be included in this chapter.

The forms given in the table are the only infinitive forms of a)fi&hmi in the New Testament.
The aorist middle infinitive of ti&qhmi is qe/sqai.
The aorist passive infinitive of ti&qhmi is teqh~nai.

p.124, chart (MC): 1st aor active indic of afi/hmi, 3rd person sg should add moveable nu in parentheses

On p. 126, the word for "mountain"--o!roj--appears in the vocabulary list with a rough breathing,but it ought to have a smooth breathing.

The vocabulary entry for a)fi&hmi should reiterate that this verb takes its personal object in the dative, its impersonal object in the accusative.

On p. 126, exercise 2, the raised dot should probably be replaced with i3na, or perhaps the whole phrase should be recast to kai\ h}lqen ei)j to\ me/son. Better yet, MC corrects e!lqe (impv) not e!lqh|.

p.126 #4, second line (MC): e!legen (3rd sg) not e!legon.

p.126 #7 (MC): I think this exercise is inappropriate here, as you've not offered an interpretation of the subj which can handle this. Postpone until after Lesson XXV? (AKMA) Yup. Will do.

p. 127 #10, final word (MC): first accent is correct; omit the cicumflex over the ultima.

p. 127 #15, first word (MC): pw/rwsis, not pw/rosis (4th letter omega not omicron).

Then, the construction a!xri ou{... ei)se/lqh| may mystify students who don't scour their lexicon under a!xri; students should be advised to look carefully through the entry to clarify the expression a!xri ou{ and its connection with the use of the aorist subjunctive.

On p. 132, the text is missing an indefinite article: in the twelfth line from the top, the text reads, "some will interpret participle as causal"; it should read, "some will interpret  a participle as causal."

p. 132, middle of page (MC): Your sentence "This is a dimension of Greek syntax for which there are no rules" deserves to be italicized, if not in all caps. (AKMA) Will do.

On p. 133, in the second exercise, the first word (h)kolou&qei) should be starred. (MC) Your explanation here of the constructio ad sensum is, I think, much belated - why not include as early as p. 55? (AKMA) I'll certainly think this over.

On p. 134, exercise 3, the idiomatic expression kat' i)di/an ("by himself") will probably stump students who don't scour their lexica.

P. 134 #12, first line (MC): maqhteu/sate, not maqhteu/sete (penultimate vowel is alpha not epsilon).

On p. 134, in exercise 14, the word (h)kolou&qhsan) should be starred.

On p. 135, in exercise 19, insert h!rxontai as the first word.

On p. 137, in the paradigm for the perfect active participle, feminine dative plural, the incorrect form appears; the form in question should be lelukui/aiv.

On p. 137, the word "active" appears twice consecutively in the line immediately below the upper diagram; only one "active" is necessary.

p. 138 last line (MC): e)ba/ptizen should have an acute on the antepenult, not penult.

p. 139 (MC): Perhaps a reference to this chart in the previous two Lessons would be appropriate?

On p. 139, in the first line, the Lesson in which the participle will be explored further is Lesson XXIX, not Lesson XXVII.

On p. 140, in the principal parts for the verb kaqi&zw, the second principal part should be spelled kaqi&sw or kaqi/w (without the e).

On p. 141, in exercise one, the word e(stw~tev ought to have the rough breathing mark, and the word mega/lh| ought to have an asterisk.

In exercise 4, the word e(autw~n ought probably to be deleted as causing unnecessary confusion.

(MC): The first word a)rxie/reij is lacking a smooth breathing.

In exercise 6, the word memartu/rhken ought to have an asterisk.

In exercise 11, anew&|xqh ought to have an asterisk, as should the name 'Hsai%ou (though it ought not be too hard for students to puzzle that one out).

(MC) Second line: You don't introduce "ou" as "where" until Lesson XXVI, p. 148 - either move that exercise there or move that word to this lesson's vocab? (AKMA) I'll work on this.

On p. 142, in exercise 13, the third word should be spelled sunh&gagen.

p.142 #16, first line (MC): mhte/ra should have an acute, not a grave, on this syllable.

p. 144 3rd paragraph, first line - MC suggests : "appears principally in the present and aorist tenses, and in the active, middle, and passive voices." (AKMA) Okay with me.

