Textkit Logo

Iliad,1, 137

Are you reading Homeric Greek or studying Homeric Greek with Pharr's Homeric Greek - A Book For Beginners? Here's where you can meet other Homeric Greek learners. Use this board for all things Homeric Greek.

Iliad,1, 137

Postby Bart » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:28 pm

I could wait no longer and jumped in. Especially the commentary by Karl Ameis is very helpful so far.
I have however a question about the following verse:

εἰ δέ κε μὴ δώωσιν ἐγὼ δέ κεν αὐτὸς ἕλωμαι

ἕλωμαι must be a subjunctive used instead of the future indicative; conjunctivus futuralis it is called in my Dutch grammar of Homeric Greek. But I'm not sure about δώωσιν: is it also a conjunctivus futuralis (sorry, I'm not familiar with the English term) or a subjunctive in the proteasis of a future more vivid conditional sentence. It seems to be somewhere in between.

Second question: is the use of the subjunctive for the future indicative restricted to Homer? I never encountered it in Atttic.
Bart
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Bart » Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:52 pm

Must be a future more vivid subjunctive. Draper made me hesitate, since she writes that both subjunctives should be read as futures.

Second question remains: is the use of the subjunctive as a future restricted to Homer?
Bart
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Paul Derouda » Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:53 pm

Well, you are asking difficult questions! I'm kind of weak with Greek conditional sentences. For me this seems natural, but I don't know why - it's just that I'm more familiar with Homeric Greek than with Attic. Other people will probably be able to articulate an answer and then I will learn something new too...

The Basel "Gesammtkommentar" has a word to say about κεν αὐτὸς ἕλωμαι: "Agamemnon betont seine Autonomie [...], formuliert die Drohung aber etwas vage: Der prospektive Konj. (im Hauptsatz fast nur bei Homer: SCHW. 2.310f.) ist Ausdruck einer subjektiven Erwartung, etwa: 'dann sollte ich mir wohl selbst nehmen'."

I suppose this is a sort of answer to your second question. SCHW. refers to a Greek grammar by Schwützer, Debrünner, Georgacas and Radt. I have never seen that book, perhaps you have access to that? (unfortunately the don't refer to Chantraine here, since the commentary is aimed at German speakers)

If that's the sort of thing you are asking, you'll have to get your Chantraine vol 2 pretty soon! (I didn't have the time to look there yet myself)

Ah, indeed - the Basel Gesammtkommentar are recent (rather expensive) commentaries in German on individual books of the Iliad. Since you are familiar with German, they are an alternative to the Oxford/Cambridge commentaries. So, if you still insist on getting more books, you might consider them... For each book that has a commentary, there is one volume with the Greek text (West's edition) + a translation and another volume with the commentary.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Bart » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:07 pm

Thanks, Paul. I like what the Basel Gesammtkommentar has to say about the subjunctive as future (prospektiver Konjunktivus); the concept makes sense when put in that way.
I wil refrain however -with some difficulty- from buying more books at least for the moment. Ameis is just the right level for what I need now.
Bart
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Paul Derouda » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:18 pm

Ameis is great; while the Gesamtkommentar is "based on Ameis-Hentze-Cauer" and is LOT thicker, the old Ameis actually manages to say so much more with so few words that it's really amazing. There's actually quite a lot in Ameis that has even been dropped out of the new Gesamtkommentar. Of course, Ameis is just a Grammar help, it doesn't include any discussion of realia.

By the way, are you using the Very Olde Ameis, or a later one revised by Hentze and then by Cauer?
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Qimmik » Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:32 am

Smyth discusses this.

1810:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+1810&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007

2327:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:id=s2327

1813:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+1813&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007

See also 1.324:

εἰ δέ κε μὴ δώῃσιν ἐγὼ δέ κεν αὐτὸς ἕλωμαι

(with δώῃσιν singular, now referring exclusively to Achilles).
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Bart » Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:52 am

Qimmik, thanks!

I downloaded Ameis from archive.org on my I-pad. I'm using this edition: https://archive.org/details/h1h4homersiliasfrd01home
It is revised by Hentze, but I do not see Cauer mentioned.

There is also a 'Anhang zu Homers Ilias' by Karl Ameis that I haven't looked into yet.
Bart
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Paul Derouda » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:04 am

I was just curious, I don't suppose it makes any real difference. It's just that I find it interesting that these books are so old but still very useful. The latest edition of books 1-3 is from 1913, funny they didn't put that into archive.org, though I don't really think it matters.

I think the Anhang is a collection of scholarly notes and much more outdated than the commentary itself.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Qimmik » Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:30 pm

Bart, many developments have occurred in Homeric studies since 1913--the oral formulaic theory, the recognition that Homeric language is a Kunstsprache (Meister), the analysis of type-scenes (Arendt), a better understanding of Greek history and pre-history, the history of the text, especially in light of the huge number of papyrus finds. Knowing something about these developments will enhance your experience of Homer.

