pster wrote:John and the pluperfect don't get along.
John W. wrote:Apologies for bothering you all with this query, especially since I think I've raised it in the past in another context (which now eludes me).
In 8.40.3 we have the following:
ὁ δὲ Ἀστύοχος καίπερ οὐ διανοούμενος διὰ τὴν τότε ἀπειλήν, ὡς ἑώρα καὶ τοὺς ξυμμάχους προθύμους ὄντας, ὥρμητο ἐς τὸ βοηθεῖν.
I think ὥρμητο (from ὁρμάω) here must be imperfect in sense - 'he made ready to go to the aid [of Chios]' - but, if so, I don't understand the form. Given both Smyth's rules on contraction, and his paradigms of contracted verbs, shouldn't the form be ὥρματο? Why is there an eta where I would have expected an alpha?
Can anyone help with this? Apologies for raising it again, and for my imperfect (!) knowledge of the minutiae of accidence - I'm conscious that I may well be missing something which is very obvious to sharper minds.
171. Contraction.—If either of the syllables to be contracted had an accent, the contracted syllable has an accent. Thus:
a. A contracted antepenult has the acute: φιλεόμενος ῀ φιλούμενος.
b. A contracted penult has the circumflex when the ultima is short; the acute, when the ultima is long: φιλέουσι ῀ φιλοῦσι, φιλεόντων ῀ φιλούντων.
c. A contracted ultima has the acute when the uncontracted form was oxytone: ἑσταώς ῀ ἑστώς; otherwise, the circumflex: φιλέω ῀ φιλῶ.
N. 1.—A contracted syllable has the circumflex only when, in the uncontracted form, an acute was followed by the (unwritten) grave (155, 156). Thus, Περικλέὴς ῀ Περικλῆς, τι_μάὼ ῀ τι_μῶ. In all other cases we have the acute: φιλὲόντων ῀ φιλούντων, βεβὰώς ῀ βεβώς.
N. 2.—Exceptions to 171 are often due to the analogy of other forms (236 a, 264 e, 279 a, 290 c, 309 a).
172. If neither of the syllables to be contracted had an accent, the contracted syllable has no accent: φίλεε ῀ φίλει, γένεϊ ῀ γένει, περίπλοος ῀ περίπλους. For exceptions, see 236 b.
John W. wrote:Qimmik - many thanks for your very full post. I must confess that my knowledge of accentuation is sketchy, but I'm quite happy to accept what you say on this score.
Your explanation of the use of the pluperfect here may be correct, but I have two problems:
(i) I think Thucydides would have been at least as likely to use an inchoative imperfect ('proceeded to ...'), which is very common in his work - indeed, Smyth (sect. 1900) cites Thucydides 7.51 for this usage;
(ii) as I've mentioned, I've raised a similar query in the past about Thucydides' use of ὥρμητο elsewhere. If it is pluperfect in all these instances, one might have expected LSJ or the commentaries to draw attention to the common use of the pluperfect with this verb, but I can't see anything about this.
I suppose that, when time permits, I should go back and check the accentuation of those other examples!
Some of those are not pluperfects, but most are.
No one hopes for something he thinks will be difficult to get. He may hope for the stamina to endure some difficulty but never hopes for the difficulty itself. I may resign myself to the difficulty or expect a difficulty but I don't hope for it.
Baker wrote:Hobbes has: "Though the multitude were grieved with this proceeding for the present, yet for the great hope they had of the king's pay they stirred not."
Therefore, he supports ii.
Where do you get "seemed", John?
Also, I think there is less of a difference between 'great hope' or 'abundance of hope' and Lattimore's, 'expectations that the pay from the king would be easy to get,' than may seem by dividing it into three choices. After all, isn't great hope for something usually tied to its being easy to get? Hope is connected to something we perceive as good, either for ourselves or in general. No one hopes for something he thinks will be difficult to get. He may hope for the stamina to endure some difficulty but never hopes for the difficulty itself. I may resign myself to the difficulty or expect a difficulty but I don't hope for it.
With this in mind, I think Hobbes' rendition is the most direct in conveying the thought.
Qimmick wrote:The semantic range of ἐλπίς and ἐλπίζω was broader than English "hope." LSJ notes that ἐλπίζω can mean "expect a bad thing," even "fear."
I just wonder whether taking τὸ εὔπορον τῆς ἐλπίδος as meaning 'the abundance of their hopes' might similarly be retrofitting a purely English idiom onto the Greek.
Doesn't the translation of 'because of' suggest an accusative whereas (iii) takes the object as the genitive?
Qimmik wrote:Mynott follows (iii): "The mass of troops, whatever their immediate dissatisfactions with these negotiations, kept quiet because of the ready prospect of pay from the King; . . ."
Qimmik wrote:From LSJ s. v. μετά:
[with genitive] "indicating community of action and serving to join two subjects, Κλεομένης μετὰ Ἀθηναίων C. and the Athenians, Th.1.126"
This seems close enough, doesn't it?
Users browsing this forum: C. S. Bartholomew and 44 guests