huilen wrote:αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ σίτου τάρφθεν δμῳαί τε καὶ αὐτή,
Why is the passive voice used here, instead of the middle?
huilen wrote:πασάων δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἥ γε κάρη ἔχει ἠδὲ μέτωπα,
S&H says that κάρη and μέτωπα are accusatives of specification. Could not be just direct objects of ἔχει?
huilen wrote:πασάων δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἥ γε κάρη ἔχει ἠδὲ μέτωπα,
Could not be just direct objects of ἔχει?
The second aorist in -ην is primarily intransitive and shows active inflection (as ἔστην stood). Many so-called passive forms are in fact merely intransitive aorists of active verbs, as ἐρρύην from ῥέω flow, κατεκλίνην from κατακλί_νω lie down, and do not differ in meaning from the aorists of deponent verbs, as ἐμάνην from μαίνομαι rage.
The aorists in -θην that are called passive are often active or middle in meaning, as ἥσθην took pleasure in from ἥδομαι, ᾐσχύνθην felt ashamed from αἰσχύ_νω disgrace, αἰσχύ_νομαι am ashamed; ὠργίσθην became angry from ὀργίζω anger.
Paul Derouda wrote:I don't think you would call τὴν σφαῖραν βάλλω accusative of specification/respect.
πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς is famous case of "accusative of respect": Achilles, swift with respect to his feet = swift-footed.
Anyway, I think you can really interprete this in two ways.
Qimmik wrote:I checked (admittedly rather casually) the Prendergast and Dunbar concordances to the Iliad and Odyssey, respectively. I found only one instance of a sigmatic aorist for the verb τέρπω: Od. 12.188:
ἀλλ᾽ ὅ γε τερψάμενος νεῖται καὶ πλείονα εἰδώς.
Forms based on roots taking the -ην aorist forms in the indicative otherwise prevail:
τερφθ-, ταρπ-, ταρφθ-
Do you think, Bill, there would have been a difference in meaning had Homer written
ἀλλ᾽ ὅ γε ταρφθεὶς νεῖται καὶ πλείονα εἰδώς.
The accusative is a form of defining or qualifying the verb.
A noun stands in the accusative when the idea it expresses is most immediately (in contrast to the dative) and most completely (in contrast to the genitive) under the influence of the verbal conception (in contrast to the nominative).
Paul Derouda wrote:EDIT: I see Victor got there before me. Anyway, I think you can really interprete this in two ways.
Markos wrote:Anyway, I think you can really interprete this in two ways.
You almost always can. You can always see Greek from several different angles of meta-language.
Qimmik wrote:If κάρη and μέτωπα are direct objects, ὑπερ must be a preposition (or more accurately a postposition), not a pre-verb in tmesis. In that case, ὑπερ ought to be accented ὕπερ, shouldn't it? The fact that editors accent it ὑπὲρ suggests that they consider it a direct object. This is one instance where the distinction between direct object and accusative of respect actually makes a difference in the printed text, if I'm not mistaken (which I could well be).
Allen (1917), von der Muehll (1945) and van Thiel (1991) all read ὑπὲρ, suggesting that they understand κάρη and μέτωπα as accusatives of respect, not direct objects.
Did you mean "suggests that they consider it a preverb in tmesis"?
Many later editors, though, do seem to accent ὑπὲρ, don't they? Confusingly for me, though, that includes Merry, whose note clearly indicates that he regards hyper as a postposition. Are we to see this simply as an oversight and he meant to write ὕπερ, or does he regard the intervening δ᾽ as something that would annul the need for a recessive accent?
Qimmik wrote:paroxytonization (to coin a word)
Paul Derouda wrote:Victor, which book do you actually mean by Merry? Merry-Riddell or the school commentary by Merry alone?
Qimmik wrote:I used money from a prize to buy the Monro and Merry school editions--my proudest possessions at 14--and I still have them after 53 years.
Paul Derouda wrote:Smyth doesn't mention anything about intervening words annulling the need for anastrophe. I suppose that Merry is just mistaken.
Ancient grammarians, and modern editors, disagree as to whether disyllabic prepositions and preverbs that receive an acute on the first syllable in anastrophe do so even when one or more words intervene between the word governed by the preposition/preverb and the preposition/preverb itself.
Qimmik wrote:But for me, the parallel to Il. 3.210 is very compelling, and I think that the idea in the Odyssey is that Artemis is taller than her companions, not that she holds her head higher. (The "holds her head higher" reading seems to me to trivialize the comparison.)
Victor wrote:I'm still siding with Stanford.
Paul Derouda wrote:Wait! What do mean "still"? Doesn't Standord actually agree with us, i.e. that it is a case of tmesis. "She overtops them etc.", not "hold her head etc"?
Concerning anastrophe, we read differing precepts and judgments of the grammarians in the scholia. Herodian's teaching carried more weight among those who followed him, but it shouldn't be accepted everywhere; for he established certain excessively artificial rules, such as that anastrophe doesn't occur if a particle or another word comes in between the noun and the postposition, or if the postposition is elided. These rules were unknown to Aristarchus, to Ptolemy [Ascalonites], and to Nicias. . . . Aristrarchus and his teacher Aristophanes [of Byzantium] were certainly closer to the living tradition of the rhapsodes, and moreover they had a better feeling for what the accents were, when their musical quality had not yet been converted into a stress quality.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ σίτου τάρφθεν δμῳαί τε καὶ αὐτή Why is the passive voice used here, instead of the middle?
πασάων δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἥ γε κάρη ἔχει ἠδὲ μέτωπα, S&H says that κάρη and μέτωπα are accusatives of specification. Could not be just direct objects of ἔχει?