While Ameis-Henze may still be useful, you may want to supplement it with Willcock's commentary, which, I think, dates from the 1970s, and/or the introductory volume to the new German "Basel" commentary, which has articles on a number of key developments, if you're not ready to plunge into the Cambridge commentary, which would run around USD $300 or more, or individual volumes of the Basel commentary, which are even more expensive even if you only buy all the volumes that are currently available. The Cambridge commentary includes articles on many aspects of recent Homeric scholarship, and if you're really serious about engaging with the Iliad, it's well worth the money. I don't have access to the new Basel commentary, and there's a limit to how much I'm willing to spend on Homer alone. (I did buy the Homer Encyclopedia, which is very expensive and has a lot of up to date information.)

One small (but nevertheless not cheap) book I would highly recommend is Jasper Griffin's Homer on Life and Death. It's a purely literary study--it refuses to engage with all of the extraneous (but in my view worthwhile) scholarly developments in Homeric studies and focuses almost exclusively on the meaning of the text--but in my experience it's one of the most illuminating discussions of Homer, primarily the Iliad.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Bart » Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:56 pm

I do not want to sound too much as a Karl Ameis cheerleader, but so far his commentary is very good indeed on grammar and syntax. I'm convinced however he is totally outdated in every other aspect and I do plan to engage with more up to date secundary literature. But this is a hobby and I have only a limited amount of time available to study Greek, so I have to set priorities. At the moment this means the actual text itself, and reading Greek, lots of it. I plan to read the Iliad from cover to cover, and although I do not exactly have a deadline, I would like to finish in a reasonable amount time, let's say a year or so. At my current reading speed I can read one book of the Iliad in approximately three weeks. That does not leave much time for anything else. Maybe I'll pick up speed as I progress, we'll see.

To be sure that I'm not completely stuck in a late 19th century mindset, I orderd Willcock's commentary. I'll let you know how it holds up to Ameis.
Bart
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Qimmik » Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:18 pm

"Maybe I'll pick up speed as I progress, we'll see."

You will. Definitely.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Qimmik » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:49 pm

I do not want to sound too much as a Karl Ameis cheerleader, but so far his commentary is very good indeed on grammar and syntax.


By 1913, most of the details of Homeric grammar and syntax had been thoroughly investigated--the results are collected in Chantraine's Grammaire. So Ameis-Henze should be reliable on those issues. Actually Monro's Homeric Grammar, which is dated 1891, is still useful.

https://archive.org/details/grammarofhomeric00monruoft

But the great upheaval in Homeric studies came about in the 1920-1930 timeframe, with Parry (1928), Meister (1921) and Arend (1930), among others. Much of the Homeric scholarship since then has consisted of an elaboration of these scholars' pathbreaking insights, which are not unrelated to one another. Some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milman_Parry

http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=ArticleWrapper&bdc=12&mn=4038

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Meister

http://www.deutsche-biographie.de/sfz60178.html

https://archive.org/details/diehomerischekun00meis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_scene

http://books.google.com/books?id=lEKOTzXocBkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Paul Derouda » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:03 pm

Qimmik wrote:Actually Monro's Homeric Grammar, which is dated 1891, is still useful.

I think the only thing that is really outdated there is the reconstruction of the history of the language. If ignore what Monro says about the historical morphology, then it's still a useful book.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Bart » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:43 pm

Your post reminds me how little I know about Homeric studies. Reading so far is a treat. Ameis together with Willcock solve most problems, I hardly ever have to take a look at a translation. However it is hard not to get distracted. A few days ago I got stuck on the word 'κεχαροίατο' (Iliad 256); Ameis-Hentze told me it is a reduplicated aorist. I checked my Dutch Homeric Grammar for such a relatively strange beast, changed to Smyth and ended being lost for hours in Chantraine's Morphologie historique du grec. And here you provide all these links to material that look both fascinating and essential. Oh well, Homer long, life too short, etcetera...
Bart
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Paul Derouda » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:06 pm

Bart wrote:Oh well, Homer long, life too short, etcetera...

Exactly! Having myself lost totally control with Homer I know what you are saying. That's why I've been recommending Ameis - because it does an astonishingly good job at providing just the help you need to understand the Greek without distracting you. Have you read the Iliad before in a living language? Especially if you have not, I think there's a point in trying to just read the Greek without bothering about the commentaries too much. That's not what I did, and I regret it a bit, because I didn't know about Ameis. You can always read the other stuff later, but you can read the Iliad in the original for the first time only once. There's not much point in reading Homer without reading about Homeric studies, but you don't have to do everything at once.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iliad,1, 137

Postby Bart » Sun Feb 23, 2014 10:14 am

I read parts of it in translation years ago. The original is way better though. Since I began reading I have Homeric hexameters echoing through my head all day long. Strong stuff.
Bart
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen


Return to Homeric Greek and Pharr's Homeric Greek - A Book For Beginners

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 15 guests