Textkit Logo

Odyssey, Book 4

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.

Odyssey, Book 4

Postby huilen » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:32 pm

Hi everybody,

I come with less questions, proportionally, than the other times, but you won't note it, because the fourth Book is much larger :P

20. τὼ δ᾽ αὖτ᾽ ἐν προθύροισι δόμων αὐτώ τε καὶ ἵππω,
21. Τηλέμαχός θ᾽ ἥρως καὶ Νέστορος ἀγλαὸς υἱός,

A) Which does αὖτε mean here? They have just arrived at Menelaus for the first time, so "again/back" doesn't make sense. Is there any other read that I am missing?

24. βῆ δ᾽ ἴμεν ἀγγελέων διὰ δώματα ποιμένι λαῶν,

B) I've seen βῆν + inf. many times and I have always treated it as if it were an "inchoative imperfect". I wonder whether the meaning would be the same if I replace it with the imperfect εἶσιν: εἶσιν ἀγγελέων διὰ δώματα ποιμένι λαῶν.
EDIT: not εἶσιν, I meant ἦιε.
I ask this because one of the things that confussed me most for a long time about the imperfect was it's inchoative use, because in Spanish the imperfect is very similar in many aspects to the Greek imperfect, but differs in that it hasn't any inchoative force: instead, a periphrastic form is used, just like "began to + inf." in English. So, I wonder if the Greek βῆν + inf. is the periphastic form with which I am more familiarized to express the inchoative aspect.

36. ξείνων, ἐς δ᾽ αὐτοὺς προτέρω ἄγε θοινηθῆναι.

C) There are two ways in which I can take it:
1) αὐτούς is the object of ἄγε and ἐς is in tmesis: "lead them into the house that they may eat".
2) [τινα] θοινηθῆναι is the object and ἐς δ᾽ αὐτούς is expressing to which the food must be carried: "lead to them [something] to eat".
I'd like to know if the "ambiguity" exists or if there is some grammar mark that I'm missing which makes only one of these reads possible.

57. δαιτρὸς δὲ κρειῶν πίνακας παρέθηκεν ἀείρας

D) Should I take κρειῶν with δαιτρός (as the caesura might suggest?) or with πίνακας?
I am not sure if δαιτρός means just "a carver" (of anything) or has the specific meaning of "carver of meat", and then κρειῶν would be redundant and should be read κρειῶν πίνακας.

78. τέκνα φίλ᾽, ἦ τοι Ζηνὶ βροτῶν οὐκ ἄν τις ἐρίζοι:
79. ἀθάνατοι γὰρ τοῦ γε δόμοι καὶ κτήματ᾽ ἔασιν:
80. ἀνδρῶν δ᾽ ἤ κέν τίς μοι ἐρίσσεται, ἠὲ καὶ οὐκί,

E) I couldn't figure out the meaning of the last verse until I saw a translation, so now I'd like to know to which construction of the subjunctive + κεν would this sentence belong.

85. καὶ Λιβύην, ἵνα τ᾽ ἄρνες ἄφαρ κεραοὶ τελέθουσι.
86. τρὶς γὰρ τίκτει μῆλα τελεσφόρον εἰς ἐνιαυτόν.

F) Maybe my ignorance regarding to farm issues is joined here to my ignorance in Greek. The lambs become horned quickly, which means that they are strong, I suppose. But I don't see how the second verse with γάρ explains this.

203. τὸν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη ξανθὸς Μενέλαος:
204. ‘ὦ φίλ᾽, ἐπεὶ τόσα εἶπες, ὅσ᾽ ἂν πεπνυμένος ἀνὴρ
205. εἴποι καὶ ῥέξειε, καὶ ὃς προγενέστερος εἴη:
206. τοίου γὰρ καὶ πατρός, ὃ καὶ πεπνυμένα βάζεις,
207. ῥεῖα δ᾽ ἀρίγνωτος γόνος ἀνέρος ᾧ τε Κρονίων
208. ὄλβον ἐπικλώσῃ γαμέοντί τε γεινομένῳ τε,
209. ὡς νῦν Νέστορι δῶκε διαμπερὲς ἤματα πάντα
210. αὐτὸν μὲν λιπαρῶς γηρασκέμεν ἐν μεγάροισιν,
211. υἱέας αὖ πινυτούς τε καὶ ἔγχεσιν εἶναι ἀρίστους.
212. ἡμεῖς δὲ κλαυθμὸν μὲν ἐάσομεν, ὃς πρὶν ἐτύχθη,
213. δόρπου δ᾽ ἐξαῦτις μνησώμεθα, χερσὶ δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ὕδωρ
214. χευάντων. μῦθοι δὲ καὶ ἠῶθέν περ ἔσονται
215. Τηλεμάχῳ καὶ ἐμοὶ διαειπέμεν ἀλλήλοισιν.'

