Plb. 6.10.2
- pster
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
- Location: Magna Graecia
Plb. 6.10.2
ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἕκαστα τῶν προειρημένων συννοήσας ἀναγκαίως καὶ φυσικῶς ἐπιτελούμενα καὶ συλλογισάμενος ὅτι πᾶν εἶδος πολιτείας ἁπλοῦν καὶ κατὰ μίαν συνεστηκὸς δύναμιν ἐπισφαλὲς γίνεται διὰ τὸ ταχέως εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν καὶ φύσει παρεπομένην ἐκτρέπεσθαι κακίαν...
That statesman was fully aware that all those changes which I have enumerated come about by an undeviating law of nature; and reflected that every form of government that was unmixed, and rested on one species of power, was unstable; because it was swiftly perverted into that particular form of evil peculiar to it and inherent in its nature...
This participle looks like it is intransitive. So why is it first perfect and not second perfect? Polybius actually uses both forms in these pages. In another location, he uses the second perfect participle intransitively. LSJ give both forms alas without much elaboration of their differences. Mastronarde doesn't list this first perfect form explicitly, but on second reading he does leave room for it. It seems that the differences should follow those for the two aorists.
That statesman was fully aware that all those changes which I have enumerated come about by an undeviating law of nature; and reflected that every form of government that was unmixed, and rested on one species of power, was unstable; because it was swiftly perverted into that particular form of evil peculiar to it and inherent in its nature...
This participle looks like it is intransitive. So why is it first perfect and not second perfect? Polybius actually uses both forms in these pages. In another location, he uses the second perfect participle intransitively. LSJ give both forms alas without much elaboration of their differences. Mastronarde doesn't list this first perfect form explicitly, but on second reading he does leave room for it. It seems that the differences should follow those for the two aorists.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
The first perfect participle of ἵστημι is ἑστηκώς, ἑστηκῶσα, ἑστηκός. See synopsis at Smyth 420. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ythp%3D420
The second perfect participle of ἵστημι is ἑστώς, ἑστῶσα, ἑστός. Smyth 417. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ythp%3D417
The second perfect is generally intransitive. The first perfect is intransitive in the meaning "to stand," but can be used transitively in the meaning "to set." See LSJ ἵστημι I : http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 28%2Fsthmi
See also Smyth 819. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0007
συνεστηκὸς is first perfect and transitive.
I can't understand how anyone could possibly be confused by this.
(Confession: I had to look this up. I think I've figured it out.)
The second perfect participle of ἵστημι is ἑστώς, ἑστῶσα, ἑστός. Smyth 417. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ythp%3D417
The second perfect is generally intransitive. The first perfect is intransitive in the meaning "to stand," but can be used transitively in the meaning "to set." See LSJ ἵστημι I : http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 28%2Fsthmi
See also Smyth 819. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0007
συνεστηκὸς is first perfect and transitive.
I can't understand how anyone could possibly be confused by this.
(Confession: I had to look this up. I think I've figured it out.)
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
- Contact:
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
One would be confused by this seeing that ἵστημι is a μι verb, and if it has two distinct perfects,Qimmik wrote:I can't understand how anyone could possibly be confused by this.
(Confession: I had to look this up. I think I've figured it out.)
one would be forgiven in assuming that κ would not be the mark of its "1st perfect".
But thanks for taking the time of correcting my mistake, and linking the relevant sections.
In most places I've stumbled into, however, ἑστηκώς has intransitive present meaning of "to stand".
Nate.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
In compound verbs, I think, where the meaning is less literal, it's more likely to function as a true transitive perfect.In most places I've stumbled into, however, ἑστηκώς has intransitive present meaning of "to stand".
- pster
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
- Location: Magna Graecia
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
a) I'm sorry. I don't know where in that LSJ entry you are pointing. Roman numeral I covers the transitive meaning. Where is the intransitive for the first perfect covered? Can you just cut and paste the relevant bit?Qimmik wrote:
The second perfect is generally intransitive. The first perfect is intransitive in the meaning "to stand," but can be used transitively in the meaning "to set." See LSJ ἵστημι I
b) What about Polybius? 1st perfect but intransitive?
Last edited by pster on Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
- pster
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
- Location: Magna Graecia
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
I don't follow. kappa is the usual mark of 1st perfects, so why would one forgive somebody who does not assume that?NateD26 wrote: one would be forgiven in assuming that κ would not be the mark of its "1st perfect"
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
- Contact:
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
Why do you read and quote just half of the sentence?pster wrote:I don't follow. kappa is the usual mark of 1st perfects, so why would one forgive somebody who does not assume that?NateD26 wrote: one would be forgiven in assuming that κ would not be the mark of its "1st perfect"
If it's a mi verb, I would assume its perfect does not have kappa, hence why I assumed
its 1st perfect is kappa-less, and its 2nd is not.
Nate.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
I made a mistake. συνεστηκὸς is first perfect but intransitive in meaning, based on the meaning "to stand" of perfect ἕστηκα. I didn't see κατὰ.What about Polybius? 1st perfect but intransitive?
- pster
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
- Location: Magna Graecia
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
Why does it matter that it is an mi verb? The perfect form is not an mi form. And as it turns out, mi forms all have kappa in the pefect anyway. Maybe it is me, but I have no idea what you are thinking.NateD26 wrote:Why do you read and quote just half of the sentence?pster wrote:I don't follow. kappa is the usual mark of 1st perfects, so why would one forgive somebody who does not assume that?NateD26 wrote: one would be forgiven in assuming that κ would not be the mark of its "1st perfect"
If it's a mi verb, I would assume its perfect does not have kappa, hence why I assumed
its 1st perfect is kappa-less, and its 2nd is not.
