Textkit Logo

Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.

Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:30 pm

If the ultima is long, how is γάλοως (PIE *ǵh₂lōw-) proparoxytone?
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Hylander » Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:43 pm

I would guess that -οως is the result of "quantitative metathesis", from -ωος(or something else?). These words retain the accent of the form prior to metathesis.

Smyth 239:

239. Accent.—a. The accent of the nominative is kept in all cases. Μενέλεως (163 a) retains the accent of the earlier Μενέλα_ος.
b. The genitive and dative are oxytone when the final syllable is accented.

N.—The accentuation of the words of this declension is doubtful. Some of the ancients accented λαγώς, λαγών, others λαγῶς, λαγῶν, etc.


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+239&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby mwh » Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:14 pm

Metathesis accounts for postHomeric πόλεως ⟨ πόληος, but not ἄστεως ⟨ ἄστεος, and does it really account for Homer’s γάλοῳ nom.pl. (Il.22.473)? I think ancient grammarians viewed γάλοως as stretching (diectasis) of γάλως, which looks the wrong way round, but …. What do the authorities say? (Chantraine?, Probert?, …)
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Timothée » Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:16 pm

(Edit: Written before seeing mwh’s post)
This seems different from metathesis quantitatum—is it even correct thus? For what it’s worth, Beekes and Chantraine deem it γαλόως, Frisk and Pokorny have γάλως. Here is what August Lentz gives us in his edition of Herodian (LS’s reference here is slightly wrong):
E. M. 220,9: γαλόῳ: οἱ μὲν λέγουcιν ὅτι ἔcτι γάλωc, εἶτα διαλύcει τοῦ ω̄ γάλουc ὡc τὸ «ἐξ Ἀθόω δ’ἐπὶ πόντον ἔβη» (C 229 [the ref. should be Ξ 229]). ὁ δὲ Ἡρωδιανὸc ἐν τῷ περὶ παθῶν λέγει, ὅτι ἐcτὶν εὐθεῖα ἡ γάλωc. [ἔcτι δὲ ἡ ἀνδρὸc ἀδελφή.] κλίνεται δὲ τῆς γάλω· ὁ κανών· τὰ βαρύτονα κατὰ ἀποβολὴν τοῦ c̄ κλίνονται τῆς Κέω. — ἡ δοτικὴ τῇ γάλῳ καὶ πλεοναcμῷ τοῦ ō γαλόῳ· διὰ τοῦτο καταβιβάζει τὸν τόνον, ἐπειδὴ οὐδέποτε ἐπὶ τέλουc κειμένου τοῦ ω̄ τρίτη ἀπὸ τέλουc τίθεται ἡ ὀξεῖα χωρὶc τῶν Ἀττικῶν. κλίνεται δὲ καὶ γάλωc γάλωτοc ὡc γέλωc γέλωτοc.


If the references are exhaustive, we have γάλοως only in the Etymologicum Magnum (the headword is the [Homeric] nominative plural γαλόῳ, as seen in the quote above). Could it be an error there? Beside that, we only have this word in the Iliad and Herodian (from a citation in the EM). The Iliad has it five times, only in accusative (γαλόων) and dative singular and nominative plural (both γαλόῳ). Homeric forms could be diectasised.
Last edited by Timothée on Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby jeidsath » Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:19 pm

EDIT: Posted before seeing Timothée's reply.

***

Beekes gives γαλόως, as does Chantraine. I see no discussion of the accent. Probert appears to have no discussion of this word (not unexpected), nor does Chandler (unexpected). However Chandler does have 667N:

Schol. Ven. Δ. 27: δίκερως, ῥινόκερως, φίλερως, κλαυσίγελως are incorrect when they form their genitive in ωτος, yet they are found with those accents


Scholia D gives for Γ 122: γαλόωι: γάλωτι· γάλωϲ δέ ἐστιν ἀνδρὸϲ ἀδελφή. The word appears to show up nowhere in the nominative in Homer.

