Syntax Challenge:
Explain the syntax: οὐ γάρ με ... ὅμως.
Sophocles Oedipus tyrannus
Line 1326
Ἰὼ φίλος,
σὺ μὲν ἐμὸς ἐπίπολος ἔτι μόνιμος· ἔτι γὰρ
ὑπομένεις με τὸν τυφλὸν κηδεύων.
Φεῦ φεῦ,
οὐ γάρ με λήθεις, ἀλλὰ γιγνώσκω σαφῶς,
καίπερ σκοτεινός, τήν γε σὴν αὐδὴν ὅμως.
POSTED in Koine because Koine students also read Sophocles.
Syntax Challenge: Sophocles OT 1326-1327
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm
Syntax Challenge: Sophocles OT 1326-1327
C. Stirling Bartholomew
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4813
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Syntax Challenge: Sophocles OT 1326-1327
The notable thing here is the syntactically redundant ὅμως tacked on at the end. It’s a predominantly Attic idiom, and can be (but doesn't have to be) analyzed as elliptical. There was a closely comparable example at the beginning of Sophocles’ Ajax, you’ll remember, as Odysseus reacts to the sound of Athena’s voice:
ω φθεγμ’ Αθανας, φιλτατης εμοι θεων,
ὡς ευμαθες σου, κἂν αποπτος ᾖς ὅμως,
φωνημ’ ακουω …
“How readily recognizable do I hear your voice, even though you’re invisible, nonetheless .”
There you have κἂν “even though”, just as here you have καιπερ: γιγνώσκω σαφῶς, καίπερ σκοτεινός, τήν γε σὴν αὐδὴν ὅμως “I clearly recognize your voice, despite (καιπερ) being in the dark, nonetheless .
A couple more examples (out of many) should make the idiom clear:
Eur.Alcestis 936
φίλοι, γυναικὸς δαίμον’ εὐτυχέστερον
τοὐμοῦ νομίζω, καίπερ οὐ δοκοῦνθ’ ὅμως.
“Friends, I consider my wife’s fate luckier than mine, although it doesn’t seem so, nonetheless [it is].”
Eur.Bacchae 1027
ὥς σε στενάζω, δοῦλος ὢν μὲν ἀλλ’ ὅμως
“How I grieve for you, I being just a slave but still and all."
There are examples in Plato too, and I expect it reflects ordinary speech habits. You probably won’t find it in koine, certainly not in the NT.
ω φθεγμ’ Αθανας, φιλτατης εμοι θεων,
ὡς ευμαθες σου, κἂν αποπτος ᾖς ὅμως,
φωνημ’ ακουω …
“How readily recognizable do I hear your voice, even though you’re invisible, nonetheless .”
There you have κἂν “even though”, just as here you have καιπερ: γιγνώσκω σαφῶς, καίπερ σκοτεινός, τήν γε σὴν αὐδὴν ὅμως “I clearly recognize your voice, despite (καιπερ) being in the dark, nonetheless .
A couple more examples (out of many) should make the idiom clear:
Eur.Alcestis 936
φίλοι, γυναικὸς δαίμον’ εὐτυχέστερον
τοὐμοῦ νομίζω, καίπερ οὐ δοκοῦνθ’ ὅμως.
“Friends, I consider my wife’s fate luckier than mine, although it doesn’t seem so, nonetheless [it is].”
Eur.Bacchae 1027
ὥς σε στενάζω, δοῦλος ὢν μὲν ἀλλ’ ὅμως
“How I grieve for you, I being just a slave but still and all."
There are examples in Plato too, and I expect it reflects ordinary speech habits. You probably won’t find it in koine, certainly not in the NT.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm
Re: Syntax Challenge: Sophocles OT 1326-1327
Thanks for the reply.
"... redundant ὅμως tacked on at the end" did capture my attention but I didn't know it was redundant. I looked for help from Smyth and Cooper, had to wade through a lot of Cooper to find out what was going on and I still don't have a clear grasp of all the issues. Apparently there is a "concessive" idiom with καίπερ + participle where the participle may be missing (p3089, v4, 69.67.0.Q) and in this case it looks as if the participle is (perhaps?) replaced with an adjective σκοτεινός. Again, Cooper's discussion is not lucid and is spread all over different parts of his grammar.
The καίπερ +/- participle idiom permits but doesn't require the backwards looking ὅμως.
RE discourse: Oedipus' reply might be read logically as a single discourse unit where οὐ γάρ ... links the two final lines to the comments prior to Φεῦ φεῦ. In other words the cohesion of the entire segment isn't diminished by Φεῦ φεῦ. On the other hand, Ἰὼ φίλος and Φεῦ φεῦ could be construed as dividing the reply into two different units. How do we understand γάρ in οὐ γάρ με λήθεις? Two well known translations[1] do not indicate a backwards looking cohesive significance for γάρ in οὐ γάρ με λήθεις. See anticipatory γάρ Smyth §2811 .
[1] Lloyd-Jones, Grene.
"... redundant ὅμως tacked on at the end" did capture my attention but I didn't know it was redundant. I looked for help from Smyth and Cooper, had to wade through a lot of Cooper to find out what was going on and I still don't have a clear grasp of all the issues. Apparently there is a "concessive" idiom with καίπερ + participle where the participle may be missing (p3089, v4, 69.67.0.Q) and in this case it looks as if the participle is (perhaps?) replaced with an adjective σκοτεινός. Again, Cooper's discussion is not lucid and is spread all over different parts of his grammar.
The καίπερ +/- participle idiom permits but doesn't require the backwards looking ὅμως.
Sophocles Oedipus tyrannus
Line 1326
Oedipus
Ἰὼ φίλος,
σὺ μὲν ἐμὸς ἐπίπολος ἔτι μόνιμος· ἔτι γὰρ
ὑπομένεις με τὸν τυφλὸν κηδεύων.
Φεῦ φεῦ,
οὐ γάρ με λήθεις, ἀλλὰ γιγνώσκω σαφῶς,
καίπερ σκοτεινός, τήν γε σὴν αὐδὴν ὅμως.
RE discourse: Oedipus' reply might be read logically as a single discourse unit where οὐ γάρ ... links the two final lines to the comments prior to Φεῦ φεῦ. In other words the cohesion of the entire segment isn't diminished by Φεῦ φεῦ. On the other hand, Ἰὼ φίλος and Φεῦ φεῦ could be construed as dividing the reply into two different units. How do we understand γάρ in οὐ γάρ με λήθεις? Two well known translations[1] do not indicate a backwards looking cohesive significance for γάρ in οὐ γάρ με λήθεις. See anticipatory γάρ Smyth §2811 .
[1] Lloyd-Jones, Grene.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2504
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm
Re: Syntax Challenge: Sophocles OT 1326-1327
The omitted participle with σκοτεινός is obviously ὤν. By the way, LSJ cites this very passage:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dkai%2Fper
οὐ γάρ με λήθεις is "backwards looking" and cohesive--he explains how he knew whom he was talking to when he uttered the two lines before Φεῦ φεῦ. And ἔτι γὰρ also looks back to the clause before it.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dkai%2Fper
οὐ γάρ με λήθεις is "backwards looking" and cohesive--he explains how he knew whom he was talking to when he uttered the two lines before Φεῦ φεῦ. And ἔτι γὰρ also looks back to the clause before it.
Bill Walderman