On p. 144, my native informants suggest that a good colloquial translation of the third-person imperative might be, "They better..."; thus, "They better go to the temple," or (presumptuously), "Your kingdom better come." I'd also like to emphasize the legitimacy of the "they should" or "she/he should" alternative translation for third-person imperatives. I thought I had highlighted this option more thoroughly, but I remembered wrong

On page 146, in the second line of text, the sentence that compares the second person singular, aorist middle imperative with the present active infinitive should compare the imperative with the aorist active infinitive. Actually, since this appears after a chart of -mi verbs, the text ought probably to specify that the similarity applies to these forms of -w verbs.

p.146 chart for i3sthmi (MC): the 3rd sg & plural pres act impv have 2 accents: in each case only the second is correct. (AKMA): Right again. Thanks.

p.149 #8 (MC): first line: w#j should have an acute accent; ALSO 2nd line: a)ne&sthsan is missing its smooth breathing.

p.150 #18, first line: I don't believe the students have learned an interpretation of the infinitive that will let them cope with the expression le&gh| tis e1xein: postpone this until after Lesson XXV? (AKMA) You're right about this, as you have been about various other grammatical points; my intent in leaving some unfamiliar constructions in exercises was to accustom beginning readers with encountering constructions they hadn't seen before--but I can see the argument that that violates the implicit social contract of an introductory textbook, so I'll rethink all of these for a subsequent edition.

p. 151 first paragraph, 7th line (MC): The sentence "The oddity of contract verbs" I would change to "THIS oddity of contract verbs" in light of the 2nd oddity of the stem vowel lengthening in the other pp's. (AKMA): I'll look this over for next time.

On p. 153, the future principal part is incorrectly spelled poih&wsw; it should of course be poih&sw. The sixth principal part of poie/w does not appear in the New Testament (hence it is not listed in many principal parts lists), but it is quite predictable, and it does appear in the Septuagint.

On p. 154, the fifth principal part of marture&w should be memartu&rhmai (the textbook omits the final iota). and (MC) the 6th pp should have an acute on the penult (e)marturh&qhn), not the antepenult.

The vocabulary list should note that poie/w appears in the middle voice in several idiomatic expressions; its sense varies depending on the idiom, but most involve some sense of "making" the verbal action implied by its noun object (as in Acts 27:28, the storm-tossed sailors e)kbolh\n e)poiou=nto, "they threw overboard"). The best-known of these is the Pauline mnei/an poiou=mai (Rom 1:9; cf. Eph 1:6, 1 Thes 1:2, Phm 4); one may also cite deh&seij poiou&ntai (Lk 5:33; cf. Phl 1:4). Students should be able to find these idioms in their lexicon.

p. 155#4. I prefer your punctuation, but UBS and NA both have a raised dot, not question mark, on the second line after ecousian. (AKMA) I think I'llleave it this way, but thanks for the heads-up.

On p. 156, in exercise 13 ta\ te&kna should be in the genitive: tw=n te&knwn.

In exercise 14, the word a)resta\ should be starred.

Exercise 15 repeats the sentence from exercise 3.

In exercise 16, the word ei)rhnopoioi/ should be starred, and the word klhqh&sontai should not.

p.156 #17, first line (MC): The ptc should be sxizome&nouj, not -menoj, which thus moves the acute accent to the penult from the antepenult.

MC asks, Would it be helpful again to point out deceptive forms (e.g. lusai)? (AKMA): Probably. If it comes 'round to a corrected edition, I'll investigate to see how much I'm allowed to add.

p.160 (MC) I'm not sure your term "deliberative" clauses is sufficient to explain this use of the optative. (AKMA) Weariness sets in for the writer. Yes, this would probably benefit from a more thorough explanation.

p.162 vocab (MC) : 2nd pp of eu)xariste&w should not have a circumflex on the ultima (eu)xaristh&sw).

p.162 #4, first line 3rd word (MC): Yes, it has an asterisk, but how many students are going to deduce the root is pi/mplhmi (which, by the way, should be added in your appendix of pp's)? Perhaps shift to the aor pass of plhro&w (though the students haven't yet seen omicron-contracts) or simply omit this phrase and begin the exercise with "kai\ e)la&loun"? (AKMA) I'll take this under advisement.

p.163 #13 (MC): I realize the students have seen Gen abs in your text (p. 138) but your omission of the main clause of Luke 3:15-16 makes this exercise, I think, too difficult. (As you now have it, the reason for the GA is inexplicable.) (AKMA) Yes indeed.

p. 164. #19 first line, 4th word (MC): if not the panti\ (which isn't introduced until the next lesson) of Heb 13:21, then it should be e(ka&stw| not e(ka&sti.

p.164 #20 2nd line last word (MC): again, pasin isn't introduced until the next lesson. If you keep this exercise here, either gloss the word or simply omit the last two words (making it "cp." 2 Tim 2:7). (AKMA) Good suggestions. I'll change it one way or the other for next time.

p. 165 2nd line (MC): A number of verbs end in -aw or -ow (rather than "and")? (AKMA) I'll talk to the editor.