G) What is explaining ἐπεί at 204? One explanation I found is that ἐπεί is parenthetical and explains the addressing ὦ φίλε: "O dear (I call you dear because you spoke thus...)", but I'm not sure.

208. ὄλβον ἐπικλώσῃ γαμέοντί τε γεινομένῳ τε,

H) Is γεινομένῳ referring to his fortune as a father (because he beget good children) or as a son (because of his good birth)? I'm not sure if γείνομαι could be causative here and mean "to beget", which could have sense here after γαμέοντι.

343. ἐξ ἔριδος Φιλομηλεΐδῃ ἐπάλαισεν ἀναστάς,

I) How would you translate ἐξ ἔριδος here? I don't know which use of ἐκ is this.

359. ἐς πόντον βάλλουσιν, ἀφυσσάμενοι μέλαν ὕδωρ.

J) Which is the meaning of ἀφυσσάμενοι μέλαν ὕδωρ?
LSJ gives the meaning of "to draw water for oneself" (middle). Should I understand then that they carried water for themselves to drink? But if it is water to drink, then the adjective μέλας wouldn't make sense, does it?

367. ἥ μ᾽ οἴῳ ἔρροντι συνήντετο νόσφιν ἑταίρων:

K) I couldn't explain this imperfect.

420. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε κεν δή σ᾽ αὐτὸς ἀνείρηται ἐπέεσσι,
421. τοῖος ἐὼν οἷόν κε κατευνηθέντα ἴδησθε,
422. καὶ τότε δὴ σχέσθαι τε βίης λῦσαί τε γέροντα,
423. ἥρως, εἴρεσθαι δέ, θεῶν ὅς τίς σε χαλέπτει,
424. νόστον θ᾽, ὡς ἐπὶ πόντον ἐλεύσεαι ἰχθυόεντα.

L) I'm not sure about how should be expressed an action which is complete in the future, as it is the case of ἴδησθε at 421. Eidothea is giving the instructions to Menelaus of how he should approach Proteus. She explains him that he must wait until Proteus returns to his original form, the form in which he will see him first. She refers to an action A that will occur prior to a future action B. Is the subjunctive always used for this kind of construction? I didn't find anything about this application of the subjunctive in Smyth's grammar.
Just for my own clarification:
A = to see Proteus the first time
B = to see Proteus the second time
You must wait until you see (B) him in the form in which you will have seen (A) him first.
Where A and B are actions that will occur both in the future.
I don't know if I am using the proper tense in English, "will have". In Latin I would expect the future perfect.

ἢ γάρ μιν ζωόν γε κιχήσεαι, ἤ κεν Ὀρέστης
κτεῖνεν ὑποφθάμενος, σὺ δέ κεν τάφου ἀντιβολήσαις.

M) Which construction is this? Is here the same question as in L? κτεῖνεν is referring to an action complete in the future. But instead of the subjunctive as in L, here is used an indicative past tense with κε. "You'll find him alive, or Orestes may have slain him by this time".

597. αἰνῶς γὰρ μύθοισιν ἔπεσσί τε σοῖσιν ἀκούων

N) Which would be the difference between ἔπος and μῦθος?

611. αἵματός εἰς ἀγαθοῖο, φίλον τέκος, οἷ᾽ ἀγορεύεις:

O) How is οἷ᾽ ἀγορεύεις connected with the rest of the sentence?

