Ajax 1140 θαπτέον

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Verbal Adjectives. Impersonal? Smyth 2152.

ἕν σοι φράσω: τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον.

I will say one thing to you. This one must not be buried.

Not sure about τόνδ᾽ ... θαπτέον.

Stanford says the θαπτέον is a neuter and governs τόνδ᾽.
I understand most of what Smyth has to say about Verbal Adjectives
but I am not sure if the description of the impersonal in 2152
applies to this case. Are there other options?


C. Stirling Bartholomew

[Laertiades]

I don't think there are other options. I don't see what else the subject of the phrase could possibly be.

[NateD26]

Every commentary I check seems to be more concerned about the placement of οὐχὶ.
I don't understand why.

Here are some notes on verbal adjectives by J.R. Pitman (§853a-e) that may help.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Every commentary I check seems to be more concerned about the placement of οὐχὶ.
I don't understand why.

Here are some notes on verbal adjectives by J.R. Pitman (§853a-e) that may help.

Thank you Nate,

J.R. Pitman #853d actually cites Ajax 1140. So the prototype discussed by Smyth #2152 with the neuter singular verbal adjective taking an object in the case required by the verb is what we see in τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον. Cooper has a discussion of this (vol. 1:56.18.2) which is in substantial agreement with Smyth and J.R. Pitman. In 56.18.0 he explains in detail how the verbal adjective in teos, tea, teon is not simply synonymous with the imperatival infinitive. I might attempt to give a synopsis but it wouldn't do it justice.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Every commentary I check seems to be more concerned about the placement of οὐχὶ.
I don't understand why.

Here are some notes on verbal adjectives by J.R. Pitman (§853a-e) that may help.

Thank you Nate,

J.R. Pitman #853d actually cites Ajax 1140. So the prototype discussed by Smyth #2152 with the neuter singular verbal adjective taking an object in the case required by the verb is what we see in τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον. Cooper has a discussion of this (vol. 1:56.18.2) which is in substantial agreement with Smyth and J.R. Pitman. In 56.18.0 he explains in detail how the verbal adjective in teos, tea, teon is not simply synonymous with the imperatival infinitive. I might attempt to give a synopsis but I couldn't do it justice.

Thanks to Cooper (vol. 1:55.3.12) I discovered that θάπτω is actually used in an imperatival infinitive in Ajax 1089 Καί σοι προφωνῶ τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν. Cooper's explanation (vol. 1:56.18.0) of why this is not synonymous with Ajax 1140 ἕν σοι φράσω: τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον is difficult for me to understand. He claims that the two different idioms are not interchangeable. But it looks to me like Ajax 1089 and Ajax1140 are saying the same thing. Anyone else have access to Cooper? He isn't available on the web which is a shame.

Sophocles Trag., Ajax
Line 1089 w/context

Ἀλλ' ἑστάτω μοι καὶ δέος τι καίριον,
καὶ μὴ δοκῶμεν δρῶντες ἃν ἡδώμεθα
οὐκ ἀντιτίσειν αὖθις ἃν λυπώμεθα.
Ἕρπει παραλλὰξ ταῦτα. Πρόσθεν οὗτος ἦν
αἴθων ὑβριστής, νῦν δ' ἐγὼ μέγ' αὖ φρονῶ.
1189
Καί σοι προφωνῶ τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν, ὅπως
μὴ τόνδε θάπτων αὐτὸς εἰς ταφὰς πέσῃς.
{ΧΟ.} Μενέλαε, μὴ γνώμας ὑποστήσας σοφὰς
εἶτ' αὐτὸς ἐν θανοῦσιν ὑβριστὴς γένῃ.
{ΤΕΥ.} Οὐκ ἄν ποτ', ἄνδρες, ἄνδρα θαυμάσαιμ' ἔτι,
ὃς μηδὲν ὢν γοναῖσιν εἶθ' ἁμαρτάνει,

Sophocles Trag., Ajax
Line 1140 w/context

{ΤΕΥ.} Πόλλ' ἂν καλῶς λάθρᾳ σὺ κλέψειας κακά.
{ΜΕ.} Τοῦτ' εἰς ἀνίαν τοὔπος ἔρχεταί τινι.
{ΤΕΥ.} Οὐ μᾶλλον, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἢ λυπήσομεν.
1140
{ΜΕ.} Ἕν σοι φράσω· τόνδ' ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον.
{ΤΕΥ.} Ἀλλ' ἀντακούσῃ τοῦτον ὡς τεθάψεται.
{ΜΕ.} Ἤδη ποτ' εἶδον ἄνδρ' ἐγὼ γλώσσῃ θρασὺν
ναύτας ἐφορμήσαντα χειμῶνος τὸ πλεῖν,
ᾧ φθέγμ' ἂν οὐκ ἀνηῦρες, ἡνίκ' ἐν κακῷ
1145
χειμῶνος εἴχετ', ἀλλ' ὑφ' εἵματος κρυφεὶς
πατεῖν παρεῖχε τῷ θέλοντι ναυτίλων.


C. Stirling Bartholomew

[NateD26]

It seems to be synonymous with 1140.
Can you please post Cooper's explanation as to why it isn't so?

[C. S. Bartholomew]

It seems to be synonymous with 1140.
Can you please post Cooper's explanation as to why it isn't so?

Nate,

I goes on for pages, here is some of it.

Cooper vol 1:58:18:0 page 864

If verbals in -TEOS were simply interchangeable with imperatival infinitives one would expect to see verbals used in place of infinitives in some passages. Actually this never happens. If a verbal is needed after DOKEI for instance, then EINAI is added. This goes against the general practice with verbals. Where they are felt as independent verbs their finite supporting forms such as ESTI are easily omitted. EINAI is called for simply to create a periphrastic infinitive in a place where a verbal adjective is not felt as an acceptable substitute for an imperatival infinitive. Exceptions can be explained.

{snip}

Furthermore imperatival infinitives and verbals in -TOS do not alternate with one another freely when they are used as independent verbs. Rather, such alternation follows rigid patterns. If the period starts off with infinitives which are identified as imperatival by a leading expression, the verbals may subsequently take over, have the purpose of restating the imperatival idea which may be weakened in the infinitives by removal from their introductory expressions e.g. DEI. Or an infinitive without introductory expression my succeed to verbals in -TEOS (= DEI c. inf.) as a climax of moral intensity, the simple imperatival infinitive having an absolute imperatival color which is more powerfully authoritative than any other kind of imperative.

This was hand typed, so please ignore errors.


C. Stirling Bartholomew

[NateD26]

Thanks for writing it here, CSB.

I've always struggled with abstract explanations like this.
I somewhat understand his meaning regarding the force of imperatival infinitives
vs. that of verbal adjectives in -τέος, the former absolute, the latter merely a moral necessity.

But I do not understand why those in -τος can come in place of imperatival infinitives.
According to Smyth §472, verbal adjectives in -τος either have
a meaning of a perfect passive participle or they express possibility. Nothing here to suggest
any connection to an imperative.

Edit: Oh, I guess it was a typo. Sorry.

I'm posting some sentences from Plato's Apology containing the same imperative
in different constructions, and I would like to see them being rated on some sort of an axis
according to Cooper's theory posted above.

(a) καὶ μέντοι καὶ πάνυ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦτο ὑμῶν δέομαι καὶ παρίεμαι· ἐὰν διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν λόγων ἀκούητέ μου ἀπολογουμένου δι᾽ ὧνπερ εἴωθα λέγειν καὶ ἐν ἀγορᾷ ἐπὶ τῶν τραπεζῶν, ἵνα (locative)
ὑμῶν πολλοὶ ἀκηκόασι, καὶ ἄλλοθι, μήτε θαυμάζειν μήτε θορυβεῖν τούτου ἕνεκα. (17c-d)

(b) καί μοι, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, μὴ θορυβήσητε, μηδ᾽ ἐὰν δόξω τι ὑμῖν μέγα λέγειν· (20e)

(c) —καί, ὅπερ λέγω, μὴ θορυβεῖτε, ὦ ἄνδρες— (21a)

(d) ὑμεῖς δέ, ὅπερ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ὑμᾶς παρῃτησάμην, μέμνησθέ μοι μὴ θορυβεῖν
ἐὰν ἐν τῷ εἰωθότι τρόπῳ τοὺς λόγους ποιῶμαι. (27a-b)

(e) ἀποκρινέσθω, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ μὴ ἄλλα καὶ ἄλλα θορυβείτω. (27b)

(f) μὴ θορυβεῖτε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐμμείνατέ μοι οἷς ἐδεήθην ὑμῶν,
μὴ θορυβεῖν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἂν λέγω ἀλλ᾽ ἀκούειν· (30c)

[C. S. Bartholomew]

But I do not understand why those in -τος can come in place of imperatival infinitives.
According to Smyth §472, verbal adjectives in -τος either have
a meaning of a perfect passive participle or they express possibility. Nothing here to suggest
any connection to an imperative.

Edit: Oh, I guess it was a typo. Sorry.

Nate,
I checked Cooper, -τος is the reading at:

Furthermore imperatival infinitives and verbals in -TOS do not alternate with one another freely when they are used as independent verbs. Rather, such alternation follows rigid patterns.

I don't understand all of what Cooper is saying which is why I started this thread.
Cooper isn't nearly as "transparent" as Smyth.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

[NateD26]

Nate,
I checked Cooper, -τος is the reading at:

Furthermore imperatival infinitives and verbals in -TOS do not alternate with one another freely when they are used as independent verbs. Rather, such alternation follows rigid patterns.

I don't understand all of what Cooper is saying which is why I started this thread.
Cooper isn't nearly as "transparent" as Smyth.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

I wonder what is the meaning of verbals in -TOS according to Cooper. It is quite a technical
and abstract terminology for me to understand.

I'm sure much more experienced users would elucidate his meaning.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Nate,
I checked Cooper, -τος is the reading at:

[quote

I wonder what is the meaning of verbals in -TOS according to Cooper. It is quite a technical
and abstract terminology for me to understand.

I'm sure much more experienced users would elucidate his meaning.

Nate,

I think -TOS is a typo in Cooper, there are plenty of them. I think "verbals in -TOS" simply means verbal adjectives which belong to the class ending in -TOS, where I think we should read -TEOS. Makes more sense in the context, doesn't it? The expression "X in Y", where X is a grammatical category name and Y is a morphological ending is quite common in older New Testament Grammars.


C. Stirling Bartholomew

[C. S. Bartholomew]

I'm posting some sentences from Plato's Apology containing the same imperative
in different constructions, and I would like to see them being rated on some sort of an axis
according to Cooper's theory posted above.

(a) καὶ μέντοι καὶ πάνυ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦτο ὑμῶν δέομαι καὶ παρίεμαι· ἐὰν διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν λόγων ἀκούητέ μου ἀπολογουμένου δι᾽ ὧνπερ εἴωθα λέγειν καὶ ἐν ἀγορᾷ ἐπὶ τῶν τραπεζῶν, ἵνα (locative)
ὑμῶν πολλοὶ ἀκηκόασι, καὶ ἄλλοθι, μήτε θαυμάζειν μήτε θορυβεῖν τούτου ἕνεκα. (17c-d)

(b) καί μοι, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, μὴ θορυβήσητε, μηδ᾽ ἐὰν δόξω τι ὑμῖν μέγα λέγειν· (20e)

(c) —καί, ὅπερ λέγω, μὴ θορυβεῖτε, ὦ ἄνδρες— (21a)

(d) ὑμεῖς δέ, ὅπερ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ὑμᾶς παρῃτησάμην, μέμνησθέ μοι μὴ θορυβεῖν
ἐὰν ἐν τῷ εἰωθότι τρόπῳ τοὺς λόγους ποιῶμαι. (27a-b)

(e) ἀποκρινέσθω, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ μὴ ἄλλα καὶ ἄλλα θορυβείτω. (27b)

(f) μὴ θορυβεῖτε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐμμείνατέ μοι οἷς ἐδεήθην ὑμῶν,
μὴ θορυβεῖν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἂν λέγω ἀλλ᾽ ἀκούειν· (30c)

Nate,

I looked at these and other places Plato uses θορυβ-. We find θορυβ- in adjectives but I didn’t find any verbal adjectives in -TOS or -TEOS. The citations you provided illustrate that imperatival infinitive alternates with the finite verb imperative in similar scenarios. Cooper identifies this pattern (vol. 1:55.1.4.C p. 768) “The general equivalence of the infinitive to an imperative ... is shown by its frequent alternation with imperatives.”