On p. 165, the sentence that begins "The ei contraction pattern" has a comma instead of the verb "is." The full sentence should read, "The ei contraction pattern, wherein the cutomary contraction is a| or oi, is disrupted for infinitives, where the contraction changes to long a and ou."

p.167 chart (MC): 2nd sg pres act impv of agapa&w should have the accent on the penult (a)ga&pa), not the antepenult.

p.167 bottom paragraph, final line (MC): I suggest adding "how the stem vowels a and o lengthento eta and omega, respectively." ALSO: I recommend a note observing that a lengthened eta could be either from an alpha-contract or an epsilon-contract, though a quick check of either possibility in the lexicon should decide the matter. Come to think of it, a similar explanation on p. 23 would also be helpful for how an "h" could be the result of the augment added to verbs beginning with alpha as well as epsilon (thus a1rxomai and e1rxomai each have the impf h)rxo&mhn). (AKMA) Quite right--this is worth mulling over.

On pp. 168 and 169, students may find it helpful to note that the special-case forms of polu&j and me&gaj appear in the four corners of the singular (masc nom singular, neut nom singular, masc accusative singular, neut accusative singular).

On p. 169, the third principal part of e)perwta&w is misspelled; it should be e)phrw&thsa, with an eta instead of the second epsilon. And (MC): re: e)perwta&w, a 6th pp exists, e)phrwth&qhn, tho' it appears only once in the NT, Lk 17:20. (AKMA) And that as a participle, which may be why it escaped me. Excellent!

On p. 170, in exercise 1, the word o1yontai doesn't need an asterisk .

On p. 170, in exercise 3, students may be tripped up by the aorist participial form of katabai/nw.

In exercise 4, the printer supplied an extra asterisk for plateiw~n in sentence 4.

Then there are unnecessary asterisks for timw~si, timw~n, and tima~| in sentence 6.

On p. 171, in sentence 10, the middle form of poie&w combines with monh&n to give the idiomatic sense, "I will share a home."

Sentence 12 should have an asterisk before du&natai, sentence 14 should have an asterisk before fai/nei, and sentence 17 should have an asterisk before du&nasqe.

p.171 #13, last line (MC): The accent of a(martiw~n should be circumflex on the ultima, not acute on penult.

p.171 #14, second line (MC): accent of palaia& should be acute, not grave, over the ultima.

p. 171 #17 (MC) - I'm sure this isn't the first instance of a double negative in the exercises, but I don't recall your mentioning how Greek can tolerate a double (or triple) negative. Perhaps include in Lesson XIII, where mh and negative questions are introduced? (Lesson II is surely too early.) (AKMA): Lesson XIII sounds right to me.

On p. 172, sentence 18 should have an asterisk before ou)dei\j, and sentence 20 before oude&na.

p.173 final paragraph, second line (MC): "chiefly commands or exhortation, i3na or o3pws plus the subjunctive mood can be substituted...." (AKMA): I take your point. I'll add something like that.

p.173 at bottom (MC): The final word, a)llh&lous, in the Greek example from John 15:12 is missing a smooth breathing (in both columns).

p.174 first full paragraph, last sentence (MC): "Remember that the subject of the infinitive, if different from that of the main verb, will be found in the accusative case." (AKMA): Okay, good point.

p. 174 (MC): Greek example from I John 2:6 lacks a smooth breathing over the upsilon of au)tw~|.

p.174 Paragraph beginning "The third manner," last line (MC) : omit the phrase "as with the infinitive" and add the following to make the sentence read: "In this instance the subject of the participle appears in the same case as the object of the verb (usually the accusative case)." ['Akou&w, e.g., can have its object in the genitive, along with a ptc in the genitive: see Acts 11:7, e.g., and in your exercise #13 -14, p.183-4.] (AKMA) Excellent point--thank you.

p.175 top paragraph/sentence (MC): This "fourth construction" could be better worded, and should probably take more than one sentence. (AKMA) I see your point; I'll recast this as two shorter sentences in the next edition.

On p. 175, in the vocabulary list, the fourth principal part of the verb a)nabai/nw should read a)nabe&bhka (not a)nabe&bhma).

On p. 176, in exercise one: sune&drion, marturi/a, and qanatw~sai should have asterisks.

Exercise 3: oudemi/a should have an asterisk.

