textlinguistics and Attic poetry/tragedy

[Qimmik]

If the meter allowed it or if he were writing prose, he would have written:

Ἐμνήσατ' οὖν ἐμοῦ τι ἐν τῷ τότε χρόνῳ;

[C. S. Bartholomew]

In prose it would be εν τω τοτε χρονω, "in the then time."

Perhaps this is similar to what Cooper[1] is saying, he comments on this passage. Calls it "the interposition of εν between the temporal dative and its attribute." Says you will find it in Homer.

Guy Cooper Greek Syntax, vol 3, 2116, §2.48.6.2.6.

[mwh]

See my edits above added before I saw this.

[Qimmik]

I would just call it "poetic license," and not try to derive rules of syntax from deviations from normal word order to accommodate metrical constraints like this--recognizing that intelligibility places outside limits on what poets can do to language (Pindar perhaps excepted).

Addendum: In addition, linguistic distortions, precisely because they occur in poetry, lend a certain poetic effect, an elevated distance from mundane prose.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

I would just call it "poetic license," and not try to derive rules of syntax from deviations from normal word order to accommodate metrical constraints like this--recognizing that intelligibility places outside limits on what poets can do to language (Pindar perhaps excepted).

I understand. Sort of like writing an english grammar for Ezra Pound's translation of Electra. It could be done but why bother? Cooper on the other hand has two whole volumes dedicated to syntax in tragedy, poetry, epic and Herodotus. Why he included Herodotus I don't know.

The "interposition of εν" certainly would be a cause for discussion among syntax aficionados.

[Qimmik]

Why he included Herodotus I don't know.

Because, like the poets, Herodotus didn't write Attic prose.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Cooper (vol2 p1337 §69.32.2.A) καὶ used to "attach ideas which are appositionally related" ... "The second element may be a characterization of the first."

My question: is movement from general to more specific the default pattern?

Sophocles Trag., Ajax
Line 1147 Οὕτω δὲ καὶ σὲ καὶ τὸ σὸν λάβρον στόμα

{ΜΕ.} Ἤδη ποτ' εἶδον ἄνδρ' ἐγὼ γλώσσῃ θρασὺν
ναύτας ἐφορμήσαντα χειμῶνος τὸ πλεῖν,
ᾧ φθέγμ' ἂν οὐκ ἀνηῦρες, ἡνίκ' ἐν κακῷ
χειμῶνος εἴχετ', ἀλλ' ὑφ' εἵματος κρυφεὶς
πατεῖν παρεῖχε τῷ θέλοντι ναυτίλων.
**Οὕτω δὲ καὶ σὲ καὶ τὸ σὸν λάβρον στόμα
σμικροῦ νέφους τάχ' ἄν τις ἐκπνεύσας μέγας
χειμὼν κατασβέσειε τὴν πολλὴν βοήν.



Sophocles Trag., Antigone
Line 95 Ἀλλ' ἔα με καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἐμοῦ δυσβουλίαν

{ΙΣ.} Εἰ καὶ δυνήσῃ γ'· ἀλλ' ἀμηχάνων ἐρᾷς.
{ΑΝ.} Οὐκοῦν, ὅταν δὴ μὴ σθένω, πεπαύσομαι.
{ΙΣ.} Ἀρχὴν δὲ θηρᾶν οὐ πρέπει τἀμήχανα.
{ΑΝ.} Εἰ ταῦτα λέξεις, ἐχθαρῇ μὲν ἐξ ἐμοῦ,
ἐχθρὰ δὲ τῷ θανόντι προσκείσῃ δίκῃ.
**Ἀλλ' ἔα με καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἐμοῦ δυσβουλίαν
παθεῖν τὸ δεινὸν τοῦτο· πείσομαι γὰρ οὐ
τοσοῦτον οὐδὲν ὥστε μὴ οὐ καλῶς θανεῖν.
{ΙΣ.} Ἀλλ', εἰ δοκεῖ σοι, στεῖχε· τοῦτο δ' ἴσθ' ὅτι
ἄνους μὲν ἔρχῃ, τοῖς φίλοις δ' ὀρθῶς φίλη.

Sophocles Trag., Antigone
Line 573 Ἄγαν γε λυπεῖς καὶ σὺ καὶ τὸ σὸν λέχος.

