Pharr 1:144 Subject vs predicate

[Bert]

[face=SPIonic]ei(=j de/ tij a)rxoj a)nh\r boulhfo/roj e)/stw,[/face]
With the verb being right at the end of the phrase, how do you tell what is the subject and what the predicate? Or does it even matter?
"A man with discretion is to be the leader" is identical to "The leader is to be a man with discretion"
I probably would not have asked the question if [face=SPIonic]a)nh\r[/face] was written before [face=SPIonic]a)rxo\j[/face] because it makes more sense if man has the indefiniteness of [face=SPIonic]tij[/face] ie; Some man with discretion is to be the leader.
Does word order play a role here?

[annis]

My urge in these cases is to match the sense to the caesura. Here, after [face=spionic]a)rxo/j[/face], matching your second translation. I'm interested to see what others say about this.

[Paul]

Hi,

I've always translated [face=SPIonic]a)rxo/j[/face] as predicate, matching your second translation, e.g., 'let one counsel-bearing man be master'.

However, I never considered it from the insightful perspective William offered.

My thinking has been that an [face=SPIonic]a)nh/r[/face] must have [face=SPIonic]boulhfo/roj[/face] in order to be designated [face=SPIonic]a)rxo/j[/face].

Cordially,

Paul

[Bert]

So [face=SPIonic]ei(=j [/face]and [face=SPIonic]tij[/face] don't belong to the next word but to the one after that, ie; to [face=SPIonic]a)nh\r[/face]
This does make sense in the translation but why would the word [face=SPIonic]a)rxo\j [/face]be inserted.

Is there any significance in the fact that the verb is right at the end?

[annis]

So [face=SPIonic]ei(=j [/face]and [face=SPIonic]tij[/face] don't belong to the next word but to the one after that, ie; to [face=SPIonic]a)nh\r[/face]
This does make sense in the translation but why would the word [face=SPIonic]a)rxo\j [/face]be inserted.

It's hard for me to decide about this. On the one hand, [face=spionic]tij, ti[/face] can be quite far from the word they go with, and have very strong urges in their phrase placement which adds to the confusion. For example, here's one with three words between it and what it goes with:

[face=spionic]te/loj d' ou)/ pw/ ti pe/fantai.[/face] B.122

But I share your concern about an intervening word which agrees with the indefinite, even if Pharr pushes for that interpretation indirectly in the greek-to-english exercise #4. We could take the [face=spionic]a)nh\r boulhfo/roj[/face] to be in aposition, "there there be some leader, a discreet man, ..." But I'm not entirely confident in that.

When I run into these confusions, I remember these words of Calvert Watkins, from How to Kill a Dragon chapter 16 "The hidden track of the cow: Obscure styles in indo-european:"

In the poetic traditions of most or all of the early Indo-European languages we find texts, often in large numbers, which for one reason or another present, or seem to present, some sort of obstacle between the hearer - the "reader" - and the message. And it often seems that that "obstacle" is in some sense what that society considers art. paro 'ks.akaamaa hi devaah. 'For the gods love the obscure', as we read in the Shatapathabraahmana 6.1.1.2 and many places elsewhere in Vedic literature.

So Homer was probably sometimes difficult for Greeks, too.

Is there any significance in the fact that the verb is right at the end?

I don't think so.

[annis]

Ok, one last thought.

I grabbed the Scholia D H. van Thiel makes available, and it glosses thus:

A 144/Zs [face=spionic]e)/stw: gene/sqw[/face] ZYQ

[Bert]

Ok, one last thought.

I grabbed the Scholia D H. van Thiel makes available, and it glosses thus:

A 144/Zs [face=spionic]e)/stw: gene/sqw[/face] ZYQ

ZYQ meaning... (maybe; something like that??)

[annis]

A 144/Zs [face=spionic]e)/stw: gene/sqw[/face] ZYQ

ZYQ meaning... (maybe; something like that??)

I probably should have omitted that. It's the manuscript sigla, indicating which manuscript families give this line (manuscripts of the Scholia, not Homer in general).