625. μνηστῆρες δὲ πάροιθεν Ὀδυσσῆος μεγάροιο
626. δίσκοισιν τέρποντο καὶ αἰγανέῃσιν ἱέντες
627. ἐν τυκτῷ δαπέδῳ, ὅθι περ πάρος, ὕβριν ἔχοντες.

P) What does ὅθι περ πάρος means? "Where they [were] before"? Before what?

659. μνηστῆρας δ᾽ ἄμυδις κάθισαν καὶ παῦσαν ἀέθλων.

Q) Should not be μνηστῆρες in the nominative? If not, which is the subject?

667. ἄρξει καὶ προτέρω κακὸν ἔμμεναι: ἀλλά οἱ αὐτῷ

R) One of the suitors said that about Telemachus. Because, contrary to their expectations, Telemachus had sailed away in search of his father. What does καὶ προτέρω means?

672. ὡς ἂν ἐπισμυγερῶς ναυτίλλεται εἵνεκα πατρός.

S) Which construction is this with the present indicative + ἄν?

684. μὴ μνηστεύσαντες μηδ᾽ ἄλλοθ᾽ ὁμιλήσαντες
685. ὕστατα καὶ πύματα νῦν ἐνθάδε δειπνήσειαν:

T) How should I take the participles with the optative of wish? "May they take their last meal, without courting or gathering together [any more]"?

U) Is there any difference between ὕστατα and πύματα?

690. οὔτε τινὰ ῥέξας ἐξαίσιον οὔτε τι εἰπὼν
691. ἐν δήμῳ, τ᾽ ἐστὶ δίκη θείων βασιλήων:

V) ἥ at 691 is referring to a sentence (690) as if it were any other noun. Usually, this sentence should be referred with a neuter pronoun, not feminine, right? But in this case, there is a noun in apposition, δίκη, which is feminine. Is in these situations the genre of the pronoun assimilated by the noun in apposition, as it seems to happen here?

692. ἄλλον κ᾽ ἐχθαίρῃσι βροτῶν, ἄλλον κε φιλοίη.

W) I didn't understand the sense of this verse at all.

693. κεῖνος δ᾽ οὔ ποτε πάμπαν ἀτάσθαλον ἄνδρα ἐώργει.

X) Is there any reason for using the pluperfect instead of the aorist here? If I replace it with an aorist, would I be modifying the sense in any way?

710. ἦ ἵνα μηδ᾽ ὄνομ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀνθρώποισι λίπηται;

Y) Is this an elliptical purpose clause? ἦ [ἔσσεται] ἵνα... "Or things will be that not even his name will remain?".

747. μὴ πρὶν σοὶ ἐρέειν, πρὶν δωδεκάτην γε γενέσθαι

The nurse excuses herself with Penelope for not saying her anything about the depart of Telemachus, explaining that he bid her to not tell nothing to her mother until the twefth [day?] should come. But δωδεκάτην is feminine, and ἦμαρ neuter. Is there any other implicit noun that could be go with δωδεκάτην here?

Z) number of verse. doubtful form => expected form

112. γεγαῶτα => γεγῶτα
237. διδοῖ (pres. ind.) => δίδωσι
314. ἐνίσπες (imperat.) => ἐνίσπε
350. μεμαῶτα => μεμαότα
721. γόοωσα => γόωσα
758. σχέθε => ἔσχε
806. ἀκάχησθαι => ἀκάχεσθαι (as in 2nd. aor: ἰδέσθαι)
Last edited by huilen on Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
huilen
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:19 pm
Location: Argentina

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby Paul Derouda » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:12 am

Textkit destroyed my first post, so I wrote a second one much more quickly.

By the way, book 4 is one of my favorites. It's not a wonderfully balanced composition like the first book of the Iliad, but it's nice in a sympathetic way. I especially like Menelaus' encounter with the old man of the sea.

A) αὖτε "on the other hand" – change of subject.

B) I think this is quite similar to "began to + inf.". Note that εἶσιν is present; but ἦιε ἀγγελέων διὰ δώματα ποιμένι λαῶν would be ok in my opinion. With an "inchoative" imperfect, "began to", "set out to" is sometimes required for the translation, but that's not in the Greek, which just says that there's a continued effort.

C) 1 is correct. Note that you could also say that ἐς is an adverb, "in, inside" and not intimately connected with ἄγε. Others would say, like you, that it's εἰσάγω/ἐσάγω in "tmesis" (which from the point of historical linguistics is a misnomer, the verbs where never "cut apart" like the term implies). Doesn't affect the meaning.

D) κρειῶν goes with πίνακας

E) "of men, someone might compete with me, or then indeed not". κέν + ἐρίσσεται "possibly competes", "it is possible that someone competes". ἠὲ καὶ οὐκί is emphatic.

F) Strange pair of verses. The point is that Libya is extremely wealthy and fertile. τελέθω means "come into being", "become", "turn out to be". This means something like "sheep turn up immediately horned", i.e. the sheep have horns when they are born. Horned sheep are mature, so this means that they grow fast. I think γὰρ on line 86 expands this general idea fertility and fast growth, it doesn't explain why the sheep have horns at birth.

G) ἐπεί "since", this a reaction to the general content of the previous speech. "My friend, since you said such things as a wise man would say and do...".

H) I checked a couple of translations and both interpretations can be found. Both the old and the new Oxford commentary prefer the idea of "birth". Note that hysteron proteron is common in Homer, in a pair like this often the first event is mentioned last; sometimes it's because the first mentioned but chronologically later event is emphasized, but I don't see any special reason here.

I) I think something like "for the sake of competition", "because of a challenge".

J) μέλας doesn't mean dirty. It means the water is fresh and comes from dark, deep places. Like when you look into a well, the water is dark.

K) The imperfect is used either because 1) the meeting took some time, or 2) it's what Qimmik called a "narrative imperfect": the imperfect is used in view of what follows in the narrative. The imperfect connects events to form an uninterrupted string of events; I think the aorist would be possible, but then the emphasis would be in the suddenness of the encounter.

This is how far I got...
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby mwh » Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:10 am

L. Sometimes even Homer’s resources fail, and he is reduced to repeating the phrase from 414, where it was more logical. Here the subj.+ke could be viewed as carrying over the indefiniteness of the leading clause, the previous verse, by a kind of syntactical attraction (cf. Latin's use of infinitive even in subordinate clauses in oratio obliqua?), but I doubt that that's really the explanation. More ordinary Greek would simply use aor. indic. (with no ke). Fut.perf. in Latin, yes.

K. Completely different question. “would have killed him” shades off into “may have killed him” (sc. by the time you get there).

That's enough from me.
mwh
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby huilen » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:58 pm

Thank you both for your answers (extra thanks to Paul for having lost and rewriting his post :P).

Note that εἶσιν is present

Sorry, I meant ἦιε.

E) "of men, someone might compete with me, or then indeed not". κέν + ἐρίσσεται "possibly competes", "it is possible that someone competes". ἠὲ καὶ οὐκί is emphatic.

ἐρίσσεται would be a shortened subjunctive or a future indicative? I don't remember of this construction, I was expecting the optative to express potential.

G) ἐπεί "since", this a reaction to the general content of the previous speech. "My friend, since you said such things as a wise man would say and do...".

But what would come next? "Since you said such things as a wise man would say and do... then what?".
After this sentence comes another with γάρ. "Since you said such things as a wise man would say and do... for you are the son of such father...".
It seems as if no place were here for ἐπεί: "You said such things as a man would say and do... for you are the son of such father".
I have tried to make sense of ἐπεί though and I thought that maybe it is explaining the way in which he addressed Telemachus: "O dear, [I call you dear] *since* you said such things as a wise man would say and do". But it sounds a little far-fetched.

Completely different question. “would have killed him” shades off into “may have killed him” (sc. by the time you get there).

But it wouldn't be similar to the question in L? With the difference that here is just a probable future event, and in L a certain future event?
A. To get there.
B. To kill him.
Where A and B are both future, and A will be posterior to B, which will be complete when A occurs.
"By the time you get there, he may have killed him".
Then, would not be expected the aorist indicative without κε, as you explained in L?
huilen
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:19 pm
Location: Argentina

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby mwh » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:26 am

Just to respond to your follow-up query on K and L. The syntactical environment makes a difference. K: “when he questions you in the form in which you all saw (lit. see) him,” vs. L: “either you’ll find him alive or Orestes may (lit. would) have beaten you to it and killed him, and all you’d find is his tomb.” True, in either case B precedes (will have preceded!) A in time, but there’s more to it than that. In the case of L, where A is future indic., it would be distinctly odd to have simple aor.indic. in B, especially when he may not have killed him yet. And Greek, unlike Latin, is not at all fond of the future perfect, which would be strictly logical. Language doesn’t always follow code-writing logic.

