"countless" and "countless" :)

Are you reading Homeric Greek? Whether you are a total beginner or an advanced Homerist, here you can meet kindred spirits. Besides Homer, use this board for all things early Greek poetry.
Post Reply
psilord
Textkit Member
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Madison, WI

"countless" and "countless" :)

Post by psilord »

What's the semantic difference between [size=134]μυρίοι καὶ ἀπερείσιοι[/size]?

I can't quite tell, but I think the former simply means "uncountable" for a noun while the latter would be used for some intrinsic aspect of something, like "his limitless rage".

Or, do they both simply mean the exact same thing? When would I use one over the other?

Also, is there a word: [size=134]περείσιος[/size]? I get the impression that there is, but it isn't in any dictionary I have.

Thanks.

Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by Paul »

I am inclined to take μυρίος in association with discrete (countable) quantities.

ἄπειρος or ἀπειρέσιος has its origins in the word meaning 'rope'. But this word, πεῖραρ, is often associated with the 'ends' of a rope. Its sense is 'without end or limit'. Hence it seems to me better suited for continuous quantities.

But I very much doubt that Homer follows my 'rules' here. :) After all, ἄποινα is clearly 'discrete'. Maybe Homer modifies it with ἀπειρέσιος to make us see the ransom as 'non-discrete', that is, as something that strikes us at first as boundless and not consisting of parts.

Cordially,

Paul

Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka »

Paul wrote:I am inclined to take μυρίος in association with discrete (countable) quantities.
I notice that Pharr has the word δεκᾰχιλοι for 10,000. Did μῠριοι only come to refur to a specific number later on?

Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by Paul »

Eureka wrote:I notice that Pharr has the word δεκᾰχιλοι for 10,000. Did μῠριοι only come to refur to a specific number later on?
Where in Pharr did you find this?

I think the evidence supports the idea that the specific numeric value 10,000 was attached to μύριοι later in its life.

To start, there was no single noun for 10,000 in Indo-European.

Chantraine observes that when the word means 10,000 it is accented differently: μύριοι instead of μυρίοι.

He suggests that originally the word meant "vast like the swells of the sea". He finds some ground for this in the words:

μύροπμαι, πλημυρίς, ἁλιμυρήεις

Cordially,

Paul

Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka »

Paul wrote:
Eureka wrote:I notice that Pharr has the word δεκᾰχιλοι for 10,000. Did μῠριοι only come to refur to a specific number later on?
Where in Pharr did you find this?
Section 757, page 228.

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

Post by psilord »

Paul wrote:But I very much doubt that Homer follows my 'rules' here. :) After all, ἄποινα is clearly 'discrete'. Maybe Homer modifies it with ἀπειρέσιος to make us see the ransom as 'non-discrete', that is, as something that strikes us at first as boundless and not consisting of parts.
The plot thickens.....

I checked out my Cunliffe dictionary and this is what I found:

Phar says ἀπερείσιος means "boundless, countless, immeasurable", Cunliffe says ἀπερείσιος means "Not to be reckoned, of great amount or value" with respect to the word ransom.

However, ἀπερείσιος is a metathesis (transposed vowels--look carefully) of ἀπειρέσιος which means (1) Boundless, endless, (2) Numberless, countless, according to Cunliffe.

So, who's correct? Pharr or Cunliffe? Or are metathesis words usually interchangeable?

It still doesn't answer the question of limitless discrete versus continuous nouns though...

Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by Paul »

Hi,

Always trust Cunliffe over Pharr. Not that Pharr is wrong. He simply has a different goal.

As I noted in my first post, the root word here is πεῖραρ. Alpha privative + transposition yielding ἀπερείσιοσς comes later.

Changes caused by transposition do not affect semantics, at least not at first.

As to discrete versus continuous magnitudes, well that's just my happy theory about how things would be in the best of all possible worlds. In fact, if Chantraine is right about origins of μυρίοι, then my theory grows ever weaker: the word has its origin in the clearly continuous sea, but is later applied to discrete entities.

Cordially,

Paul

Post Reply