Cooper claims that verbal adjectives in -TEOS do not freely alternate with the finite verb imperative. Again the the somewhat difficult citation from Cooper:

Furthermore imperatival infinitives and verbals in -TOS [-TEOS] do not alternate with one another freely when they are used as independent verbs. Rather, such alternation follows rigid patterns. If the period starts off with infinitives which are identified as imperatival by a leading expression, the verbals may subsequently take over, have the purpose of restating the imperatival idea which may be weakened in the infinitives by removal from their introductory expressions e.g. DEI. Or an infinitive without introductory expression my succeed to verbals in -TEOS (= DEI c. inf.) as a climax of moral intensity, the simple imperatival infinitive having an absolute imperatival color which is more powerfully authoritative than any other kind of imperative.

Your evidence from Plato's Apology supports one portion of Cooper's argument. But θορυβ- in -TEOS doesn't appear in Plato, or anywhere else according to LSJ (did I miss something?).

Thank you,

C. Stirling Bartholomew

PS - as close as I could come in TLG-E was a few instances of ἀθορύβητος but not in Plato. Got my 17 cents worth out of TLG-E today. Costs $60 a year.

LSJ
ἀθορύβητος
ἀθορύβ-ητος, ον,
undisturbed: τὸ-ητότατον tranquillity of mind, X.Ages.6.7.

[NateD26]

I've posted these instances mainly to ask how do they differ, if at all, from one another.
And also to see whether rephrasing them in a form a verbal adjective in -TEOS would
radically change their meaning, according to Cooper's view, which I still don't quite understand.

I do recall one verbal adjective in Plato's Apology but it wasn't of this verb, and I
cannot really find it. Maybe it was neuter plural with alpha elided.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

I've posted these instances mainly to ask how do they differ, if at all, from one another.
And also to see whether rephrasing them in a form a verbal adjective in -TEOS would
radically change their meaning, according to Cooper's view, which I still don't quite understand.

I do recall one verbal adjective in Plato's Apology but it wasn't of this verb, and I
cannot really find it. Maybe it was neuter plural with alpha elided.

Nate,

I found a citation form Plato Crit. in Cooper's discussion of verbals in -TEOS.

the verbal adj. ἀδικ-ητέον, LSJ:
one ought to do wrong, Pl.R.365e; φαμὲν ἑκόντας ἀ. εἶναι Id.Cri.49a.

Plato Phil., Crito
“Platonis opera, vol. 1”, Ed. Burnet, J.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1900, Repr. 1967.
Stephanus page 49, section a, line 4

ἐγὼ περὶ πολλοῦ ποιοῦμαι πείσας σε ταῦτα πράττειν, ἀλλὰ
μὴ ἄκοντος. ὅρα δὲ δὴ τῆς σκέψεως τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐάν σοι
ἱκανῶς λέγηται, καὶ πειρῶ ἀποκρίνεσθαι τὸ ἐρωτώμενον ᾗ
ἂν μάλιστα οἴῃ.
{ΚΡ.} Ἀλλὰ πειράσομαι.
{ΣΩ.} Οὐδενὶ τρόπῳ φαμὲν ἑκόντας ἀδικητέον εἶναι, ἢ
τινὶ μὲν ἀδικητέον τρόπῳ τινὶ δὲ οὔ; ἢ οὐδαμῶς τό γε
ἀδικεῖν οὔτε ἀγαθὸν οὔτε καλόν, ὡς πολλάκις ἡμῖν καὶ ἐν
τῷ ἔμπροσθεν χρόνῳ ὡμολογήθη; [ὅπερ καὶ ἄρτι ἐλέγετο]
ἢ πᾶσαι ἡμῖν ἐκεῖναι αἱ πρόσθεν ὁμολογίαι ἐν ταῖσδε ταῖς
ὀλίγαις ἡμέραις ἐκκεχυμέναι εἰσίν, καὶ πάλαι, ὦ Κρίτων,

Cooper argues that inclusion of the infinitive with the verbal adj. ἀδικητέον εἶναι demonstrates that the imperatival nature of the -TEOS was not totally sufficient to stand alone. The omission of the infinitive on following line τινὶ μὲν ἀδικητέον τρόπῳ follows that standard pattern of not repeating the complete idiom, where the second ἀδικητέον stands for ἀδικητέον εἶναι.

