Textkit Logo

Pharr 648 and 649: Cases

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.

Pharr 648 and 649: Cases

Postby psilord » Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:27 am

I have some questions about the case tables in Pharr's book.

For example, in 648: First Declension, Singular, Masculine, Nominative.
Why is there an '[face=spionic]j[/face] (none)'? What exactly does the "(none)" mean in this context? Does this mean either I'll see an [face=spionic]j[/face] or I won't?

Another question is in 649.
Are ALL forms in the brackets rare and not needing to be memorized? Or just the ones with the footnote attached to it specifying that? I got confused when the First Declension, Dual, Masculine, Genitive (in 649) was [[face=spionic]h|in[/face]] and I thought it was rare, but then saw it plain as day in 659, implying that it was not rare at all since 659 are forms meant to be memorized.

Another question:
In the places where "none" is written (in 648)--excepting the case where the ablaut is specified, will I just see the appropriate word stem for that case?

Another question:
In 649, what is the difference between the Third Declension, Singular, Masc&Fem, Nominative and the Third Declension, Singular, Masc&Fem, Vocative? One of them is 'sigma (none)' and the other is '(sigma none)'.

And one more question, suppose I have a First Declension, Singular, Feminine, Nominative noun, how can I tell it isn't a First Declension, Dual, Feminine, Nominative noun? How does one know the difference? By the number and person of the verb associated with the nominative noun? Am I correct in assuming that all declension conflicts vanish when declensions are combined with the number and person of the verbs operating on them? So far, without verbs (I'm on Lesson III/IV) it is sometimes hard to figure out the plurality of some things.

What's the story?

Thanks!

P.S. I am unable to emit a Macron or a Breve in betacode...
psilord
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Paul » Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:41 pm

Hi,

psilord wrote:For example, in 648: First Declension, Singular, Masculine, Nominative.
Why is there an '[face=spionic]j[/face] (none)'? What exactly does the "(none)" mean in this context? Does this mean either I'll see an [face=spionic]j[/face] or I won't?

Yes, 'none' means that there is no 'inflection' for that particular form, no case-ending. Linguists often refer to this as the 'zero' inflection. Among first declension masculine nominatives [face=spionic]A)trei/+dhj[/face] ends in sigma; [face=spionic]ai)xmhta/[/face] in 'none'.

psilord wrote:Another question is in 649.
Are ALL forms in the brackets rare and not needing to be memorized? Or just the ones with the footnote attached to it specifying that? I got confused when the First Declension, Dual, Masculine, Genitive (in 649) was [[face=spionic]h|in[/face]] and I thought it was rare, but then saw it plain as day in 659, implying that it was not rare at all since 659 are forms meant to be memorized.

Yes, the forms in square brackets are rare. I'm not sure why Pharr failed to bracket the feminine dual [face=spionic]h|in[/face] in 649.

psilord wrote:Another question:
In the places where "none" is written (in 648)--excepting the case where the ablaut is specified, will I just see the appropriate word stem for that case?

Not necessarily. Aside from the changes that result from combining stem vowel and case-ending, other changes may occur. Example: Ionic tends to change long alpha into
eta. So the nominative and vocative forms of [face=spionic]boulh/[/face] are not its stem.

psilord wrote:Another question:
In 649, what is the difference between the Third Declension, Singular, Masc&Fem, Nominative and the Third Declension, Singular, Masc&Fem, Vocative? One of them is 'sigma (none)' and the other is '(sigma none)'.

I suspect this is a typo in Pharr's text.

psilord wrote:And one more question, suppose I have a First Declension, Singular, Feminine, Nominative noun, how can I tell it isn't a First Declension, Dual, Feminine, Nominative noun? How does one know the difference? By the number and person of the verb associated with the nominative noun?

For first declension feminine nouns with nominative singular in long alpha, it can be confusing because these two forms are the same. For such nouns in short alpha, it can also be confusing because they seem to change the short alpha to a long alpha in the dual. This might be apparent in scansion, but it won't be immediately obvious. But, happily, such nouns in eta seem to show long alpha in the dual.

psilord wrote:Am I correct in assuming that all declension conflicts vanish when declensions are combined with the number and person of the verbs operating on them? So far, without verbs (I'm on Lesson III/IV) it is sometimes hard to figure out the plurality of some things.

Not entirely. There are apparent exceptions to the concords in Greek. This means that the expected GRAMMATICAL agreement can be superseded by agreement according to sense or attraction.

When I first encountered the table in 648 I thought, "Great, a single statement of the many case-endings. Master it and you'll be able to derive any substantive form." The reality was quite otherwise. I don't find this table especially useful. The tables provided in 649 are far more useful.

Hope this helps.

Cordially,

Paul
User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York

Postby psilord » Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:54 am

Paul wrote: Yes, the forms in square brackets are rare. I'm not sure why Pharr failed to bracket the feminine dual [face=spionic]h|in[/face] in 649.


Did you mean to write that the feminine dual [face=spionic]h|in[/face] in 649 SHOULD be bracketed? Because it is. I only questioned it because
the first noun decelension we learn (plan, council) uses a declension that is considered rare.

Paul wrote: When I first encountered the table in 648 I thought, "Great, a single statement of the many case-endings. Master it and you'll be able to derive any substantive form." The reality was quite otherwise. I don't find this table especially useful. The tables provided in 649 are far more useful.


Yeah, I'm reorganizing those tables into some LaTeX because they appear to have an anti-memorization field about them which is upsetting me. I care much more about singularity to plural changes than masculine to feminine changes for memorization purposes.
psilord
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby psilord » Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:14 am

Also, I have another question. The Third Declension Neuter Nominative, Accusative, and Vocative have a long line through them in table 649. Is this the same as 'none', which is implied by table 648 of the same case endings? Or does it mean that you will never find any third declension neuter words using those cases?

Thanks.
psilord
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Paul » Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:40 pm

psilord wrote:
Paul wrote: Yes, the forms in square brackets are rare. I'm not sure why Pharr failed to bracket the feminine dual [face=spionic]h|in[/face] in 649.


Did you mean to write that the feminine dual [face=spionic]h|in[/face] in 649 SHOULD be bracketed? Because it is. I only questioned it because
the first noun decelension we learn (plan, council) uses a declension that is considered rare.


Sorry, I meant 659.

Cordially,

Paul
User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York

Postby Paul » Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:49 pm

psilord wrote:Also, I have another question. The Third Declension Neuter Nominative, Accusative, and Vocative have a long line through them in table 649. Is this the same as 'none', which is implied by table 648 of the same case endings? Or does it mean that you will never find any third declension neuter words using those cases?
Thanks.


You certainly will find third declension nouns in these cases.

I suppose he's trying to say that these three forms are zero inflexion and identical.

Cordially,

Paul
User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York

Postby psilord » Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:06 pm

psilord wrote:Yeah, I'm reorganizing those tables into some LaTeX because they appear to have an anti-memorization field about them which is upsetting me. I care much more about singularity to plural changes than masculine to feminine changes for memorization purposes.


Sorry to reply to myself, but I actually did this reorganization. You can find it on aoidoi.org in this location:

http://www.aoidoi.org/articles/pharr/decl-649.pdf

I checked it very carefully for errors, but PM me if you find any and I'll correct them as soon as I can.

Thanks.
psilord
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Madison, WI


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: J. A. Prufrock and 10 guests