C. S. Bartholomew wrote:On the other hand, all the seven translations at my disposal choose ζήω/ζάω for this context. It seems to me that semantic range of ζέω fits the context fairly well. So I am assuming that the pres subj act 3rd pl was deemed unworkable in this context.
Paul Derouda wrote:810-813
πρῶτον μὲν Ἄργος καὶ θεοὺς ἐγχωρίους
δίκη προσειπεῖν, τοὺς ἐμοὶ μεταιτίους
νόστου δικαίων θ᾽ ὧν ἐπραξάμην πόλιν
Πριάμου
822-823 (according to Sommerstein/Loeb):
ἐπείπερ ἁρπαγὰς ὑπερκόπους
ἐπραξάμεσθα
701-705
τραπέζας ἀτί-
μωσιν ὑστέρῳ χρόνῳ
καὶ ξυνεστίου Διὸς
πρασσομένα τὸ νυμφότι-
μον μέλος ἐκφάτως τίοντας,
On 812, R-T says πράσσομαι is constructed with one accusative of the justice exacted (i.e. punishment) and another of the offender. But here because of attraction to the antecedent we have a genitive δικαίων ἅ -> δικαίων ὧν for the punishment.
However, in 822-823, πράσσομαι is constructed with an accusative of the offence (not the punishment) and similarly 701-705 has two accusatives, one of the offence (again, not the punishment), the other of the offenders.
Somehow, I would have expected a genitive for the offense. I suppose it's impossible to construct a sentence like 'they made him pay with his life for his crimes' with a triple accusative, you would have to make use of a pronoun (see LSJ). With accusatives, you have to choose either the offense or the punishment, you can't express both.
Paul Derouda wrote:I wasn't really expecting or judging anything... Just observing like you say, I wanted to point a usage I found interesting and a bit surprising. By looking at the examples at LSJ, it seems that both accusative of the punishment and accusative of the offense are current with this verb, so it's not limited to Aeschylus. Just something I thought worth of notice... The fact that I said I would have expected the genitive was just giving the reason I found this interesting.
You know there's something that's goin' on here,
That surely, surely, surely won't stand the light of day. D. Crosby, 1968
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:δίκη is a pet word of Aeschylus, frankly I cringe every time I see it since it supports the notion that Aeschylus is all caught up in an obsession with abstract political ideology, statecraft and so forth. Perhaps δίκη is to Aeschylus what "freedom" is to the White House. A word you just bandy around when you are making excuses for something that will not stand the light of day[1].
Makes me want to run back to Sophocles or Euripides.
NateD26 wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:δίκη is a pet word of Aeschylus, frankly I cringe every time I see it since it supports the notion that Aeschylus is all caught up in an obsession with abstract political ideology, statecraft and so forth. Perhaps δίκη is to Aeschylus what "freedom" is to the White House. A word you just bandy around when you are making excuses for something that will not stand the light of day[1].
Makes me want to run back to Sophocles or Euripides.
I love this hypothesis.
Paul Derouda wrote:
What's difficult here is that Agamemnon is saying this and he isn't exactly a saint
Paul Derouda wrote:Ah, forgot to ask: what does "marked for stative aspect" mean?
Once I read about a theory that Proto-Indo-European was an active-stative language. I didn't fully understand what it meant. Does it have anything to do with that?
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Aorist according to some aspectologists is the unmarked aspect. It is what an author used by default.
Paul Derouda wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Aorist according to some aspectologists is the unmarked aspect. It is what an author used by default.
That sounds plausible at least diachronically, when you think about the fact that the present forms are often extended compared to the aorist forms (e.g. λαμβάνω - λάβον [dispensing with the augment]). But is this still true in Aeschylus' time?
I think this is the sort of situation where you can never be exactly sure unless you have some additional evidence, because concrete meanings tend to evolve into abstract ones.C. S. Bartholomew wrote:851-854
νῦν δ’ ἐς μέλαθρα καὶ δόμους ἐφεστίους
ἐλθὼν θεοῖσι πρῶτα δεξιώσομαι,
οἵπερ πρόσω πέμψαντες ἤγαγον πάλιν.
νίκη δ’ ἐπείπερ ἕσπετ’, ἐμπέδως μένοι.
δεξιώσομαι: is this a metaphor, meaning simply a greeting? D-P doesn't agree with LSJ's raise the hand in greeting.
νίκη δ’ ἐπείπερ ἕσπετ’: not sure if ἐπείπερ is causative, resultive or what? Something like: seeing that victory has followed [me] let it remain not failing. Aeschylus seems to be cranking up the irony here, laying it on thick. Not sure how to optative μένοι functions in this sentence.
Paul Derouda wrote:810-813
πρῶτον μὲν Ἄργος καὶ θεοὺς ἐγχωρίους
δίκη προσειπεῖν, τοὺς ἐμοὶ μεταιτίους
νόστου δικαίων θ᾽ ὧν ἐπραξάμην πόλιν
Πριάμου
822-823 (according to Sommerstein/Loeb):
ἐπείπερ ἁρπαγὰς ὑπερκόπους
ἐπραξάμεσθα
701-705
τραπέζας ἀτί-
μωσιν ὑστέρῳ χρόνῳ
καὶ ξυνεστίου Διὸς
πρασσομένα τὸ νυμφότι-
μον μέλος ἐκφάτως τίοντας,
On 812, R-T says πράσσομαι is constructed with one accusative of the justice exacted (i.e. punishment) and another of the offender. But here because of attraction to the antecedent we have a genitive δικαίων ἅ -> δικαίων ὧν for the punishment.
However, in 822-823, πράσσομαι is constructed with an accusative of the offence (not the punishment) and similarly 701-705 has two accusatives, one of the offence (again, not the punishment), the other of the offenders.
Somehow, I would have expected a genitive for the offense. I suppose it's impossible to construct a sentence like 'they made him pay with his life for his crimes' with a triple accusative, you would have to make use of a pronoun (see LSJ). With accusatives, you have to choose either the offense or the punishment, you can't express both.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests