A simple lexicon question

[screamadelica]

When I go to look up a verb, very often only a few principal parts are listed. Does this mean that:

1) Those verbs are defective in the missing parts;

2) Those parts are completely regular and can be easily deduced without glossing (but luo, for example, lists all six);

3) Those particular verb forms were either never used or were rare enough that no examples survive; or

4) Something else?

This is a dumb and basic question but the dictionary makers didn't bother to explain the entries; you're just expected to know the conventions. Thanks.

[GlottalGreekGeek]

Different lexicons have different ways.

Cunliffe does not list a form unless it actually appears somewhere in the Iliad or the Odyssey (with the exception of first person present singular - since people expect to find it under that form, that form will be reconstructed if there is no surviving example of it). He says in his preface that he wants to keep the size of the lexicon down so it may be affordable to students, so when he thinks a form is derivable from forms given he often omits it. However, in my experience his judgement is not always correct - it took me a while to figure out that ἤντησ' was a form of ἀντάω (though I wasn't too upset since the meaning was pretty clear in context), and sometimes when I see the forms he does list I think "Yeah, well DUH!", but these cases are the exceptions rather than the rule. It's still a cool lexicon.

[spiphany]

What dictionary are you using? Every dictionary tends to have slightly different conventions.
Liddell & Scott (of whatever size) is standard, but it's definitely not always entirely user friendly. I still have trouble figuring out where I need to look sometimes.
Generally, it tends to work thus: Major verbs (γ?άφω) tend to list all the principle parts. Compounds (?πιγ?άφω) frequently do not, which often means having to go back to the entry for the uncompounded verb to look up a form. Verbs which are only used in certain tenses or persons (δείδω) are generally stated explicitly. Verbs which are formed regularly are generally listed with just the present and future (κατηγο?έω, f. ήσω). Some fairly uncommon verbs seem to be listed with just the first principle part; presumably they are regular.

[Rindu]

I've wondered about this, too. I've given up trying to learn principal parts at this point, save those of important irregular verbs.

Man, Cunliffe...I think his lexicon is one of the greatest works of Classical Scholarship ever to be published. I worship his book nightly. I think that it is a finer piece of work by far than Liddell-Scott.

[ximo]

Ancient Greek dictionaries usually only show the 1st person singular of the present and most of the irregular forms or those that present some special point. I've never found a dictionary where appear all the forms of all the verbs. It would be impossible. I think that you should read first some grammar about the Greek verbs. Generally the ancient Greek conjugation is not difficult to understand and uses only some some morphemes as -sa- for the aorist, -s- for the future or -ka- for the perfect. All the forms that are not easy to expect appear in any ancient Greek dictionary.

[asomers]

I'm also a new learner and share the same frustration as the OP. I'm coming around to the idea that a combination of 1 and 3 is the correct answer, though it's frustrating that I can't find an explicit answer. For example, Hansen and Quinn says "The verb _, ερησομαι, ηρομην, _, _, _ is synonymous with the corresponding tenses of ερωταω." And an old dictionary /https://books.google.com/books?id=gnES ... B9&f=false lists the former as an alternate Future form of the latter (in its Koine form ερεω). So the conclusion I draw is that ερησομαι is only attested in the future and aorist tenses, and possibly was only ever used in that way.