Exercise 7: h(marth&kamen should have an asterisk. (MC): I've been looking in your text for an interpretation of i3na a)fh~| (1st/2nd line), and I'm not sure what you would want the student to call it. This is a particularly Johannine constr, sometimes explained as i3na + subj to replace an infinitive (usu, as here, epexegetical). Under the categories you've offered, how should the student interpret this use of the subjunctive mood? (AKMA): I don't have a single category clearly to define it; in my experience it's usually described as epexegetical, though it looks in certain respects like a result clause to me. Ought I necessarily have given a thoroughly adequate category description for every grammatical construction in the book? I'm not sure; part of the latent purpose of this textbook is to introduce students to the limitations of grammatical explanation. But I'll think this over.

On p. 177, in exercise 9, lh&myesqe doesn't need an asterisk.

p.177 #10 2nd line (MC): the comma suggested by UBS & NA (Acts 2:39) would be helpful after makra\n. (AKMA): Got it.

p.177 Exercise 11: anewxqh=nai doesn't need an asterisk. (MC): A note somewhere in your text (p. 94?) for how e)ge&neto acts often with an infinitive would aid interpretation here. (AKMA): Will think about this. Thanks.

Exercise 12: poi/a| and poi/w| should have an asterisk.

Exercise 13: a!rxontej doesn't really need an asterisk, since it's the substantive use of the participial form of a!rxw; students haven't been introduced to this form as a separate noun, though. (MC): Cutting off exercise #13 before the end of the thought (apodosis of Acts 4:10 is gone) makes it difficult to interpret the "ei)" etc. here. Alert (with an ellipsis?) the student that #13 is continued in #14. (AKMA): That's a geat idea--I'll do that, if I don't just roll them into one exercise.

Exercise 17: pote should have an asterisk.

p.178 #18 last line: ei)j to\n ai)w~na: ai)w~na should have a smooth not a rough breathing.

On p. 178, in exercise 19: both forms of a(gia&zw should have an asterisk, as should e(no\j; a)paggelw~, however, doesn't need an asterisk.

Exercise 20: paidi/a should have an asterisk.

p. 179 Opening paragraph, 3rd line (MC): "regardless of whether thy are singular or plural." Well, c'mon: other than "one" they're all plural - is this last phrase necessary? (AKMA) Come to that, they're all either singular or plural; but in the end, the clause doesn't add anything.

On page 180, a)po&llumi should have the accent on the omicron wherever it appears; in the section title, the first sentence, and the first sentence of the last paragraph, the accent is on the upsilon.

On page 181, the chart of the forms of du&namai includes a column whose heading reads "Aorist Present/Deponent." This should read "Aorist Passive/Deponent."

On page 182, the preceding error appears again in the third line; read "passive" where the text says "present."

On p. 182, exercise 1 is rather confused. In the second clause, I recommend omitting the initial kai\, and changing the h@ to kai\, so that it reads "to\n ga\r e3na mish&sei kai\ to\n e3teron agaph&sei..."

Exercise 2: no&son should have an asterisk.

On p. 183, exercise 4 has e)n pneu~ma where it should have e4n pneu~ma.

Exercise 5: tou~ should have a circumflex.

Exercise 8: xw&ran should have an asterisk.

Exercise 9: daimo&nia does not need an asterisk.

On p. 184, exercise 14: naou~ and u(pa&gete need an asterisk.

Exercise 16: dei/cw needs an asterisk. (MC): dei/cw has no asterisk: I could not find dei/knumi listed in any lesson's vocabulary, nor in your Appendix One (though it appears over 50 times). (AKMA) Somehow, my knowledge that dei/knumi would get a special place in the paradigms seems to have engendered in me the illusion that had dealt with that verb somewhere in the body of the text. I'll have to do something one way or the other in the next edition.

Exercise 17: ou!pw needs an asterisk.

Exercise 18: 3Wsper needs an asterisk.

Exercise 19: w(sei\ needs an asterisk.

Exercise 20: e)kaqari/sqhsan needs an asterisk.

On p. 186, line eight reads "a good illustrations"; the "a" should be omitted.

p.187, last paragraph (MC): The sentence should read, "The genitive is also a component in certain comparative....." (AKMA): Okay, whatever.

The Greek line that gives the name of the Destroyer, "o!noma e!xei  'Apollu&wn," associates the smooth breathing from the beginning of Apollyon with the ending of e!xei, as though it were an apostrophe.

p.190 vocabulary (MC): the alternate 3rd pp of a(marta&nw should have a rough, not smooth, breathing (i.e., h#marton).