Herodian is quoted in the Etymologicum magnum, which seems to be the source for the accentuation:

Γαλόῳ: Οἱ μὲν λέγουσιν ὅτι ἔστι γάλως, εἶτα διαλύσει τοῦ ω, γάλοως, ὡς τὸ, Ἐξ Ἀθόω δ’ ἐπὶ πόντον ἔβη. Ὁ δὲ Ἡρωδιανὸς ἐν τῷ περὶ Παθῶν λέγει, ὅτι ἔστιν εὐθεῖα ἡ γάλως. Ἔστι δὲ ἡ ἀνδρὸς ἀδελφή. Κλίνεται τῆς γάλω. Ὁ κανών· τὰ δὲ βαρύτονα, κατὰ ἀποβολὴν τοῦ σ κλίνονται, τῆς Κέω. Ἡ δοτικὴ, τῇ γάλῳ· καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ο, γαλόῳ. Διὰ τοῦτο καταβιβάζει τὸν τόνον· ἐπειδὴ οὐδέποτε ἐπὶ τέλους κειμένου τοῦ ω τρίτη ἀπὸ τέλους τίθεται ἡ ὀξεῖα, χωρὶς τῶν Ἀττικῶν. Κλίνεται δὲ καὶ γάλως γάλωτος, ὡς γέλως γέλωτος.


***

I can't find the Δ 27 scholia Chandler references for some reason, but here is Herodian again:

Τὰ παρὰ τὸ γέλως συγκείμενα ἅπαντα διὰ τοῦ ω μεγάλου γράφονται· οἷον· φιλόγελως· κλαυσίγελως· πολύγελως· κατάγελως· καὶ τὰ ὅμοια.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2277
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Hylander » Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:09 am

I suspect the correct accentuation of this word is beyond recovery. I'm not sure that Herodian and the other ancient grammarians are entirely reliable on very minor and obscure details of accentuation.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby mwh » Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:00 pm

My best guess is that Herodian agreed with predecessors (οἱ μεν) that γαλοως was a distended form of γάλως (διάλυσις ~ πλεονασμός ~ diectasis), but disagreed over whether the accent should stay on the first syllable or be brought forward (καταβιβάζει τον τόνον) to conform with the regular accentual rules. But some research into Herodian's principles and the EtMag’s sources would be needed to test this. It’s not what the EtMag entry says, but that's quite a muddle.
Last edited by mwh on Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Hylander » Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:03 pm

Homer’s γάλοῳ nom.pl. (Il.22.473)


West prints γαλόωι without comment.

[Posted before I saw mwh's latest. Yes, it's all a muddle.]
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby mwh » Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:24 pm

Yes, as do (all?) earlier editors. But he didn’t touch LSJ’s γάλοως. I don't know what lies behind that, unless it's what I just hypothesized about retention of original accent in case of diectasis (as with quantitative metathesis). I should have left the accent off γαλοῳ in my first post.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Hylander » Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:57 pm

I may have missed something in the previous posts in this thread, but it looks to me as if the nominative form γαλοως, however accented, appears nowhere in surviving ancient Greek except the EtMag quote from Heriodian. So the evidence for proparoxytonesis (is that even a word?) is very slender. Much as all of us enjoy hunting down obscure details, perhaps it's best to remain in equipoise on this point and give it a rest.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Timothée » Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:27 pm

Hylander wrote:I may have missed something in the previous posts in this thread, but it looks to me as if the nominative form γαλοως, however accented, appears nowhere in surviving ancient Greek except the EtMag quote from Heriodian.

That was how I, too, read the evidence above.

At least the Bavarian State Library has Gaisford’s edition of the EM digitised. Here’s his apparatus on this, to offer a slightly fuller coverage on the topic:
Image
I think it’s probably fair to doubt that Lasserre and Livadaras will ever finish their edition of the EM (they got to the end of β in their two volumes [1974 and 1992], which have the aggregate of ca. 1000 pages).

It is clear (and many earlier commentators have said that) that the word naturally compares with πάτρως and μήτρως, maybe also with its putative formation, which would seem further to support γάλως. Moreover, it was evidently a very old word already when the Iliad was composed. What preserved material the compiler of the EM could have had in his use?

PS. I wonder if any Iliadic editors note Herodian’s ἔβη pro ἐβήσατο.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Hylander » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:30 pm

My best guess is that Herodian agreed with predecessors (οἱ μεν) that γαλοως was a distended form of γάλως (διάλυσις ~ πλεονασμός ~ diectasis), but disagreed over whether the accent should stay on the first syllable or be brought forward (καταβιβάζει τον τόνον) to conform with the regular accentual rules.


