# Meaning of the Words Τελιωμού and Τελιωμό



## Alexander2

What is the meaning of the below word (which is written in two different forms: τελιωμού and τελιωμό)? Where can I find a dictionary entry with this word?

“Κι' ενώ καθότανε στο Ελιοβούνι απάνου, πήγαν κοντά του οι μαθητάδες χωριστά και λεν «Πες μας, πότε αυτά θα γίνουν; και πιο το σημάδι της παρουσίας σου και του *τελιωμού* του κόσμου.»”

“Και να εγώ μαζί σας είμαι πάντα ως στον *τελιωμό* του κόσμου.”


----------



## dmtrs

Τελ(ε)ιωμός means end/ending.
The ending -ωμός (or -ωμα) is used (among others) in nouns that derive from verbs that end with -ωνω: σηκώνω > σήκωμα / σηκωμός, λυτρώνω > λυτρωμός, απλώνω > άπλωμα, τελειώνω > τελείωμα / τελειωμός.
Greek is a language that has cases in articles, nouns, adjectives, pronouns and (passive voice) participles.
Modern Greek has four cases: nominative, genitive, accusative, and vocative.
Therefore the 'words' you mention are cases of the same word, τελ(ε)ιωμός: ο τελειωμός, του τελειωμού, τον τελειωμό, τελειωμέ.
The omission of the ε indicates an attempt to write in a less 'scholarly' way, something more common in (not very recent) literature.


----------



## Alexander2

Thank you for the explanation. Does the meaning of the word τελειωμός correspond more to “conclusion; completion; final period,” or is its primary meaning “finish; termination; end”?


----------



## dmtrs

You are welcome.
I don't think there is an alternative that prevails between the meanings you suggest; τελειωμός could be any one of those (or other synonyms).

Excuse my remark but, having read other similar questions of yours in the forum, you seem to seek a degree of certainty and detail in meaning that may not even exist and, if mistakenly assumed, can be more misleading than (a certain amount of) obscurity.
I sense an agony for absolution, that I think I can understand due to the common heritage that Russians and Greeks share. But sometimes, I think, it's better to be less intellectual and just let ourselves feel things with intuition.
No intention to offend -I hope I didn't.


----------



## Perseas

Alexander2 said:


> Where can I find a dictionary entry with this word?


dmtrs gave an excellent definition and description of the word, but since you asked for an entry in a dictionary, WR dictionary has this: τελειωμός.
With the comment: The term "τελειωμός" is usually used in negative sentences for the expression of unpleasant situations.
(However, the sentence in #1 isn't negative.)


----------



## Perseas

dmtrs said:


> The omission of the ε indicates an attempt to write in a less 'scholarly' way, something more common in (*not very recent*) literature.


You're right. It's an excerpt from Alexandros Pallis' translation of the New Testament into Modern Greek.



Alexander2 said:


> “Κι' ενώ καθότανε στο Ελιοβούνι απάνου, πήγαν κοντά του οι μαθητάδες χωριστά και λεν «Πες μας, πότε αυτά θα γίνουν; και πιο το σημάδι της παρουσίας σου και του τελιωμού του κόσμου.»”


In standard Mod. Greek, it would be "μαθητές" or "(ε)πάνω" (instead of "μαθητάδες", "απάνου"). Also "πιο" is wrong here; it should be "ποιο".


----------



## Alexander2

dmtrs said:


> having read other similar questions of yours in the forum, you seem to seek a degree of certainty and detail in meaning that may not even exist and, if mistakenly assumed, can be more misleading than (a certain amount of) obscurity.



I am currently looking at the translations of Matthew 24:3 in modern Greek Bible versions to see how modern Greek-speaking people have rendered the ancient words παρουσία and συντέλεια. Alexander Paillis’ translation was among the ones which I was able to access online. My goal is to prove to some people (who say that Jesus’ παρουσία is a long presence and that the συντέλεια is a long period of time paralleling the παρουσία) that the παρουσία and the συντέλεια do not involve a long period of time and correspond in their meaning to “coming” and “end” rather than to “presence” and “final period.” Some modern Greek Bible translations render the words παρουσία and συντέλεια with such words as ἔλευσις/ ερχομός and τέλος, which supports the point which I am trying to prove.



Perseas said:


> Also "πιο" is wrong here; it should be "ποιο".



Since I have quoted Alexander Pallis' translation in some material which I am currently writing in my research on the second coming, should I replace the word “πιο” with “ποιο” in the quotation from Pallis’ translation? There is a certain word “πιο” in the Greek language:

https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/πιο

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/πιο


----------



## Perseas

Alexander2 said:


> Since I have quoted Alexander Pallis' translation in some material which I am currently writing in my research on the second coming, should I replace the word “πιο” with “ποιο” in the quotation from Pallis’ translation? There is a certain word “πιο” in the Greek language:
> 
> https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/πιο
> 
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/πιο


In Pallis' translation it is indeed "πιο", as it is "όπιος" instead of the correct "όποιος" and "πιος" instead of "ποιος":
« Όπιος δεν είναι μαζί μου, είναι αντίθετός μου·
 κι’ όπιος μαζί μου δε μαζεύει, σκορπά.»
«Πιος λεν πως είναι ο γιος τ' ανθρώπου;»
Full text of "The New Testament"

Probably this was an author's personal choice, but the correct spelling is "ποιο", "όποιος" and "ποιος".


----------



## dmtrs

Perseas said:


> Probably this was an author's personal choice, but the correct spelling is "ποιο", "όποιος" and "ποιος".



Of course Perseas is right about the correct spelling.
Let me explain some things, though, to help answer Alexander2's question.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries (mainly) there's been a conflict about the form modern Greek should adapt, especially in writing. Some supported a more scholarly approach (καθαρεύουσα) influenced by ancient Greek with some up-to-dating; others were in favor of writing according to the spoken language (δημοτική) -something admittedly very vague and difficult to pin down, with no 'official' Grammar still available. Therefore many propositions were made by different people, some more radical or extreme than others, until Triantafillidis' Grammar became the accepted rule-setting book for the supporters of δημοτική -which is more or less the language we speak and write today, with no major differences except for the adaptation of the one-accent-for-all-words practice (μονοτονικό) in the 1980's.
During the years of conflict, one of the radical approaches (the one Pallis adapts) supported many same-sounding sounds should be written the same way: every /ι/ sound, for example, should be written as ι, dropping compounds like ει, οι etc.. Others might have been even more radical.
So, when Pallis writes _πιο _instead of _πoιο, _he makes a statement, suggesting this should be adapted as the 'correct' spelling. Much as his approach seems dated today and what is currently thought as 'correct' is not what he writes, one cannot quote him (or anyone) altering spelling 'for the better' -that's not quoting, as a matter of fact, it's a sort of rephrasing. When a quotation might seem the quoter's mistake, one can always use the good old '(sic)' blame-the-original-author indicator.


----------



## Perseas

dmtrs said:


> So, when Pallis writes _πιο _instead of _πoιο, _he makes a statement, suggesting this should be adapted as the 'correct' spelling. Much as his approach seems dated today and what is currently thought as 'correct' is not what he writes, one cannot quote him (or anyone) altering spelling 'for the better' -that's not quoting, as a matter of fact, it's a sort of rephrasing. When a quotation might seem the quoter's mistake, one can always use the good old '(sic)' blame-the-original-author indicator.


I agree.


----------



## Alexander2

Thank you for the information. Apparently I can quote Alexander Pallis’ text without any alterations in order not to make the text a paraphrase.


----------

