Nouns or adjectives?

[pster]

Is this an adjective or a noun? The endings seem to indicate a noun. The definition seems to indicate an adjective.


λογάς (A), άδος, ὁ, ἡ, (λέγω)
A. picked, chosen, mostly in pl. of picked men, “λ. νεηνίαι” Hdt.1.36,43, E.Hec.544, etc.; “τριηκόσιοι Σπαρτιητέων λ.” Hdt.8.124; “λ. Περσέων τοὺς ἀρίστους χιλίους” Id.9.63; “Ἀργείων οἱ χίλιοι λ.” Th.5.67; “στρατηγῶν λογάδες” E.Andr.324; of cattle, PStrassb.24.32 (ii A. D.); φωναὶ λογάδες chosen phrases, Phot.Bibl. p.491 B.: with collect.Nouns, “στρατιὴ λ. ἡμιθέων” AP15.51 (Arch.).
2. λ. λίθοι unhewn stones, taken just as they were picked, Paus.7.22.5; cf. “λογάδην, λέγω” B. 1, λιθολόγος.

[NateD26]

Is this an adjective or a noun? The endings seem to indicate a noun. The definition seems to indicate an adjective.

Disyllable nouns in ας from the first declension are all accented in acute on the penultimate
(except the contracted ones from -αας & -εας which have circumflex on the ultimate):
http://archive.org/stream/accentuationg ... 6/mode/1up

But this is an adjective from the third declension where the final δ of the root assimilated to ς
in the nominative. These nouns (and adjectives) are accented in acute on the ultimate:
http://archive.org/stream/accentuationg ... 8/mode/1up

Quite a useful book to consult with in our studies. Thanks to Chad for letting us know about it.

[pster]

What are the neuter endings? And why are they not specified in LSJ?

[NateD26]

What are the neuter endings? And why are they not specified in LSJ?

My apologies. It's a noun of the third declension that can be either masculine or feminine.
It doesn't mean picked, chosen as an adjective but as substantive.

[pster]

What are the neuter endings? And why are they not specified in LSJ?

My apologies. It's a noun of the third declension that can be either masculine or feminine.
It doesn't mean picked, chosen as an adjective but as substantive.

OK, that's what I thought. But I don't understand why--just complaining now--they would use English words that are rarely nouns to give the translations. I guess they just figured that the endings specified that it is a noun. But I think it would read better if they wrote someone or something picked...

Thanks Nate.

[pster]

Here's another one where the definition seems like it is appropriate for an adjective rather than a noun:

νῆις 1 νη-, εἰδέναι
unknowing of, unpractised in a thing, c. gen., Od.; absol., Il.

1 νῆ-ις, ιδος, ὁ, ἡ,

Am I just being insufficiently Oxbridge?

[NateD26]

Am I just being insufficiently Oxbridge?

No, it just seems that some nouns in Greek are rendered into adjectives in English.
I remember we once had a discussion about this in class. Maybe it's the formation that
dictates whether a word would be considered an adjective or a noun.

Here, νη- is a poetic prefix with a negative force (Smyth §885. 5), and ἱδ- is the root
and we form a compοund word of the third declension (dental stem δ) in ι with nominative in -ις.
That has to be a noun. As far as I could find, there is no such adjective declension.
νήποινος for example is formed differently, from the fem. noun ποινή, νη-ποιν-, and since
it's a compound adj., it has the same ending for masc. and fem., -ος, and -ον for the neut.

[pster]

If you look at the examples for λογάς, it is noteworthy that often you get λογάς with another noun. Usually in nom. pl. So it really does seem to be functioning as an adjective. Hard to read the examples as cases of opposition. My quite unsophisticated guess is that the uses and hence the part of speech of the word hadn't been fully settled. I wonder how many examples of it we have?

Here is another example that is annoying me. OK, here you get a noun. But I don't understand the "of" in the definition? So here they are seemingly making explicit the adjectival! In the previous cases one could argue that they used the adjectival English because it was most convenient for giving the meaning of the Greek noun. But now, that argument is unavailable because they are translating it with an English noun. But why the "of"? Is that to indicate that the PRev.Laws passage is about partners? Perhaps so, but I had never noticed that before.


κοιν-ών , ῶνος, ὁ, Dor., Arc.κοινάν , ᾶνος(q.v.),
A. = κοινωνός, which is much more freq., X.Cyr.7.5.35, 8.1.16, 36, 40; of partners in a tax-farming syndicate, PRev.Laws 10.10, al. (iii B.C.).