- pster
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
- Location: Magna Graecia
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
Can you cut and paste the part of LSJ that you found enlightening?Qimmik wrote:I made a mistake. συνεστηκὸς is first perfect but intransitive in meaning, based on the meaning "to stand" of perfect ἕστηκα. I didn't see κατὰ.What about Polybius? 1st perfect but intransitive?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
I read misread the passage as καὶ μίαν συνεστηκὸς δύναμιν, which could mean "having firmly established a single source of power" rather than "standing [or resting] firmly on a single source of power."also ἕστηκα (v. infr.) in trans. sense,
- pster
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
- Location: Magna Graecia
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
OK, so then we don't really have any LSJ passage to substantiate reading it intransitively? Is that correct?Qimmik wrote:I read misread the passage as καὶ μίαν συνεστηκὸς δύναμιν, which could mean "having firmly established a single source of power" rather than "standing [or resting] firmly on a single source of power."also ἕστηκα (v. infr.) in trans. sense,
I actually think you are right, but I just want to get clear on what we know.
You were the first to impress upon me that Polybius isn't a very careful writer. And there is another passage where he uses both the active and the middle in the same way even though LSJ barely support his doing so. I noticed today that Walbank points out the possible tension, but then quickly moves onto more interesting puzzles.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
LSJ records the following uses of ἑστηκώς, the first perfect active participle of ἵστημι used in the intransitive present sense of "to stand":
part. ἑστώς (ἑστηκώς rare in early Gr., Hdt.2.126, Pl.Men.93d, Lg.802c, Arist. (infr. B.11.2), Alex.126.16, “εἱστηκότα” IG12.374.179)
ἵστημι II.1 (in the introductory morphological discussion); see also B.II.2 for the intransitive use, "to stand".
See also συνίστημι B.IV, and the morphological detail under B. B.IV is more or less the sense that is required in the Polybius passage, although perhaps the pre-verb συν- just distinguishes the verb from the literal sense of ἑστηκώς, "stand" or intensifies its meaning (that's what I tried to capture using "firmly").
Nate, you were right about this:
part. ἑστώς (ἑστηκώς rare in early Gr., Hdt.2.126, Pl.Men.93d, Lg.802c, Arist. (infr. B.11.2), Alex.126.16, “εἱστηκότα” IG12.374.179)
ἵστημι II.1 (in the introductory morphological discussion); see also B.II.2 for the intransitive use, "to stand".
See also συνίστημι B.IV, and the morphological detail under B. B.IV is more or less the sense that is required in the Polybius passage, although perhaps the pre-verb συν- just distinguishes the verb from the literal sense of ἑστηκώς, "stand" or intensifies its meaning (that's what I tried to capture using "firmly").
Nate, you were right about this:
In most places I've stumbled into, however, ἑστηκώς has intransitive present meaning of "to stand".
- pster
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
- Location: Magna Graecia
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
Thanks Qimmik. I was curious what ( meant. So I went to the archive.org version of LSJ which I guess is older. I think it is just a parenthesis. But they originally said, "part. ἑστώς (ἑστηκώς rare in the best writers Gr., Hdt.2.126, Pl.Men.93d..." Polybius I might understand, but Plato! Haha.
By my count, Thucydides uses the 2nd perfect participle twice and the 1st once.
By my count, Thucydides uses the 2nd perfect participle twice and the 1st once.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: Plb. 6.10.2
I suspect that usage fluctuated more than modern grammars and dictionaries suggest.
A modern English analogy: many English speakers, even educated speakers in everyday speech, use "laid," the preterite and past participle of transitive "lay", as the preterite and past participle of intransitive "lie," instead of "lay", "lain". Prescriptive grammars and usage manuals tell us that this is wrong, but there were no prescriptive textbooks available in Polybius' day to tell them that using the first perfect of ἵστημι intransitively (except for the indicative singular forms) was wrong. It didn't become "wrong" until grammars established "correct" usage, based on the "best" Attic authors.
Adding to the interchangeability of the transitive first perfect and intransitive second perfect forms must have been the absence of separate singular indicative second perfect forms of ἵστημι, for which the first perfect forms were used.
We might carry this discussion further by trying to discover in what contexts Polybius uses the second perfect forms, but that would be a waste of time better spent reading more Greek.
A modern English analogy: many English speakers, even educated speakers in everyday speech, use "laid," the preterite and past participle of transitive "lay", as the preterite and past participle of intransitive "lie," instead of "lay", "lain". Prescriptive grammars and usage manuals tell us that this is wrong, but there were no prescriptive textbooks available in Polybius' day to tell them that using the first perfect of ἵστημι intransitively (except for the indicative singular forms) was wrong. It didn't become "wrong" until grammars established "correct" usage, based on the "best" Attic authors.
Adding to the interchangeability of the transitive first perfect and intransitive second perfect forms must have been the absence of separate singular indicative second perfect forms of ἵστημι, for which the first perfect forms were used.
We might carry this discussion further by trying to discover in what contexts Polybius uses the second perfect forms, but that would be a waste of time better spent reading more Greek.