Chantraine’s Grammaire Homérique is a useful book, if you can get ahold of it. I should probably have consulted it before writing this: it may give different explanation of K or L or both. These are unusual constructions.
mwh
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby Paul Derouda » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:03 pm

huilen wrote:ἐρίσσεται would be a shortened subjunctive or a future indicative? I don't remember of this construction, I was expecting the optative to express potential.


I think it's a subjunctive and verified in S. West, and she agrees.

huilen wrote:But what would come next? "Since you said such things as a wise man would say and do... then what?".
After this sentence comes another with γάρ. "Since you said such things as a wise man would say and do... for you are the son of such father...".
It seems as if no place were here for ἐπεί: "You said such things as a man would say and do... for you are the son of such father".
I have tried to make sense of ἐπεί though and I thought that maybe it is explaining the way in which he addressed Telemachus: "O dear, [I call you dear] *since* you said such things as a wise man would say and do". But it sounds a little far-fetched.


203. τὸν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη ξανθὸς Μενέλαος:
204. ‘ὦ φίλ᾽, ἐπεὶ τόσα εἶπες, ὅσ᾽ ἂν πεπνυμένος ἀνὴρ
205. εἴποι καὶ ῥέξειε, καὶ ὃς προγενέστερος εἴη:
206. τοίου γὰρ καὶ πατρός, ὃ καὶ πεπνυμένα βάζεις,

Ok, I think see now what's troubling you. The construction is strange. ἐπεὶ is taken up by γάρ on line 206, or that's how I interpret this. This is the best translation I can come up with:

"My friend, now that (=ἐπεί) you have said such things as a wise man would say and do, even if he were older... it is true that (=γάρ) [you] too are of a similar father, since you too say wise things...
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby Paul Derouda » Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:31 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:"My friend, now that (=ἐπεί) you have said such things as a wise man would say and do, even if he were older... it is true that (=γάρ) [you] too are of a similar father, since you too say wise things...

Or maybe it's better to translate like this:

"My friend, now that (=ἐπεί) you have said such things as a wise man would say and do, even if he were older... it is true that (=γάρ) [you] are indeed (καί) of such a (=similar) father, since you too say wise things.."
It's a tricky one.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby huilen » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:15 pm

"My friend, now that (=ἐπεί) you have said such things as a wise man would say and do, even if he were older... it is true that (=γάρ) [you] are indeed (καί) of such a (=similar) father, since you too say wise things.."

I see, so γάρ is not introducing any explanation here, right? I've checked the dictionaries and found this:
Cunliffe:
3. Introducing as a kind of interjection a question or expression with something of an abrupt effect (sometimes translatable, why ..., well ...): πῶς γάρ τοι δώσουσι γέρας; Α 123, ἦ γάρ κεν δειλὸς καλεοίμην 293. Cf. Κ 61, Ο 201, Σ 182, etc.: πῶς γάρ με κέλεαι ...; κ 337, εἰ γάρ κεν σὺ μίμνοις ο 545. Cf. θ 159, κ 383, ξ 115, ο 509, π 222, etc.--For αἲ γάρ, εἰ γάρ in wishes see αἴ (1), εἰ (2) (b).

Autenrieth:
γάρ (γέ, ἄρα): for, namely; but often not to be translated, as in strong asseverations (esp. ἦ γάρ), Il. 1.293, 342, 355, and in questions, ὦ Κίρκη, πῶς γάρ με κέλεαι σοὶ ἤπιον εἶναι, ‘how canst thou bid me?’ Od. 10.337; similarly after interjections, and in wishes, αἲ γάρ, εἰ or εἴθε γάρ. The causal (for) and explanatory (namely) uses need no illustration. ἀλλὰ... γάρ, but yet, but really, Il. 7.242, Od. 10.202; freq. in combination (γάρ) δή, οὖν, ῥά, τέ, τοί.

I'm not sure if this is our case, but if it is, the "it is true that" of your translation would be trying to capture this "strong asseveration" (Autenrieth) / "abrupt effect" (Cunliffe), I suppose? Which maybe other translations left untranslated.
huilen
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:19 pm
Location: Argentina

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby huilen » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:23 pm

mwh wrote:Just to respond to your follow-up query on K and L. The syntactical environment makes a difference. K: “when he questions you in the form in which you all saw (lit. see) him,” vs. L: “either you’ll find him alive or Orestes may (lit. would) have beaten you to it and killed him, and all you’d find is his tomb.” True, in either case B precedes (will have preceded!) A in time, but there’s more to it than that. In the case of L, where A is future indic., it would be distinctly odd to have simple aor.indic. in B, especially when he may not have killed him yet. And Greek, unlike Latin, is not at all fond of the future perfect, which would be strictly logical. Language doesn’t always follow code-writing logic.

Chantraine’s Grammaire Homérique is a useful book, if you can get ahold of it. I should probably have consulted it before writing this: it may give different explanation of K or L or both. These are unusual constructions.

Thank you for the explanation.

Yes, I already know Chantraine, by name at least, because Paul and Qimmik cite it often. Unfortunately, I'll need to learn some French first (which indeed I think could be a good idea), I promise I won't forget Chantraine if I do sometime.
huilen
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:19 pm
Location: Argentina

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby Qimmik » Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:27 pm

N) 597 αἰνῶς γὰρ μύθοισιν ἔπεσσί τε σοῖσιν ἀκούων

"What would be the difference between ἔπος and μῦθος?"

These words overlap semantically. There's really not much difference--it's an expression like ὕστατα καὶ πύματα below.

If you check the meanings given in LSJ, perhaps you can discover a subtle difference:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dmu%3Dqos

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De%29%2Fpos

O) 611 αἵματός εἰς ἀγαθοῖο, φίλον τέκος, οἷ᾽ ἀγορεύεις:

"How is οἷ᾽ ἀγορεύεις connected with the rest of the sentence?"

"You are of good blood, my dear child, you say such things."

Something such as "I can tell from what you say that you are of good family" is the understood structure of this sentence, but it is expressed more elliptically.

P) "where they had done this before"

πάρος is an adverb meaning "before" or "previously".

Q) 659. μνηστῆρας δ᾽ ἄμυδις κάθισαν καὶ παῦσαν ἀέθλων.

κάθισαν ("seated," "caused to sit down") and παῦσαν ("caused to cease") are transitive. μνηστῆρας is the object; the subject must be Antinous and Eurymachus, the ἀρχοὶ μνηστήρων, from lines 628-9. μνηστῆρες is, incidentally, the reading of most manuscripts, but editors generally adopt μνηστῆρας because καθίζω is transitive.

R) 667. ἄρξει καὶ προτέρω κακὸν ἔμμεναι:

καὶ προτέρω -- "even further"

Stephanie West in the Oxford Commentary translates "This beginning of his will mean further trouble", and adds "a curious phrase," so your discomfort with this line is shared by the experts!

S) ναυτίλλεται is explained as a short-vowel aorist subjunctive. The text should probably read ναυτίλεται with long iota (the reading of one ms), although ναυτίλλεται is defended by some as an Aeolic form (Oxford Commentary).

T) 684. μὴ μνηστεύσαντες μηδ᾽ ἄλλοθ᾽ ὁμιλήσαντες
685. ὕστατα καὶ πύματα νῦν ἐνθάδε δειπνήσειαν:

"May they take their last meal, without courting or gathering together [any more]"? That's right. I might translate "May they not continue their courtship or gather together any more, but instead take their very last meal here right now."

U) ὕστατα καὶ πύματα -- I don't see any difference, like μύθοισιν ἔπεσσί τε above. Here the two words with the same meaning lend emphasis to the expression.

V)
Language doesn’t always follow code-writing logic.


W) He gave every man his due (as is just for kings)--a king (or maybe Odysseus) hates one man, another he might love. In other words, a king should assess each man according to his merits; a tyrant would be cruel to everyone.

