Odyssey - Book II - Use of imperfect

[Adelheid]

In the first 4 lines of book 2 of the Odyssey I see the use of imperfect and aorist, where I would only expect the use of the aorist:

ἦμος δ᾽ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς,

ὤρνυτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐξ εὐνῆφιν Ὀδυσσῆος φίλος υἱὸς

εἵματα ἑσσάμενος, περὶ δὲ ξίφος ὀξὺ θέτ᾽ ὤμῳ,

ποσσὶ δ᾽ ὑπὸ λιπαροῖσιν ἐδήσατο καλὰ πέδιλα,

ὤρνυτ᾽ is an imperfect , θέτ and ἐδήσατο are aorists. The aorists I can rationalise, the imperfect not so much. ὤρνυτ doesn't sound like a continuous action, serving as a backdrop for the following actions, or as as a habitual action. I would have expected it to be an aorist also.

I am stuck at this. Can anyone clarify? It will probably be very simple and cause some facepalming on my side, but I just don't SEE it.

[Adelheid]

Or does it convey that Telemachos usually got up at dawn?

[Paul Derouda]

It's a imperfect because it expresses the beginning of a action. The emphasis is not just in the jumping out of bed (where you would have an aorist), but in the whole process of getting up and being up as a result.

Often the difference between the aorist and the imperfect are really fine nuances and even good translations get them wrong. In this case I don't know if it matters in English, but in some cases it's relevant.

The imperfect has no iterative meaning per se; though you would use the imperfect for that, you also need some other indication that the action is repeated regularly. (like -σκ-: εφίζω -> εφίζεσκε)

[Adelheid]

I thought the aorist (inceptive/ingressive) was used to express the start of something? Then I would again expect an aorist here. If the ἐξ εὐνῆφιν would have been left out, it would have been easier to look at this as a kind of backdrop activity and therefore imperfect. To me, it just seems to be such a perfect candidate for an aorist ...

I know I could easily step over this and continue, but I am in the process of wanting to figure out exactly why imperfect or aorist is used.

[Paul Derouda]

For this use of the imperfect, see Monro Grammar of the Homeric dialect (http://archive.org/stream/grammarofhome ... 5/mode/2up), page 64, §72 (3). I'd usually consult Chantraine's Grammaire Homérique (volume 2), but I'm on a holiday trip and don't have access to it.

I might be totally wrong, but I'm not sure if the inceptive aorist is a Homeric usage at all. I couldn't find a mention in Monro (I wish I had my Chantraine!). Pharr at §1081 gives ἐδάκρυσε as an example, but that form doesn't actually occur in the whole Homeric corpus. With this verb, the only instance that I think just might be an inceptive aorist is 11.55 = 11.87 = 11.395

τὸν μὲν ἐγὼ δάκρυσα ἰδὼν ἐλέησά τε θυμῷ,

But I'd rather translate this "I wept" than "I began to weep".

I've actually thought about this before and haven't found a clear answer... Can anyone give a clear example of an inceptive aorist in Homer?

But anyway, with this "inceptive imperfect", the emphasis is the beginning of process.

[Adelheid]

OK, thanks, I have Monro on the shelf at home, will have a look later.

[Paul Derouda]

I'm back home and read the relevant chapter in Chantraine, vol. 2. There's not much discussion of this use of the imperfect, just a couple of words stating that "(imperfect is used) avec des verbes exprimant le développement d'un mouvement", i.e. with verbs denoting the development of a motion. As examples he gives ωρνυτο Il. 3.267 etc, αφιει Il. 1.25 etc., προιει Il. 1.326 etc., εζετο Il. 1.68 etc.

I guess the point with the imperfect instead of the aorist in ωρνυτο is that Homer doesn't want us to imagine Telemachus quicky jumping out of bed, realizing he's overslept - rather, the boy yawns, streches his arms and legs, says to himself "the early bird gets the worm", sits up, turns around, puts his feet on the floor and finally stands up from the bed. Ok, I'm overdoing it a bit but you get the point.

As for the other thing - I don't know what to think about Homer and the inceptive aorist. Chantraine doesn't mention it. Certainly there must be occasions where the aorist is correctly translated "began to...". But cases like εβασιλευσα "I became king", with verbs indication a state or condition, just sounds un-Homeric to me though I have nothing to back up my claim. For δάκρυσα I'm not really that sure anymore, it's really not comparable to εβασιλευσα. I cheched out 14 different translations of Od. 11.55 (English, French, Finnish, Swedish) all of which I think are good; 10 were consistent with "I wept" and 4 with "I broke into tears" - of which 2 in French and 2 in English, so apparently independently of each other.

The inceptive aorist is starting to haunt me so I'd be grateful if someone can help me out with this.

[Adelheid]

I had some comments on that when I was in the Pharr-b group here on Textkit, a long time ago. I will go through my notes tonight.

[Adelheid]

This is what I have in my Pharr-notes:

349. δακρύσας ἑτάρων ἄφαρ ἕζετο νόσφι λιασθείς
starting to cry sat down at once apart from his comrades falling down

Lesson Comments
The aorist participle δακρύσας in line 349 is a good example of an inceptive or ingressive aorist. See Smyth 1924, 1925


It always comes back to δακρύσας, it seems

[Paul Derouda]

I'm not sure if an aorist participle should be called an inceptive/ingressive aorist. But those must abound in Homer I guess.

I checked Smyth 1924: "The aorist of verbs whose present denotes a state or continued action, expresses the entrance into that state or the beginning of that action." Looking at the list at 1925, most of these ingressive aorists seem unhomeric to me. Maybe εβλεψα, εδακρυσα, εθαρσησα might work. Maybe I'll check those tomorrow.

[Paul Derouda]

I'm not sure if an aorist participle should be called an inceptive/ingressive aorist.

I was wrong about that. Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, doesn't object to participles being called inceptive/ingressive § 239-242.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ythp%3D239

He also gives a couple of Homeric examples:

HOM. Il. 3.259: “ῥίγησεν” (gave a shudder) “δ᾽ ὁ γέρων”. 11.546: “τρέσσε”, He took to flight.

So I guess I was also wrong about the inceptive aorist not being Homeric, at least in large part. But I maintain that most of the examples given in Smyth would be wrong in Homer. I still think there must be some difference in usage I can't pinpoint.

Sorry if I have mixed you up even more, this hasn't anything to do with the original question anymore. The exact use of aorist and imperfect is in my opinion one of the single most difficult quirks in Homer, so don't be discouraged too much.

[Adelheid]

Well, I will just trod on then and finally get me through Book 2.

Thanks!

[Paul Derouda]

It's a imperfect because it expresses the beginning of a action. The emphasis is not just in the jumping out of bed (where you would have an aorist), but in the whole process of getting up and being up as a result.

I've been thinking about this and did some study, and I think what I said here is misleading. The point with the imperfect here is not the beginning of a an action per se, but that the action takes some time or that the action is undelimited. Monro says that ὤρνυτ᾽ here is imperfect because it expresses the "beginning of a motion"; but the idea of "beginning" is just incidental; the real point is that the motion is not punctual, it's not like Telemachus was first lying fast asleep and the next second up standing, but that that it's a more gradual process. When you render the imperfect in English, sometimes you have to say "began to x"; but this is not a punctual, even instaneous, change of state like with an inceptive aorist.