The analogy with πάτρως and μήτρως, I think, strongly supports the idea that diectasis is responsible for the Iliadic form γαλόωι, doesn't it? And I guess the accentuation of γαλόωι in the ms. tradition of the Iliad would imply paroxytone accentuation in the nominative singular, if that form ever occurred in epic (and the diectasis form would probably only occur in epic), in spite of what EtMag seems to suggest Herodian thought.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby mwh » Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:39 pm

Not even the EM entry says what Herodian took the nom.sing. to be, though I expect Herodian did, and I think γαλοως however accented is a pretty safe bet.

But isn’t the issue not so much *γαλοως in itself as Herodian’s (and others') accentual principles, and since Herodian is normally taken as authoritative (all Smyth’s accentual rules are taken from him, for example) it would be nice to know what he made of the Homeric forms and whether or not he treated (putative or actual) diectasis accentually the same way as quantitative metathesis, allowing proparoxytonesis (sounds like a very nasty ailment).
The Herodianic components of the Homeric scholia maiora (as distinct from the so-called D-scholia) as presented in Erbse’s edition might be the best place to start.
Or a possible short-cut: if he accented Αθοω paroxytone (do the scholia say?), he must have accented γαλόῳ. And the transmitted accentuation in the direct tradition stands to be Herodian's. But it’s clear the matter was controversial.

I agree it doesn’t much matter (it won't tell us anything about Homer's pronunciation), and I’m not going to pursue it, but I wouldn’t trivialize a question of prosodical doctrine.

Timo, all the EM compiler(s) did was to extract (and garble) existent etymologica. As far as γαλοως goes, neither he nor anyone else had access to any literary material beyond Homer.
And Herodian didn’t read ἔβη. The verse is truncated, that’s all.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby jeidsath » Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:55 pm

I found the Chandler entry that discusses γάλοως. I had been foolishly looking in the 3rd declension because of ωτος.

547. Note 3.--The epenthesis of ο which occurs in the Epic forms of these words [words in ως, ων] does not of necessity produce any effect on the accent, e.g. Ἄθοως = Ἄθως, genitive Ἄθοω. Eust. 980. 49: τὸ δὲ Ἄθοω προπαροξύνουσιν οἱ παλαιοί, τὸν φυσικὸν τόνον φυλάσσοντες· γέγονε γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ Ἄθω, πλεονάσαντος τοῦ ἐν τῇ παραληγούσῃ Ο μικροῦ, ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ φῶς φόως, καὶ Κῶς ἡ νῆσος, Κόως, οἷον Κόων εὖ ναιομένην. καὶ ἔστι πως Ἀττικὴ καὶ ἡ Ἄθοω προπαροξύτονησις. Ἀθηναῖοι γὰρ ἐν πολλοῖς ὀκνοῦσι μετατιθέναι ὑποβιβαστικῶς τὰς τῶν εὐθειῶν ὀξείας. ἐν γοῦν τῷ πόλεως ὄφεως συνήπεως οὐκ ἐταπείνωσεν ἡ μακροκαταληξία τῆς γενικῆς τὴν προπαροξυτόνησιν. So also Schol. Ven. Ξ 229. Yet Eust. 391. 44 has Ἀθόω, and in E. M. 347.10 it is said that Herodian so accented it. Γάλως, like many other words of this termination, is inflected in several ways, for the gentive is either γάλω or γάλοως, γαλόω(?) and γάλωτος. Eust. 391.44 has γαλόως, dative γάλῳ and γαλόῳ, but it would appear from E. M. 220.9, who also vouches the same forms, that they would be γάλοως, γάλοω in Attic (see Schol. Ven Γ. 122), if that dialect used them. Eust. 1281.8: καὶ ὅρα τὸ γαλόῳ πρὸ μιᾶς ἔχον τὸν τόνον ὡς ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Ἡροδώρου κεῖται καὶ Ἀπίωνος; cf. Schol. Ven. X. 473. These manifold inconsistencies are perhaps to be explained from the varying quantity of the final syllable; the termination εως is sometimes treated as a dissyllable, though more often as a monosyllable; possibly the same was the case with οως.


Schol. Ven. Ξ 229.

ἐξ Ἀθόω] Ἄθως ὄρος ἐν θρᾴκῃ μέγα τε καὶ ὑψηλὸν...

Schol. Ven Γ. 122

γαλόῳ] ἀνδὸς ἀδελφῇ· ἡ γάλως τῆς γάλω.

Schol. Ven. X. 473.

γαλόῳ, οὕτως, τῇ γυναικὶ αἱ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀδελφαί. εἰνάτερες δὲ αἱ τῶν ἀδελφῶν γυναῖκες πρὸς ἀλλήλας.

πρὸ τέλους ἡ ὀξεῖα· αἱ γὰρ εἰς ω (bar) λήγουσαι δοτικαὶ βαρύτονοι, συνεμπίπτουσαι πληθυντικαῖς εὐθείαις, συνεμπίπτουσι καὶ κατὰ τὸν τόνον· τῷ λιπόνεῳ, οἱ λιπόνεῳ.

My translation attempt at Eust. 980. 49:

The ancients proparaoxytoned Ἄθοω, preserving its natural tone. For it is come from Ἄθω, having been lengthed by the omicron in the penult, just as φῶς to φόως, and the island Κῶς to Κόως, like "Κόων εὖ ναιομένην." And likely the proparaoxytone genitive Ἄθοω is Attic. For the Athenians in many cases shrunk from moving the acutes nearer the end of the word from the nominative. At least with πόλεως ὄφεως συνήπεως the long syllable of the genitive does not move the proparaoxytone forward.

Eust. 1281.8:

And see γαλόῳ having the tone one back (?), as in what has been laid down by Herodian and Apion.

Schol. Ven. X 473 (I'm pretty confused by this one. I don't understand the meaning of συνεμπίπτω maybe):

The acute is before the end. The datives ending in ω (bar) are barytone, being mingled in the nominative plural, they also mingle the tone. τῷ λιπόνεῳ, οἱ λιπόνεῳ.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2277
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby mwh » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:59 am

Thanks for finding the Eustathius Joel. It satisfyingly fleshes out what I was suggesting. Ἄθοω proparox. entails γάλοῳ (and γάλοως accordingly).

συνεμπιπτω means “coincide” (in form), γάλεῳ being both dat.sing. and nom.pl. “Apion and Herodorus” refers to a commentary Eustathius quite often refers to.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:03 am

What does anyone think about the loss of the possible digamma?

Was the added u/v in the morphology of the male (sic.) word (sic.) patruus (L&S) / पितृव्या, also present at some (pre-Homeric) time in this female (sic.) word γάλοως too? Does the loss of a digamma lead to the empenthesis of an ο following a single liquid (tr being a consonant cluster) in any of the Epic dialect sources?

To state that too simply, does the omicron represent a lost digamma, which was lost/replaced after the accent of the word was settled? The genitive plural γαλόων follows the expected accentuation rules, because its accent was fixed at a time when the rules of accentuation were naturally applied: i.e. Is a revisionist application of accent rules here irrelevant, seeing as the omicron is (or represents) a consonant for accentuation purposes.

Alternatively, could an original omicron in γάλαϝος have lengthened to omega, i.e. the attested γάλοως because of the loss of the digamma? Does Lat. glōs decline with -u- in the oblique cases?

Edit: Other questions moved to different threads. Change in vowel length in ἐνάτηρ and Stem and morphology of δαήρ.
Last edited by ἑκηβόλος on Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Hylander » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:18 am

Diectasis after contraction, not an original digamma (even though there may have been an original digamma, in fact there probably was an original digamma), is the probable explanation for the "insertion" of the omicron (actually a "stretching" of the ω to a time value equivalent to a short plus a long or if you prefer, light plus heavy) in the Homeric Kunstsprache (the artificial language of the Homeric poems).

See below.
Last edited by Hylander on Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:25 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Hylander » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:13 pm

Let me try to explain myself more clearly than I could at 1 AM last night. Here's what I think happened.

Loss of digamma and contraction led to the following sequence in spoken Ionic and spoken and written Attic: nom. plur. *γάλαFοι > *γάλαοι > γάλωι (nom. sing. *γάλαFος > *γάλαος > γάλως).

In the basically Ionic Homeric Kunstsprache, γάλωι would have resulted in disruption of the meter and rhythm of the hexameter by formulas that before contraction had included *γαλαFωι (and maybe nominative singular *γαλαFος where the final syllable was heavy/long, though this word does not occur in our Epic texts).

