Iliad A, 48

[amans]

Hi all

Please consider the following from the Iliad, A, 48:

ἕζετ’ ἔπειτ’ ἀπάνευθε νεῶν, μετὰ δ’ ἰὸν ἕηκεν

My question is: what is the aspect of ἕζετ’? Aorist or imperfective?

[Adelheid]

Imperfective, I would say.

Aorist would be [size=150]εἷσε[/size]

(just looked it up in Pharr's Homeric Greek )

[amans]

Hi Adelheid,

Thanks. The thing is, I looked it up via Perseus and here's what I got:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/mo ... 99.01.0133

As far as I can see it can be both. I had a quick look in the LSJ paper edition yesterday, and it seemed to be correct: imperfective and aorist2. I am not sure, though.

The reason why I started wondering was: why use the imperfective here? He 'was sitting down' - not the kind of action that lasts very long . . .

Cheers

[Adelheid]

The reason why I started wondering was: why use the imperfective here? He 'was sitting down' - not the kind of action that lasts very long . . .

I had the same idea when I translated this line. At first I even wondered if this could be indicative (no augment), but that was too much out of sync with the rest of the line. But I didn't know about that second aorist (Pharr doesn't mention it). I will have a look in Cunliffe's 'Lexicon' later today, if no-one beats me to it.

[Skylax]

Yes, LSJ says ἑζόμην can be either imperfect or aorist 2, but I wonder how they know that...

Anyways, it could be an imperfect, thus imperfective, given a Greek tendency to put an imperfective where other languages (e.g. Latin or French) would use a perfective form. It is because Greek does not continuously tell the story as a movie (in a "narrative" way), but sometimes, rather often, as a still picture, like a transparency (in a "descriptive" way). It is as if the author would point to a picture : "And here Apollo was taking position apart from the ships..." Greek often describes pictures.

χαίρετε

[Skylax]

See for example Lysias, On the Olive Stump, section 2 :

ἀπεγράφην τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἐλάαν ἐκ τῆς γῆς [color=blue]ἀφανίζειν[/color]... νυνί με σηκόν φασιν [color=blue]ἀφανίζειν[/color], ἡγούμενοι ἐμοὶ μὲν ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν ἀπορωτάτην εἶναι [color=red]ἐξελέγξαι

"at first I was indicted for clearing away an olive tree from my land, ... but ... they now say it is an olive-stump that I cleared away, judging that for me this is a most difficult accusation to refute..." (translation from Perseus).

Both presents ἀφανίζειν seem to refer to a single fact (for in both cases the direct object is in the singular), so the aorist ἀφανίσαι would also be understandable, but I think the present submits this essential fact as a process, as if the prosecutors had brought with them a big picture to present the prosecution : "See the picture they present, gentlemen, there I was clearing away an olive tree from my land (but of course it is untrue !...)"

On the other hand, the "normal" aorist is found in ἐξελέγξαι ("refute"), denoting that a single refutation will suffice, without drawing attention to any process.

[Adelheid]

hmmmmm, Cunliffe states that the forms from [size=150]ἑζόμην[/size] 'may be regarded as aorists'. So it can really go both ways.

[Skylax]

And LSJ says "in Homer only present and imperfect"

[amans]

Dank u wel, Adelheid, merci bien, Skylax

I just wonder: what does the LSJ dictionary base its information on? How can they know that the form in question can be an aorist? Is there some sort of rule here: I learnt that changes in aspect required changes of stem...? And how can they know that Homer does not use it as such but only in the imperfective aspect?

I guess we have to translate it as "he was sitting (himself) down ..." or something like that then?

[Adelheid]

how can they know that Homer does not use it as such but only in the imperfective aspect?

Perhaps context? So, if all the other verbs in a given line with [size=150]ἑζόμην[/size] would be imperfects, then [size=150]ἑζόμην[/size] logically would also be an imperfect?

That would suggest however that it's an aorist here, since the other verb in line 48 is also an aorist: [size=150]ἕηκεν[/size].

Now I'm confused

[annis]

The reason why I started wondering was: why use the imperfective here? He 'was sitting down' - not the kind of action that lasts very long . . .

The seating of oneself may not take much time, but sitting (being seated) can be extended for quite some time - I tell you this from my own experience.

I take the imperfect here, "he was sitting down... and sent an arrow among them."