Soph. OT 1329-25 Sophocles syntax for Koine readers

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Some Koine people may find this difficult to read.

Soph. OT 1329-25

Ἀπόλλων τάδ' ἦν, Ἀπόλλων, φίλοι,
ὁ κακὰ κακὰ τελῶν ἐμὰ τάδ' ἐμὰ πάθεα.
Ἔπαισε δ' αὐτόχειρ νιν οὔ-
τις, ἀλλ' ἐγὼ τλάμων.
Τί γὰρ ἔδει μ' ὁρᾶν,
ὅτῳ γ' ὁρῶντι μηδὲν ἦν ἰδεῖν γλυκύ;

I tried to feed Ἔπαισε δ' αὐτόχειρ νιν οὔτις ἀλλ' ἐγὼ τλάμων into a (unreal) generative parsing automata (machine) and ran into problems. Ἔπαισε δ' αὐτόχειρ νιν looks like a complete clause where νιν, the object of Ἔπαισε, refers to Oedipus' eyes. So what to do with οὔτις? Jebb helps out suggesting οὔτις ἄλλος. Is this a comment qualifying the previous clause or is it an adversative introducing the next clause? The latter suggestion seems improbable but I am open to hearing otherwise.

The last line also caused a breakdown within the parsing automata. I was able to sort it out with help from Geoffrey Steadman but could not write rule for it.

[mwh]

There’s nothing abnormal or puzzling about the syntax. Evidently your parsing automaton is not up to the job, just as NT readers will not be up to the job of reading Sophocles. To come to Sophocles by way of the NT is bound to cause difficulty, as you’ve discovered. Approach via classical Greek prose would be a better route.

For the last line, try these two sets of syntactical simplifications:
(με,) ὅτῳ
ὅτῳ γε
ὅτῳ γε ορωντι |
ὅτῳ ην
ὅτῳ μηδεν ην
ὅτῳ μηδεν ην ιδειν
ὅτῳ μηδεν γλυκυ ην ιδειν.
But parsing won’t tell you why μηδεν rather than ουδεν (quasi-conditional).

[Hylander]

Try επαισε δ'αυτοχειρ νιν ουτις αλλος η εγω

[mwh]

That gives the sense, but grammatically of course it’s “no-one (else), but I (myself) instead” (sc. επαισα αυτοχειρ νιν).

ουτις is subject, αυτοχειρ predicate. An automated parser won’t tell you that.
νιν refers to τας οψεις.
τλαμων is predicative with εγω.
Syntactically these sentences are quite simple.

[Hylander]

O. is breaking into dochmiacs, isn't he?

[mwh]

Yes but not entirely. The previous strophic pair showed the emotive tension between dochmiacs and iambic trimeters that we observed in the Ajax, and this one does likewise. This strophe, much like the previous one, starts out with two pairs of exactly echoing dochmiacs (Απολλων – παθεα), then a regular iambic trimeter (note the caesura, confirming this analysis) which gets away from him with two thumping longs appended (τλαμων) and preparing the way for the following dochmiac reboot (τί - ὁραν), quickly brought to a close by a final trimeter as this time he succeeds in regaining control of himself—though not for long.
(Responsion in the antistrophe, 1349-55, is almost exact, syllable by syllable, as his inner struggle is repeated.)

All of which, Stirling, goes to show that syntax is not everything!