{ΙΣ.} Ἀλλὰ κτενεῖς νυμφεῖα τοῦ σαυτοῦ τέκνου;
{ΚΡ.} Ἀρώσιμοι γὰρ χἀτέρων εἰσὶν γύαι.
{ΙΣ.} Οὐχ ὥς γ' ἐκείνῳ τῇδέ τ' ἦν ἡρμοσμένα.
{ΚΡ.} Κακὰς ἐγὼ γυναῖκας υἱέσι στυγῶ.
{ΙΣ.} Ὦ φίλταθ' Αἵμων, ὥς σ' ἀτιμάζει πατήρ.
**{ΚΡ.} Ἄγαν γε λυπεῖς καὶ σὺ καὶ τὸ σὸν λέχος.
{ΧΟ.} Ἦ γὰρ στερήσεις τῆσδε τὸν σαυτοῦ γόνον;
{ΚΡ.} Ἅιδης ὁ παύσων τούσδε τοὺς γάμους ἐμοί.
{ΧΟ.} Δεδογμέν', ὡς ἔοικε, τήνδε κατθανεῖν.
{ΚΡ.} Καὶ σοί γε κἀμοί. Μὴ τριβὰς ἔτ', ἀλλά νιν
κομίζετ' εἴσω, δμῶες· ἐκδέτας δὲ χρὴ


Sophocles Trag., Oedipus Coloneus
Line 750 ἀεί σε κηδεύουσα καὶ τὸ σὸν κάρα

ὁρῶν σε τὸν δύστηνον ὄντα μὲν ξένον,
ἀεὶ δ' ἀλήτην κἀπὶ προσπόλου μιᾶς
βιοστερῆ χωροῦντα, τὴν ἐγὼ τάλας
οὐκ ἄν ποτ' ἐς τοσοῦτον αἰκίας πεσεῖν
ἔδοξ', ὅσον πέπτωκεν ἥδε δύσμορος,
**ἀεί σε κηδεύουσα καὶ τὸ σὸν κάρα
πτωχῷ διαίτῃ, τηλικοῦτος, οὐ γάμων
ἔμπειρος, ἀλλὰ τοὐπιόντος ἁρπάσαι.
Ἆρ' ἄθλιον τοὔνειδος, ὦ τάλας ἐγώ,
ὠνείδισ' εἰς σὲ κἀμὲ καὶ τὸ πᾶν γένος;
ἀλλ', οὐ γὰρ ἔστι τἀμφανῆ κρύπτειν, σύ νυν

[Qimmik]

My question: is movement from general to more specific the default pattern?

I don't think there's a question of a "default" pattern. The passages you cited refer to the person first as a matter of rhetoric, not syntax.

σε κηδεύουσα καὶ τὸ σὸν κάρα -- This is just a matter of filling out a line with a lofty, tragic-sounding phrase (or maybe a needed short monosyllable at the beginning of the line and a long monosyllable after the caesura). κάρα + genitive or possessive adjective is just a tragic way of referring to a person--as in the first line of the Antigone, and the second line of this famous translation of Aeschylus:

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/housman.html

[Paul Derouda]

σε κηδεύουσα καὶ τὸ σὸν κάρα -- This is just a matter of filling out a line with a lofty, tragic-sounding phrase (or maybe a needed short monosyllable at the beginning of the line and a long monosyllable after the caesura). κάρα + genitive or possessive adjective is just a tragic way of referring to a person--as in the first line of the Antigone, and the second line of this famous translation of Aeschylus:

I don't know so much about this particular passage, but I think here as in the Antigone passage the idea with this κάρα + genitive/possessive adjective construction has a very specific idea, which is to suggest some intimacy between the speaker and the character mentioned, or at least that the speaker is very fond of the person in question. The idea, I think, is that κάρα represents the outward appearence, the face, of the person, and that that face is dear to the speaker. Compare Odyssey 1.343-344:

τοίην γὰρ κεφαλὴν ποθέω μεμνημένη αἰεὶ
ἀνδρός, τοῦ κλέος εὐρὺ καθ’ Ἑλλάδα καὶ μέσον Ἄργος

In other contexts, these periphrastic constructions may convey other nuances. I agree that they are also lofty tragic-sounding fillers, but I don't think they are totally devoid of meaning.

The "famous translation of Aeschylus" lacks this particular nuance, however incisive it is otherwise...

[mwh]

Cooper (vol2 p1337 §69.32.2.A) καὶ used to "attach ideas which are appositionally related" ... "The second element may be a characterization of the first."

My question: is movement from general to more specific the default pattern?

My answer to this would be Yes. It's exemplified in the instances you give (where the pronoun could never stand as the second element), and also in cases of true apposition (i.e. without και), as in what the ancient Greek syntacticians called the "whole and part" construction, e.g. "Him he hit shoulder," common in Homer; and in such simple locutions as ω ανδρες δικασται ("Men dicasts") too.

I think of it as linguistic zoom-in.