EINAI is called for simply to create a periphrastic infinitive in a place where a verbal adjective is not felt as an acceptable substitute for an imperatival infinitive.

I really had to read the examples to begin to understand his argument.

Thank you,

C. Stirling Bartholomew

[NateD26]

Alright, here are all the instances of verbal adjectives in -TEOS in Plato's Apology.
Again, my question is how much to they differ from imperatival infinitives.

(a) ἀπολογητέον δή, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ ἐπιχειρητέον ὑμῶν ἐξελέσθαι τὴν διαβολὴν
ἣν ὑμεῖς ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ ἔσχετε ταύτην ἐν οὕτως ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ. (18e-19a)

(b) ὅμως τοῦτο μὲν ἴτω ὅπῃ τῷ θεῷ φίλον, τῷ δὲ νόμῳ πειστέον καὶ ἀπολογητέον. (19a)

(c) —ἰτέον οὖν, σκοποῦντι τὸν χρησμὸν τί λέγει, ἐπὶ ἅπαντας τούς τι δοκοῦντας εἰδέναι. (21e)

Immediately afterwards, we have this sentence.

(*) καὶ νὴ τὸν κύνα, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι— δεῖ γὰρ πρὸς ὑμᾶς τἀληθῆ λέγειν—ἦ μὴν ἐγὼ ἔπαθόν τι τοιοῦτον·

Again, what had dictated Plato's choice in (c) of verbal adjective in -TEOS and then δεῖ + inf in (*)?
Are there underlying meanings present in one but not in the other or are they absolutely synonymous,
with only the desire of stylistic variety on Plato's mind?

(d) αἰσχύνομαι οὖν ὑμῖν εἰπεῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, τἀληθῆ· ὅμως δὲ ῥητέον. (22b)

[NateD26]

Cooper argues that inclusion of the infinitive with the verbal adj. ἀδικητέον εἶναι demonstrates that the imperatival nature of the -TEOS was not totally sufficient to stand alone. The omission of the infinitive on following line τινὶ μὲν ἀδικητέον τρόπῳ follows that standard pattern of not repeating the complete idiom, where the second ἀδικητέον stands for ἀδικητέον εἶναι.

EINAI is called for simply to create a periphrastic infinitive in a place where a verbal adjective is not felt as an acceptable substitute for an imperatival infinitive.

I really had to read the examples to begin to understand his argument.

I see. So he basically argued that the inclusion of the copula -- be it in its finite form in direct speech,
and its in infinitive one in indirect speech -- reduces the imperatival force of the verbal adjective,
essentially treating it as an adjective, rather than having the force of a finite verb.

You'll notice that in all the instances I've posted from Plato's Apolohy it is without the copula.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Alright, here are all the instances of verbal adjectives in -TEOS in Plato's Apology.
Again, my question is how much to they differ from imperatival infinitives.

{snip}

(c) —ἰτέον οὖν, σκοποῦντι τὸν χρησμὸν τί λέγει, ἐπὶ ἅπαντας τούς τι δοκοῦντας εἰδέναι. (21e)

Immediately afterwards, we have this sentence.

(*) καὶ νὴ τὸν κύνα, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι— δεῖ γὰρ πρὸς ὑμᾶς τἀληθῆ λέγειν—ἦ μὴν ἐγὼ ἔπαθόν τι τοιοῦτον·

Again, what had dictated Plato's choice in (c) of verbal adjective in -TEOS and then δεῖ + inf in (*)?
Are there underlying meanings present in one but not in the other or are they absolutely synonymous,
with only the desire of stylistic variety on Plato's mind?

