Qimmik wrote:We don't know anything about the history of the Sappho papyrus, so let's not rush to judgment.
Qimmik wrote:I wonder whether ZPE demanded that the paper be pulled from the internet.
Qimmik wrote:"taking aergh as acc of resp seems typical to me"
But it still leaves tan kefalan as a direct object without a verb. Wouldn't the acc. of aerghs (if that's the word) be uncontracted aergea in Lesbian, which would be metrically impossible?
Qimmik wrote: Wouldn't the acc. of aerghs (if that's the word) be uncontracted aergea in Lesbian, which would be metrically impossible?
Qimmik wrote:τὰν κεφάλαν ἀέργη Λάριχος
Λάριχος is nominative, so ἀέργη can't modify Λάριχος. It might modify τὰν κεφάλαν, but that leaves τὰν κεφάλαν ἀέργη without a syntactic function in the sentence, and why καὶ?.
Qimmik wrote:"Why couldn't τὰν κεφάλαν ἀέργη as a whole modify Λάριχος?" I can't say that such a construction -- an accusative modifying a noun in the nominative -- exists nowhere in Greek, but I don't think I've ever seen such a construction.
Qimmik wrote:Wouldn't µεγάλων be masc./neut. while the feminine form would be μεγαλᾶν ( ᾶ < ά + ων)?
cb wrote:it would make sense if sappho was saying to put that bloody ship out of our minds, i.e. τάν functioning as a fem sg demonstrative referring back to the ship in the first strophe (and the article can replace the demonstrative in sappho: see pg 12 of my notes summarising lobel 1927 pg 63), with κεφάλαν in the gen pl. i realised assuming τάν is the same as κεφάλαν is not necessary, see my summary of the use of the definite article in sappho on pg 11 of the notes. as if she was saying in attic about the ship something similar to, ἔα χαίρειν αὐτήν! and stop talking to us about it...
who knows. i'll wait for someone else to figure this out! cheers, chad
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 29 guests