LSJ and A.Ag. 47

[pster]

στρα^τι?́ωτ-ις (properisp.), ιδος, fem. of στρατιώτης; as Adj., ς. ἀρωγή
A. martial aid, A.Ag.47 (anap.); “τέχναι” Plu.Marc.14; λεχὼ ς. a soldier's wife, Eup.256.
2. “ς. ναῦς” troop-ship, transport, IG12.22.10, Th.1.116, 6.43, 8.62, X.HG1.1.36.
3. (sc. μυῖα) the soldier-fly, Luc. Musc.Enc.12.
4. = στρατιώτης 11, Gp.2.5.4.
5. pl., stratiotides, = στρατιωτικός IV, CIL 13.10021.10 (Gaul).

1) At Agamemnon 47, is it being used as an adjective or a noun? Perseus (Tufts) short definitions say it is a noun. But ἀρωγήν already seems to be the noun.

2) And if LSJ say it is primarily a noun, then why do they italicize only martial in the definition??? I hate that. That seems to imply it is an adjective. And so maybe it is at Ag. 47. But then how the heck could this be the first definition??? Shouldn't that be for a noun??

[C. S. Bartholomew]

The boundaries between nouns and adjectives are kind of fuzzy. A noun in apposition to another noun limits, or places constraints on the semantic domain of that particular instance of the head noun. Futhermore, adjectives when functioning as substantives are noun-like. I wouldn't lose sleep over the notation in LSJ. It is an old book, been through many editions and the notation isn't always perfectly lucid or consistent.

I don't really understand your problem with article on στρατίωτις. It seems perfectly lucid to me. The definiton is italicized where it is used to limit a noun martial aid, a soldier's wife.

[pster]

The boundaries between nouns and adjectives are kind of fuzzy. A noun in apposition to another noun limits, or places constraints on the semantic domain of that particular instance of the head noun. Futhermore, adjectives when functioning as substantives are noun-like. I wouldn't lose sleep over the notation in LSJ. It is an old book, been through many editions and the notation isn't always perfectly lucid or consistent.

Sure, but I use it so often. I can be sympathetic, but I just want to know what they were thinking. I don't think they are wrong or unclear. I just think I find them unclear because I don't grasp what they are doing. My working assumption is that the fault is all mine.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Sure, but I use it so often. I can be sympathetic, but I just want to know what they were thinking. I don't think they are wrong or unclear. I just think I find them unclear because I don't grasp what they are doing. My working assumption is that the fault is all mine.

I make the same assumption. Sometimes I find LSJ hard to fathom but they are really clear by comparison to the commentaries prior to 1960. The entries for adjectives are usually followed by one or two endings and no article or genitive. But you cannot count on it. It is somewhat arbitrary the decision on listing the noun function first then adjectival uses later. I suppose the most common use is the justification for this. One thing that takes some getting used to is adverbial use of adjectives which is typically buried deep in the article, toward the end. Makes adverbs hard to locate.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

A.Ag 263 κλύοιμ' ἂν εὔφρων·

"I would gladly listen ..."

This is an sample where one might be inclined to read εὔφρων adverbially, but
the lexicon which is driven by morphology (Adv. -νως) rather than semantic function would
call this an adjective. Perhaps an adjective limiting the subject of the verb.


LSJ

εὔφρων, Ep. ἐΰφρ-, ον, both in Hom.: (φρήν):—
cheerful, merry, of persons, εἴ πέρ τις . . δαίνυται εὔφρων Il.15.99, etc.; θυμός Od.17.531; ἶλαι Pi.N.5.38. c with good cheer, Id.P.10.40, etc.
Act., cheering, making glad or merry, οἶνος Il.3.246; οἶμος Pi.Pae. 6.115; εὔφρων πόνος εὖ τελέσασι A.Ag.806 codd.; ὦ φέγγος εὖφρον ib.1577; ῥοαὶ εὔφρονες Ἀργείοις S.Aj.420 (lyr.): neut. pl., εὔφροσιν δεδεγμένη, = εὐφροσύναις, A.Eu.632 (s.v.l.).
kindly, gracious, θεὸς εὔ. εἴη εὐχαῖς Pi.O.4.14, cf. A.Pers.772, S.Aj.705 (lyr.), A.R.4.1411, etc.; γαῖαν ἀνθρώποισι καὶ εὔφρονα μήλοις Pi.O.7.63; εὐ. ἥδ' ὁμιλία A.Eu.1030; ψῆφον δ' εὔφρον' ἔθεντο Id.Supp.640 (lyr.); v.l. for ἐπίφρονος in Theoc.25.29. Adv. -νως A.Ag.351, al.
of sound mind, reasonable, ἄνδρες Xenoph.1.13.
= εὔφημος, πῶς εὔφρον' εἴπω; A.Ch.88; οὐδ' αὖ τόδ' εὖφρον Id.Supp.378.

[Paul Derouda]

And if LSJ say it is primarily a noun, then why do they italicize only martial in the definition???

My guess is that they were just trying to keep the article conscise. Because I don't think either there's much ambiguity as to when it should be understood as an adjective and when as a noun, so they didn't feel any need to be explicit, though they put italics to martial to clarify.

[pster]

And if LSJ say it is primarily a noun, then why do they italicize only martial in the definition???

My guess is that they were just trying to keep the article conscise. Because I don't think either there's much ambiguity as to when it should be understood as an adjective and when as a noun, so they didn't feel any need to be explicit, though they put italics to martial to clarify.

I am so bad at Greek, that it always feels like there is too much ambiguity. It unerves me endlessly. I despair when Perseus spits out a number of different possible definitions. Greek is so wacky that they all seem possible. And when you add in all the apposition that you see in poetry, it drives me nuts. I use a lot of dictionaries in different languages and don't understand why LSJ think they can carry on this way. Is it really so hard to indicate noun uses and adj. uses? Is it really much more concise? Creating all this confusion? Am I that much of a simpleton? Can somebody tell me any other dictionary/lexicon for any language that has such a cavalier attitude about parts of speech?? Just one and I won't utter another peep about this.

[pster]

This is an sample where one might be inclined to read εὔφρων adverbially,

I have no idea why you say that. I don't know that I have ever been so inclined. Can you explain why you might be so inclined? Is it the LSJ entry? The Ag. context? nom. adj. turning to adv. in the past?

[C. S. Bartholomew]

This is an sample where one might be inclined to read εὔφρων adverbially,

I have no idea why you say that. I don't know that I have ever been so inclined. Can you explain why you might be so inclined? Is it the LSJ entry? The Ag. context? nom. adj. turning to adv. in the past?

Is it the LSJ entry?

No

The Ag. context?

Yes.


Could be that I might have translated it adverbially into English. That is a not a good criteria for doing syntax in any language but it is trap often encountered in New Testament studies where the grammarians are preoccupied with English translation. This subject has been throughly discussed on b-greek in regard to standard textbooks used in seminaries which derive the syntax categories from a "how would you do this in English" ...

nom. adj. turning to adv. in the past?

Function and morphology are different issues. One does not discover function by morphology alone. Morphological adjectives don't turn into adverbs unless they change their form (e.g. -WS ending). Adjectives can function adverbially without changing their form.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

I am so bad at Greek, that it always feels like there is too much ambiguity. It unerves me endlessly. I despair when Perseus spits out a number of different possible definitions. Greek is so wacky that they all seem possible.

LSJ is like drinking from a fire hose. What you need is an Aeschylus specific lexicon which will limit your choices. This why I found Homer easier than Attic Tragedy, the language is just easier in general but also the lexicon was focused, Cunliffe had a limited corpus and it was handy to use. I felt totally lost at sea doing Tragedy with LSJ, hard copy. I searched the book stores for Sophocles lexicons (pre-internet days) and Euripides lexicons. Anything to focus the content. Now days you can search the articles for A.Ag to find what you are looking for. Much better than reading microscopic type in a huge book.

I understand your frustration and have had a very similar experience. It isn't easy to read Tragedy without a lot of helpful books.