As a fudge to preserve the rhythm (if not the meter) of the hexameter in performance, the final ω was stretched out (diectasis) to a time value equivalent to υ _ (short + long/light + heavy).

This stretching was represented in early, unaccented texts as οω, resulting in γαλοωι and maybe γαλοως, but this was just a graphic convention: the words were pronounced as just two, not three, syllables, with the second syllable stretched.

See Chantraine, Grammaire homérique, p. 76 (old edition; sec. 31), who endorses the foregoing explanation of diectasis (though not the specific instance of γαλοωι) and attributes it to Wackernagel. It should be noted that diectasis is not limited to the word γαλοωι : it's a widespread phenomenon in the Homeric corpus wherever contraction has changed the original shape of words so that formulas containing those words no longer fit the rhythm and meter of the hexameter.

With regard to γαλοωι (and maybe γαλοως), I think, the accent naturally would not shift forward in performance (at least in the earlier history of the poems), but would remain on the same syllable as in everyday speech. Arguably, there would have been no perception of a violation of the rule of limitation (the rule that excludes proparoxytone accentuation of a word whose final syllable is long/heavy) because these words were spoken, in a slightly distorted manner, as two-syllable words, and of course the accent could not be shifted to the omicron because the omicron did not represent a separate syllable. Moving the accent forward to the final distended syllable would really sound odd and silly.

Eventually, the graphic sequence οω came to be treated as two separate syllables. Apparently, when this had happened, there were those who thought that these words should be accented γαλόῳ (and γαλόως) in conformity with the rule of limitation, but other grammarians (Herodian?) maintained that the accent should remain on the first syllable. (Some proponents of nom. plur. γάλοωι also seem to have thought that the dative singular should be exactly the same as the nom. plur., i.e., γάλοωι, but this is not necessarily right. Schol. Ven. X 473 seems to be confusing quantitative metathesis with diectasis, as I did originally.)

The extant sources merely record this disagreement without explaining the argument for proparoxytonesis. (Apparently following the usual convention, they discuss this under the rubric of the putative nom. sing. form γαλοως, even though, as noted, it doesn't occur in our texts of the Homeric poems.) Perhaps the proponents of γάλοωι were aware that the sequence οω represented graphically a stretched ω, not two syllables. The term "diectasis", "stretching", used by the grammarians itself suggests an awareness on the part of some of them of this phenomenon. As mwh noted, it would be useful to understand Herodian's methodology on this and other points, since he is the authority behind the accentuation of our ancient Greek texts today.

When an accent was added to γαλοωι in the the textual tradition of the Iliad that is represented by the medieval manuscripts (this may have occurred relatively late, in the ninth or tenth centuries), it was placed on the omicron in conformity with the rule of limitation, based on treatment of οω as two syllables, and that's what we find printed in our texts today.

OK, I'm sticking my neck out here. Someone who actually knows something about this should chime in and set me straight.
Last edited by Hylander on Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:35 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:33 pm

That's very interesting.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby mwh » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:18 pm

Eventually, the graphic sequence οω came to be treated as two separate syllables.
I wonder if this isn’t the wrong way round. I’d have thought diectasis, a metrically conditioned phenomenon, would have resulted in two syllables from the outset. A mere prolongation of ω would wreck the metrical need for a short syllable before the long one.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Hylander » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:38 pm

mwh:

Take a look at Chantraine, where the argument is laid out in detail, and better than I can. If like me you were foolish enough to buy the second edition -- revised to correct some of the many typos in the earlier edition and, more importantly, to extend the copyright -- it's p. 78.

Diectasis, I think, preserves the rhythm of the hexameter, not necessarily the meter, at least in this case.
Last edited by Hylander on Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Timothée » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:19 pm

As to the word-forms in Hesychius, he has also γέλαρος, which is thought by many commentators to stand actually for *γελαϜος, as they cannot explain the ρ. This word γέλαρος (or *γελαϜος) is not Greek, as Hesychius says (»γέλαρος· ἀδελφοῦ γυνή, Φρυγιστί»). Characteristic of this conundrum is that s.u. γέλαρος the LS says to look under γαλόως (sic!). Of course know full well this is not the headword (a Freudian slip from the editor?).