(d) αἰσχύνομαι οὖν ὑμῖν εἰπεῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, τἀληθῆ· ὅμως δὲ ῥητέον. (22b)

Nate,

Plato's Apology.
[21ε] μοι ταὐτὰ ταῦτα ἔδοξε, καὶ ἐνταῦθα κἀκείνῳ καὶ ἄλλοις πολλοῖς ἀπηχθόμην.
μετὰ ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἤδη ἐφεξῆς ᾖα, αἰσθανόμενος μὲν καὶ λυπούμενος καὶ δεδιὼς ὅτι ἀπηχθανόμην, ὅμως δὲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐδόκει εἶναι τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ πλείστου ποιεῖσθαι—ἰτέον οὖν, σκοποῦντι τὸν χρησμὸν τί λέγει, ἐπὶ ἅπαντας τούς τι

This is my take on how Cooper might address this. The imperatival significance of -TEOS differs from the imperatival infinitive and finite imperatives in as much as -TEOS is not typically able to sustain the imperatival idea all on its own. It needs help. In your example the imperatival idea has already been introduced by ἐδόκει εἶναι before we encounter the verbal adjective ἰτέον which is linked to previous imperatival with οὖν, indicating a dependent relationship. So the imperatival idea (scenario) is already active and ἰτέον picks it up and runs with it.

thank you,

C. Stirling Bartholomew

[NateD26]

Nate,

Plato's Apology.
[21ε] μοι ταὐτὰ ταῦτα ἔδοξε, καὶ ἐνταῦθα κἀκείνῳ καὶ ἄλλοις πολλοῖς ἀπηχθόμην.
μετὰ ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἤδη ἐφεξῆς ᾖα, αἰσθανόμενος μὲν καὶ λυπούμενος καὶ δεδιὼς ὅτι ἀπηχθανόμην, ὅμως δὲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐδόκει εἶναι τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ πλείστου ποιεῖσθαι—ἰτέον οὖν, σκοποῦντι τὸν χρησμὸν τί λέγει, ἐπὶ ἅπαντας τούς τι

This is my take on how Cooper might address this. The imperatival significance of -TEOS differs from the imperatival infinitive and finite imperatives in as much as -TEOS is not typically able to sustain the imperatival idea all on its own. It needs help. In your example the imperatival idea has already been introduced by ἐδόκει εἶναι before we encounter the verbal adjective ἰτέον which is linked to previous imperatival with οὖν, indicating a dependent relationship. So the imperatival idea (scenario) is already active and ἰτέον picks it up and runs with it.

thank you,

C. Stirling Bartholomew

Interesting observation! Thanks for clearing that for me.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Nate,

Someone might raise the objection that Ajax 1140 is an example of a verbal adjective in -TEOS functioning as an alternative for an imperatival infinitive. Menelaus first command forbidding funeral rights/burial for the body of Ajax is found in 1047-1048 where it takes the form of an imperatival infinitive μὴ συγκομίζειν.


Ajax 1047-1048
{ΜΕΝΕΛΑΟΣ}
Οὗτος, σὲ φωνῶ, τόνδε τὸν νεκρὸν χεροῖν
μὴ συγκομίζειν, ἀλλ' ἐᾶν ὅπως ἔχει.

The dispute over the burial for Ajax includes several restatements of this initial prohibition.

Ajax 1062-1063
Ὧν οὕνεκ' αὐτὸν οὔτις ἔστ' ἀνὴρ σθένων
τοσοῦτον ὥστε σῶμα τυμβεῦσαι τάφῳ,

Ajax 1089-1090
Καί σοι προφωνῶ τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν, ὅπως
μὴ τόνδε θάπτων αὐτὸς εἰς ταφὰς πέσῃς.

Ajax 1140
Ἕν σοι φράσω· τόνδ' ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον.

The prohibition in 1089 is another imperatival infinitive τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν. Cooper claims that imperatival infinitive is an emphatic imperative which may be supported by a restatement in form of a a verbal adjective in -TEOS. In this context we see several restatements and the refusal of burial rites for Ajax scenario is well established and still active when we encounter the verbal adjective in 1140. This sequence of development from the more explicit imperatival infinitive followed up and supported by a verbal adjective is one pattern that Cooper accounts for in his treatment.