The exercise presupposes the capacity to recognize the comparative genitive, which the textbook doesn't impart until next lesson.

The exercise draws on Mark 1:1-13, not 1:12.

In the middle of the translation exercise, eu)qei/aj appears with an unnecessary asterisk.

On p. 193, the positive degree of the adverb eu} should be glossed as "well" (not "good").

p. 195 vocab (MC): the 2nd pp of dikaio&w, that is dikaiw&sw, should have an acute on the penult, not antepenult.

One may want to add the gloss "I produce" to the glosses for e)rga&zomai in the vocabulary list on p. 195.

On p. 197: the lessons that introduced the participle are Lessons XVIII-XX, not XVII-XIX.

p.198 (MC) In the paragraph on "fhmi/"--twice you need to indicate the moveable nu in parentheses; also in the vocab p. 199. (AKMA) I suppose my rationale was that the form always appears with nu in the NT; but I'm agreeable to commenting on this, anyway. Thanks!

p.199 vocab: re bou&lomai: e)boulo&mhn is the 3rd pp, not the 6th; the 6th pp (which you have not listed) is e)boulh&qhn. (AKMA) Yes, quite so--will be corrected.

p.204ff (MC)- Several paradigms omit moveable nu; others include it but not in parentheses.

p.213 - (MC) The nom neut sg pres act ptc of thre&w is throu~n (w/ circumflex on upsilon), not thrw~n. A similar mistake is made with the same paradigm of plhro&w: it is plhrou~n, not plhrw~n.

In the appendix of principal parts, beginning p.220:
(MC) Q: would it be useful at the "top" of the columns to give the principal part #s? Or, perhaps better, a reminder at the top of each column what the principal part represents (present active, etc.), what tenses and voices are built from that pp, and perhaps even what lesson introduces this pp? Your other paradigms in appendix 3 are labeled and I think this is a good idea. (AKMA) this sounds like a good idea to me; I may even have suggested it in the inital draft of the appendix. I'll try for some degree of labelling in the corrected edition.

On p. 209 and throughout the paradigms on following pages, movable nu is not shown with the forms that take movable nu.

On p. 209, in the Future Tense paradigm, the right-hand paradigm is for the Future Middle only--not the Future Passive.

On p. 210, in the third-person singular, First aorist active indicative, the nu at the end of the verb is movable.

On p. 218, for some reason the first row of genitive forms is labelled with an upper-case "F" instead of a "G."

p.220 (MC): The 6th pp of a)gora&zw should have the accent on the penult (h)gora&sqhn) not the antepenult.

p.220 (MC): The 2nd example of the 3rd pp for amarta&nw should have the rough not smooth breathing: h#marton.

On p. 220, the perfect active principal part of a)nabai/nw should be a)nabe&bhka.

p.220 (MC): The 3rd pp of a)pokri/nomai has two accents; the second is correct.

p. 221 (MC): The 6th pp for ginw&skw is e)gnw&sqhn (omit the third letter, an epsilon).

On p. 221, the aorist passive principal part of gra/fw should be e)gra/fhn.

On p. 222, the aorist passive principal part of du&namai should be h)dunh&qhn. There is an occasional alternate form that appears in the Septuagint: h)duna&sqhn.

p.223 (MC) The 2nd pp for euxariste&w should not have a circumflex on the final omega.

On p. 223, the future principal part of qauma&zw should be qauma&sw.

p. 224 (MC) The 6th pp for le&gw is ele&xqhn, not ele&gqhn (chi not gamma before theta).

p. 224 (MC) Why a second option for the 4th pp of lei/pw? It is an optional 3rd pp not 4th (i.e. a 1st aorist for a 2nd) but this form is not attested in the NT; either omit or move to the 3rd pp column. (AKMA) I suppose I included it out of a lust for thoroughness; I'll either omit or move it back where it belongs.

p. 225 (MC) The 6th pp for oikodome&w has a circumflex over the initial omega; it should be a smooth breathing instead.

p. 226 (MC) The 2nd pp for pi/ptw (pesou~mai) has an extra accent: the acute on the antepenult should be omitted.

p. 226 (MC) The 6th pp for pi/nw should have a smooth breathing, not an acute accent, over the antepenult.

p. 226 (MC) Q: why no pp's given for pi/mplhmi, which occurs far more often than, e.g., lei/pw. (AKMA) Sheer oversight. No better reason.

p.226 (MC) The 3rd pp for poie&w has an extra sigma in the final syllable: should be e)poi/hsa.

p.227 (MC) The 3rd pp for fe&rw should also include the 2nd aor h!negkon.