X) 693 - Perhaps the pluperfect emphasizes remoteness in the past.

Y) ἦ with circumflex is the interrogative particle, not "or." It follows up (with irony) on her question beginning with τίπτε: "Why did he do this? Was it so that not even his name will remain . . . ?"

Z) ἡμέρα, which coexists with ἦμαρ in the Homeric poems. Day numbers are usually feminine like this.
Last edited by Qimmik on Sat Jun 14, 2014 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby Qimmik » Sat Jun 14, 2014 7:45 pm

112. γεγαῶτα, 350. μεμαῶτα, 721. γόοωσα -- these are special forms that have emerged in the epic language to fill specific metrical shapes. In some cases, these types of forms emerged where contraction resulted in the suppression of a short syllable, in order to fill a slot that required an iamb. Even Chantraine isn't able to provide a complete explanation of how they arose. The morphological categories of the forms are clear, however. You just have to note and accept them as peculiarities of the epic language that don't strictly follow the rules laid down in the grammar books.

237. διδοῖ (pres. ind.) -- from LSJ (with added emphasis):

δίδωμι , Il.23.620, etc. (late δίδω POxy.121 (iii A. D.)); late forms, 1pl. διδόαμεν v. l. in J.BJ3.8.5, etc., 3pl. δίδωσι (παρα-) Id.AJ10.4.1, etc.; but thematic forms are freq. used, esp. in Ep. and Ion., διδοῖς, διδοῖσθα, Il.9.164, 19.270, A.“διδοῖ” Od.17.350, Mimn.2.16, Hdt.2.48, Hp.Aër.12 (ἀνα-), A.Supp.1010, etc., “διδοῦσι” Il.19.265 (always in Hom.),

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Ddi%2Fdwmi

In other words, διδοῖ is as if it were from a verb διδόω. This verb is a feature of the epic language, but apparently also shows up in other dialects.

758. σχέθε -- this is an alternative aorist for ἔχω (from *σέχω), which corresponds to the alternative present ἴσχω with the specialized meaning of "hold back, restrain". It can be explained as the root σχ- (with zero grade 2d aorist) + rare aorist suffix -θ-.

314. ἐνίσπες -- an irregular imperative. Compare the usual Attic (but not Homeric) aorist imperative σχές and the aorist imperative of τίθημι: θέ-ς. Also δό-ς from δίδωμι.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Di%29%2Fsxw

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De%29%2Fxw1

806. ἀκάχησθαι -- perfect, not aorist, middle.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da%29xeu%2Fw

I think this completes your questions on Book 4. Sorry I couldn't get to this earlier--on business travel.
Last edited by Qimmik on Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby Paul Derouda » Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:03 pm

huilen wrote:I see, so γάρ is not introducing any explanation here, right?

I'm not so good at classifications, so I couldn't say how exactly you should call this γάρ. But I think it does introduce an explanation. What if you reformulated and simplified these verses like this:
"You said wise things, for you are the son of a wise man."
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby Paul Derouda » Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:17 pm

huilen wrote:597. αἰνῶς γὰρ μύθοισιν ἔπεσσί τε σοῖσιν ἀκούων
N) Which would be the difference between ἔπος and μῦθος?

This has intrigued me a lot too. The words are essentially synonymous, like Qimmik said. But there might be a different shade of meaning, although I might be wrong about this. Perhaps ἔπος is more about the outward expression and μῦθος more about the content. So maybe you could overtranslate this "I terribly enjoy hearing what you say (μύθοισιν) and how you say it (ἔπεσσί)". But I didn't look up anywhere; probably someone has written a monograph on this.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby Scribo » Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:58 pm

I bet the answer is probably in Reece somewhere, if not definitely the LfGe. Joking aside I don't think there is much to it besides a) the words have different shapes (important for metre) and b) could later take on more specialised meanings e.g epos/epea rather than utterance can mean epic or line or verse or couplet in later Greek metrical terminology and Aristotle famously makes much of mythos as narrative.
User avatar
Scribo
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:28 pm
Location: Between Ilias and Odysseia.

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby huilen » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:21 pm

Thanks again Qimmik! Your detailed explanations of the morphological forms of your last post were specially useful to me.