Pokorny (p. 367) reconstructs *γάλωϜος. However, he has clearly overlooked one more Hesychius gloss, namely γάλις· γαλαός. (Do look up both γάλις and γαλαός in the LS, by the way—you’ll note they’re quite unhelpful.) The γαλαός suggests *γαλαϜος. Beekes apparently discusses this more fully in Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 34 (1976):13ff., but unfortunately I won’t be at the library to check this until the next week.

The LS supplement adds that Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum vol. 31, 1004.8 “probably” has either γάλοως or γάλως (it doesn’t / cannot say which one). This inscription is from Σαΐτται (in eastern Lydia) from the 2nd century CE, the LS supplement says.

So Herodian is our only source for the Attic γάλως (: γάλω). Schwyzer (p. 480) thinks this originally belongs to the same declension as ἥρως, but it later became (at least partly) a 2nd declension word. He compares this with ἀηδώ, which has nominative plural ἄηδοι (in Sappho, beside ἀηδόνες). Schwyzer correctly notes that (despite what I wrote above) Homer also has genitive plural, γαλόων (in Ω 769), which Schwyzer derives from *γαλώων (as ἡρώων). By the same token, Schwyzer thinks dative singular γαλόῳ derives from *γαλώωι. About the nominative plural γαλόῳ Schwyzer says “statt -οοι? für -ωοι”, which I am not sure how to take. Unexpectedly he doesn’t mention the accusative singular γαλόων, which we can (should we want to) compare to acc.sg. νεών (Schwyzer might explain that as vacillation between declensions). So to Schwyzer the Attic γάλως ~ ἥρως. Ἥρως will have (in Attic) ἥρω as accusative and genitive singular, which is thus how Schwyzer further explains Herodian’s γάλω.

Would it be then the most economical to suppose an original correspondence with ἥρως in declension? Then the word would have become a 2nd declension word. Is the “Attic 2nd declension” (i.e. words like νεώς) common enough in Homer to suppose this, as acc.sg. γαλόων would require it?

I’m not totally comfortable with this. The diectasis explanation (in some form!) sounds to me better. That would still probably leave Herodian’s γάλως : γάλω to decline with ἥρως : ἥρω.

And on the Indo-European level, this is generally seen as an *-ōu-stem. But in Greek analogical developments have occurred (apparently galore).

mwh wrote:And Herodian didn’t read ἔβη. The verse is truncated, that’s all.

Strange place to truncate the verse, but I suppose it must be as you say.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Hylander » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:36 pm

The LS supplement adds that Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum vol. 31, 1004.8 “probably” has either γάλοως or γάλως (it doesn’t / cannot say which one). This inscription is from Σαΐτται (in eastern Lydia) from the 2nd century CE, the LS supplement says.


How do they know how the word was accented? γάλοως looks like they just looked at the main entry in LSJ. Please update us on the Beekes article when you get a chance.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby Timothée » Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:06 pm

I suppose the supplement editors just took the supplement headword (“γάλοως, γάλως”) straight from the main dictionary as such. I haven’t of course seen the SEG, but it’s fair to presume the inscription is not perfectly legible (though Suppl.LS’s “prob.” gives some hope).
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Why is ἡ γάλοως proparoxytone?

Postby mwh » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:25 pm

Too much traffic here for me to keep up with!

Unfortunately I don’t have Chantraine to hand, nor Wackernagel, nor much else. But I think I’ll have difficulty with the “rhythm not meter” argument with regard to diectasis. I simply can’t imagine αμφι δε μιν γαλ(ο)ωι τε … without vocalizing a short o before the ωι (or else doubling the λ). Similarly with ὁρ⏑ω and the rest. The notion that -οω was pronounced as two syllables only after it was written as such seems bizarre to me. I’m open to persuasion, but meanwhile I’ll continue to believe that it was originally written as two syllables because it was pronounced as two syllables, under the metrical pressure responsible for diectasis in the first place.

I’m not competent to address the word's prehistory. But I’m not wholly comfortable with the diectasis theory (it would be an unusual diectasis, with the underlying contraction only guesswork). Schwyzer’s competing explanation works much better for the dat.sing. than it does for the nom.pl. Declensional coherence for the Homeric forms (partly ad hoc?) may be too much to ask. These waters are too deep for me.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am


Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 78 guests