κοινων-ός , ὁ, also ἡ,
A. companion, partner, τινος of or in a thing, A.Ag.1037, 1352, Supp.344, Men.Epit.499; “τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς” Antipho 5.68; “ἱερῶν” Pl.Lg. 868e; “τῆς ἀρχῆς” Th.7.63, 8.46; ὁ τοῦ κακοῦ κ. accomplice in . . , S.Tr. 730; “ἀνοσίων αὐτοῖς ἔργων” Pl.Ep.325a; “κ. περὶ νόμων” Pl.Lg.810c; τινι in a thing, E.El.637: c. dat. pers., κ. ἀλλήλοις τῶν τιμῶν with each other, X.Mem.2.6.24.
2. abs., partner, fellow, S.Aj.284, Pl. R.333b, Phdr.239c, etc.; “ὁ σὸς κ., οὐχ ὁ ἐμός” D.18.21; “ἴσοι καὶ κ.” Arist.EN1133b3; κοινωνοὶ λιμένων, of a societas publicanorum which farmed harbour-dues, BCH10.267 (Syme); of joint-owners, PAmh. 2.100 (ii/iii A.D.).
3. familiar spirit, LXX 4 Ki.17.11.
II. as Adj., = κοινός, ξίφος E.IT1173.

[NateD26]

But why the "of"? Is that to indicate that the PRev.Laws passage is about partners? Perhaps so, but I had never noticed that before.

Seems to be common in many entries I've visited.
(It is said) of...

[pster]

Well, usually it isn't the first definition. Usually it is when they are giving some particular sense. E.g., c. dat. of.... But that particular sense is piggybacking on the first bona fide definition. It just strikes me as very inconsistent. They don't do it all the time. But I am not sure what they are trying to convey that "partners in a tax-farming enterprise" doesn't convey. The best that I can come up with is that they are just trying to hedge a bit because while tax farmers may be the central case, it isn't, or they aren't sure whether it isn't, the only case. I just think it is out of place in a dictionary. Basically, I would claim they have failed to give any meaning at all. A meaning should give you something equivalent. But saying that something is said of something doesn't give you something equivalent. How could it? Saying that something is said of something is giving a sentence and sentences are not equivalent to the meanings of words, nor to words themselves, nor to the signs for the words, nor to those things to which the words refer (take your pick). Ultimately, at the heart of it is what is called a use/mention error. Meaning is at the level of use. "Of" phrases tell us how the words are mentioned. κοινών isn't said of the partners in the enterprise, "κοινών" is. For the logically minded, it is actually a species of pre-logical error. So actually, my view now is that LSJ are being insufficiently Oxbridge. I would expect greater fastidiousness from lexicographers.

[NateD26]

So actually, my view now is that LSJ are being insufficiently Oxbridge. I would expect greater fastidiousness from lexicographers.

pster, I can't pretend to know what had dictated their style when they wrote this massive lexicon.
Also, I'm not a native speaker, so I can't really tell what is awkward and artificial to the modern ear.

I can, however, link to a different lexicon where the word κοινωνός is defined under
Commercial as c. partner, without the limitation of of, relating to, or the like.

Copious phraseological English-Greek lexicon by J. Wilhelm Fradersdorff

Regarding λογάς, I think you can find instances where it is used as a noun just as much.
In Thuc. 1.62.6 ...καὶ τῶν ἄλλων λογάδες ἔτρεψαν τὸ καθ' ἑαυτοὺς...

It is noteworthy to write E.C. Marchant's note here and on the next reference, that this noun is
not used by other Attic writers, where you would normally find ἐπιλέκτοι used substantively.

ibid. 2.25.3 ...καὶ προσβοηθήσαντας τῶν ἐκ τῆς κοίλης Ἤλιδος τριακοσίους λογάδας καὶ
τῶν αὐτόθεν ἐκ τῆς περιοικίδος Ἠλείων μάχῃ ἐκράτησαν.

And in 6.101.4, καὶ αὐτοὺς βουλόμενοι ἀποκλῄσασθαι τῆς διαβάσεως οἱ τῶν Ἀθηναίων
τριακόσιοι λογάδες δρόμῳ ἠπείγοντο πρὸς τὴν γέφυραν.

Even Herodotus, an Ionic writer, hadn't used this Ionic word as much as Thuc. had. (9:16)