C. Stirling Bartholomew

[NateD26]

The prohibition in 1089 is another imperatival infinitive τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν. Cooper claims that imperatival infinitive is an emphatic imperative which may be supported by a restatement in form of a a verbal adjective in -TEOS. In this context we see several restatements and the refusal of burial rites for Ajax scenario is well established and still active when we encounter the verbal adjective in 1140. This sequence of development from the more explicit imperatival infinitive followed up and supported by a verbal adjective is one pattern that Cooper accounts for in his treatment.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

So, according to Cooper, the verbal adjective in -TEOS can never stand on its own,
and must be dependent on a previous form of imperative, and he provides evidence from
Sophocles' Ajax. Does he provide other works as evidence for this treatment of verbal adjectives?

[C. S. Bartholomew]

The prohibition in 1089 is another imperatival infinitive τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν. Cooper claims that imperatival infinitive is an emphatic imperative which may be supported by a restatement in form of a a verbal adjective in -TEOS. In this context we see several restatements and the refusal of burial rites for Ajax scenario is well established and still active when we encounter the verbal adjective in 1140. This sequence of development from the more explicit imperatival infinitive followed up and supported by a verbal adjective is one pattern that Cooper accounts for in his treatment.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

So, according to Cooper, the verbal adjective in -TEOS can never stand on its own,
and must be dependent on a previous form of imperative, and he provides evidence from
Sophocles' Ajax. Does he provide other works as evidence for this treatment of verbal adjectives?

Nate,

It is not really that absolute, Cooper talks about patterns. He doesn't claim that -TEOS can never stands on its own. This is similar to how descriptive linguists, people like Iver Larsen (Demnark, East Africa) do their work. They look at patterns within the corpus. Cooper doesn't claim to be a linguist but he makes some similar moves. Cooper claims that there are some fairly predicable tendencies in syntax of -TEOS verbal adjectives. He gives plenty of examples and tries to cover most of the exceptions. Thats why his book is 3500 pages about 20-25% of which are index to the citations from the corpus.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

[NateD26]

Hi, CSB.

I've found this note in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy Vol. 3, of which I only have a limited preview:

18. The gerundives express moral or prudential necessity, not psychological necessity.
See Taylor pp. 189-90; Dyson p. 33.

Can you please explain what exactly is psychological necessity?

Also, I'd love to know the full names of the authors and the books referred to in this note.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Hi, CSB.

I've found this note in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy Vol. 3, of which I only have a limited preview:

18. The gerundives express moral or prudential necessity, not psychological necessity.
See Taylor pp. 189-90; Dyson p. 33.

Can you please explain what exactly is psychological necessity?

Also, I'd love to know the full names of the authors and the books referred to in this note.

Nate,

I'm clueless about Ancient Greek Philosophy. The distinction "moral or prudential necessity, not psychological necessity" doesn't exist in the frameworks I am familiar with.

CSB

[NateD26]

Thanks, CSB. It's also very difficult to understand to what quote he referred to and assess the role
of the gerundive in it because that page is not viewable (at least from my location).

I get mixed results when searching for definition of psychological necessity. From what I could
find, Jung wrote about it in relation to the survival of a baby, who clutch to and feel safest with the
first adult he/she encounter, usually the mother. Apparently, it's the child psychological survival
instinct that lead him/her to do so.

When a father prohibits his child from doing something, is it a prudent necessity, falling in line
with the father's moral view, or something stemming from the need to keep the child alive?
I guess that would largely depend on the content of said prohibition.

The way Smyth presents δεῖ in §933b suggests it is an ought that binds you and it wouldn't be merely
prudent to do or not do something, but an absolute necessity, thereby not differing from a
regular imperative or prohibition.

In which case,

δεῖ σε μὴ ταῦτα ποιεῖν
κελεύω σε μὴ ταῦτα ποιεῖν
ταῦτά σοι οὐ ποιητέον

don't seem to have much difference between them. Or maybe I'm oversimplifying things.