Qimmik wrote:806. ἀκάχησθαι -- perfect, not aorist, middle.

The form is clear now, being a perfect, but now I wonder why this infintive it is perfect in the first place. Here is the context:

εὕδεις, Πηνελόπεια, φίλον τετιημένη ἦτορ;
805οὐ μέν σ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐῶσι θεοὶ ῥεῖα ζώοντες
κλαίειν οὐδ᾽ ἀκάχησθαι, ἐπεί ῥ᾽ ἔτι νόστιμός ἐστι
σὸς παῖς: οὐ μὲν γάρ τι θεοῖς ἀλιτήμενός ἐστι.


I suspect that it may be what Smyth calls an "intensive perfect", but not sure:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... thp%3D1947

Indeed I've not understood really why those intensive perfects are perfects at all. Should I consider the intensive perfects as "perfects with present meaning"? I usually conform myself and internalize the "perfects with present meaning" thinking them as something that I have started in the past and has continued up until now, which allows me to express the same action in two ways: as something that it is now, or something that has been started: for example, I think it as if in Homeric Greek I haven't a verb to say that "I know" something, but I have a verb to say that "I acquire knowledge". Then, to say that "I know" something I just use the perfect of "I acquire knowledge", which would be "I have acquired knowledge", which would be the "perfect with present meaning" οἴδα, resulting in the same sense as "I know" in English.
But I can't think the "intensive perfects" this way.
(Maybe what I said about οἴδα is completly wrong, is just how I've thought to "internalize" this perfect).

Moreover, I don't know if the "intensive perfects" are in other grammars, or even if Chantraine approves them!

Qimmik wrote:U) ὕστατα καὶ πύματα -- I don't see any difference, like μύθοισιν ἔπεσσί τε above. Here the two words with the same meaning lend emphasis to the expression.

Just an attempt after being reading LSJ entries: Could not be ὕστατα referring to the last meal of the day (δεῖπνον is taken late, at night, right?) and πύματα to the fact that it would be their last δεῖπνον?

Qimmik wrote:your discomfort with this line is shared by the experts!

Sure! I'm like a stopped clock, which is right once a day :D

Paul Derouda wrote:"You said wise things, for you are the son of a wise man."

I'm comfortable with both of your translations, but it confuses me that there are the two particles, γάρ and ἐπεί to introduce the same explanation. I would expect only one particle, if I take one as introducing the explanation, then I don't know what to do with the other (that's why I thought in the previous post that γάρ could be untranslatable here).

I have found this about μῦθος/ἔπος:

For the use of μῦθος and ἔπος in Homer, see Martin 1989: 1 – 42.
Martin redefines μῦθος in Homer as “a speech act indicating
authority, performed at length, usually in public, with a focus on
full attention to every detail” (p. 12), whereas ἔπος is glossed
as “an utterance, ideally short, accompanying a physical act, and
focusing on message, as perceived by the addressee, rather than on
performance as enacted by the speaker.”
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/11 ... xcerpt.pdf
(Page 4, Note 5)
huilen
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:19 pm
Location: Argentina

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby Qimmik » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:14 am

why this infinitive it is perfect in the first place.


I would characterize this as a stative perfect. The gods don't let her be in a state of having vexed herself.

ὕστατα καὶ πύματα -- I think this is emphatic, like the English expression "once and for all."
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Odyssey, Book 4

Postby Paul Derouda » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:57 pm

huilen wrote:Paul Derouda wrote:
"You said wise things, for you are the son of a wise man."

I'm comfortable with both of your translations, but it confuses me that there are the two particles, γάρ and ἐπεί to introduce the same explanation. I would expect only one particle, if I take one as introducing the explanation, then I don't know what to do with the other (that's why I thought in the previous post that γάρ could be untranslatable here).

I think the point is that the speech is a bit rambling... More like real everyday speech and less like the coherent phrases you find in a modern book. "My friend... Now that you said that... And you said it well, like a wise man, one that's much older than you! Because you are like your father... so (of course) you too speak wisely.."

Thanks on the link on μῦθος/ἔπος. It looks interesting, I'm going see into that and also look up LfgrE (Lexikon des Frühgriechischen Epos), when I'll find the time.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests