Eureka wrote:In line ten, Homer uses the word [face=SPIonic]laoi/[/face].
In line 54, he uses the word [face=SPIonic]lao\n[/face].
In both cases he seems to be referring to the Achaean army, so how can it be singular in one case, but plural in the other?
Paul wrote:The army is divided.
The army are agreed.
I don't mean to nickpick, but you used a singular verb to denote division, and a plural verb to denote togetherness.
elis wrote:another reason for the laos/laoi pair might be one not of content but of form: metrical necessities. For example could the olekonto de laoi become effectively a singular? would oleketo de laos fit within the given metrics?
elis wrote:Maybe the disjunction is not between the individual and the army but between the multitude of the armies of each polin (ie laos Mycenaion, laos Boioton etc) and the great laos of the Achaeans as a whole, the plethus (2.488).
Now, is there a chance that the plural laoi in at 1.10, exists to emphasize on the fact that although Apollon got angry (cholotheis) because of Agamemnon's actions (basilei), his punishment did not fell only on his -Agamemnon's- laos, but on each and every one of the laous?
elis wrote:I would divide it this way:
nouson a| na straton| wrse ka | kHn ole | konto de | laoi
the "konto de" is long + 2 shorts, the omikron being long by position (thesei), as it is followed by 2 consonants.
how could oleketo de laos fit here? would it just become olekeito de laos or something similar?
Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 5 guests