JWW excercises 133 and 143

[Hammurabi]

Hi I need a correction for these excercises!

133.
the road was impassable.
1. ἡ á½￾δὸς ἄποÏ￾ος ἦν.
Cyrus did not send provisions to the garrison.
2. οá½￾κ ἔπεμψε á½￾ ΚύÏ￾ος Ï„á½° á¼￾πιτήδεια τῇ φυλακῇ.
they will lead the men to the strongholds.
3. τοῖς χωÏ￾ία ἰσχῡÏ￾á½° τοὺς ἀνθÏ￾ώπους ἀξουσιν.
the hoplites were good and faithful soldiers.
4. ἀγαθοὶ καὶ πιστοί στÏ￾ατιῶται οἱ á½￾πλῖται ἦσαν.
it was right for Cyrus to send gifts to his soldiers.
5. ἄξιον ἦν Ï„á¿· ΚύÏ￾ῳ πέμπειν δῶÏ￾α τοῖς στÏ￾ατιώταις.

143.
we shall collect allies for our friends.
1. συμάχους τοῖς φίλοις ἀθÏ￾οίσουσιν.
he has hounted wild beast on horseback.
2. θηÏ￾ία ἀπὸ ἵππου τεθέÏ￾ευκε.
the messenger will sacrifice to the gods.
3. τοῖς θεοῖς á½￾ ἄγγελος θύσει.
I have commanded the soldiers to plounder the wagons.
4. τοὺς στÏ￾ατιώτᾱς á¼￾Ï￾πάζειν τοὺς ἀμάξᾱς κεκέλευα.
Cyrus sends the general a letter.
5. ΚύÏ￾ος Ï„á¿· στÏ￾ατηγὸς á¼￾πιστολὴν πέμπει.


Thanx very much in advance

[spiphany]

Looks pretty good to me, although your word order seems a bit odd to me sometimes. You might pay a bit more attention to noun endings; several times I think you simply forgot to change them. You seem to understand the concepts quite well--I don't think that's the reason for the mistakes.
133 #3 Check your endings on this: τοῖς χωÏ￾ία ἰσχῡÏ￾á½°
143 #4 I think you forgot a kappa here: κεκέλευκα.
143 #5 Check you endings on this: Ï„á¿· στÏ￾ατηγὸς

[Hammurabi]

My bad!
I didnt realize about those endings thanx very much.. here they are corrected. I guess.

133 #3. τοῖς χωÏ￾ίοις ἰσχῡÏ￾οῖς τοὺς ἀνθÏ￾ώπους ἀξουσιν.
143. #4 τοὺς στÏ￾ατιώτᾱς á¼￾Ï￾πάζειν τοὺς ἀμάξᾱς κεκέλευκα.
143. #5 ΚύÏ￾ος Ï„á¿· στÏ￾ατηγᾣ á¼￾πιστολὴν πέμπει.

about the words order, could you please tell me where and why it is not
totally "greek"??
'cause I'm really having some trouble with that and I would like to correct it
right now before it gets an habitude.

Thanx very much in advance.

[spiphany]

about the word order, could you please tell me where and why it is not totally "greek"??

I was afraid you would ask that. I'm at a stage where I've done enough reading that I sort of have an ear for what sounds "natural" and what doesn't, but it's pretty much instinctive and I couldn't generally explain what feels right or wrong about something. But I'll see what I can come up with.

133 #4 I probably would have written it like this: στÏ￾ατιῶται ἀγαθοὶ πιστοί τε ἦσαν οἱ á½￾πλῖται -- although I'm not sure how much that word order is an influence from Latin, which has a strong preference for putting adjectives after the noun.

143 #3 The first (and less so the last) positions in a sentence are emphatic. I would tend not to put as much stress on the strongholds and more on the men, who are the object of the verb: τοὺς ἀνθÏ￾ώπους εἰς χωÏ￾ία ἀξουσιν.
I didn't catch it before, but you need to use εἰς (or another preposition) + accusative here rather than the dative, since 'to' isn't indicating an indirect object here, but direction. You should also check τῇ φυλακῇ in 133 #2 for a similar reason, although a dative would make sense. The meaning would be different, though: "Cyrus did not send provisions for the garrison".
I don't know whether you need to use ἰσχῡÏ￾á½° with χωÏ￾ία -- the sense of χωÏ￾ίον meaning "stronghold" isn't one I've encountered. So I'll trust whatever usage the book has.

143 #4 I would put the main verb at the beginning rather than the end, for directness and clarity: κεκέλευκα τοὺς στÏ￾ατιώτᾱς á¼￾Ï￾πάζειν τοὺς ἀμάξᾱς.

[annis]

133 #4 I probably would have written it like this: στÏ￾ατιῶται ἀγαθοὶ πιστοί τε ἦσαν οἱ á½￾πλῖται -- although I'm not sure how much that word order is an influence from Latin, which has a strong preference for putting adjectives after the noun.

Greek is happy to put adjectives before or after the noun, with appropriate adjustments to account for the article when that is used. I haven't really mastered the literature on this matter, but I feel confident in saying that when the adjective comes before the noun the adjective is (very slightly) emphasized, or at least of particular interest to the speaker.

143 #3 The first (and less so the last) positions in a sentence are emphatic.

I would never say that the last position in a Greek sentence is emphatic. Potentially it is the least emphatic.

In general whatever you put immediately in front of the verb is the most relevant piece of (often new) information. In the technical literature, this pre-verbal position is called the focus. Whatever comes after the verb is extra stuff, either inferable from the context or least salient but still needed for clarity. The very first part of the sentence is given over to the topic, what it is you're talking about. Topic and Focus can be simple nouns, nouns with adjectives, or more complex noun phrases, including prepositional phrases.

A schematic rendering of Greek word order:

Topic Focus Verb Everything-else

(Complex aside for more advanced Greekists: if the Topic or Focus phrase is too large there is a danger that the boundaries of these positions will fall apart. Such a large phrase is called heavy. When you have a heavy Topic or Focus, the most relevant part of that phrase will take the correct position, and the remaining part of the heavy phrase will be shifted to Everything-else position after the verb.)

Of course, different parts of this schema may be dropped, which makes interpretation a little more difficult. But thinking about this in your own reading (of wild Greek, not tamed book Greek), and in your own composition, is a good start.

I really should write up a summary of Dover and Dik's work on this subject.

I would tend not to put as much stress on the strongholds and more on the men, who are the object of the verb: τοὺς ἀνθÏ￾ώπους εἰς χωÏ￾ία ἀξουσιν.

Here the emphasis is on εἰς χωÏ￾ία.

143 #4 I would put the main verb at the beginning rather than the end, for directness and clarity: κεκέλευκα τοὺς στÏ￾ατιώτᾱς á¼￾Ï￾πάζειν τοὺς ἀμάξᾱς.

This turns the verb into the topic, which can happen in Greek. I would expect it as part of a longer discourse by a general about his orders.

[Bert]

I haven't really mastered the literature on this matter, but I feel confident in saying that when the adjective comes before the noun the adjective is (very slightly) emphasized, or at least of particular interest to the speaker............................
AND
I would never say that the last position in a Greek sentence is emphatic. Potentially it is the least emphatic.

I have read from others who have an opposing view.
Concerning the place of the adjective: I have heard that á½￾ ἄνθÏ￾ωπος á½￾ ἀγαθος is (slightly) more emphatic than á½￾ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθÏ￾ωπος.
The first one would then have a meaning something like, "The man, the good one" or "The man, namely the good one."
The second one simply, "The good man."
(I guess even in my rather belaboured translation a case could be made for the first case emphasizing Man and the second one the fact that this man is a good one.)

Concerning the first word and/or the last word of a sentence having emphasis: I have read that if a word that you would not expect to be last in a sentence is in fact the last word of a sentence, the author is trying to draw attention to it.

I am not in a position to agree or disagree but I find this interesting enough to at least mention it.

[annis]

Concerning the place of the adjective: I have heard that á½￾ ἄνθÏ￾ωπος á½￾ ἀγαθος is (slightly) more emphatic than á½￾ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθÏ￾ωπος.

I've heard this, too. But I have doubts.

Concerning the first word and/or the last word of a sentence having emphasis: I have read that if a word that you would not expect to be last in a sentence is in fact the last word of a sentence, the author is trying to draw attention to it.

Well that's precisely the problem — how are we supposed to judge what's expected, when our knowledge of Greek word order is still often so poor? Do you happen to have a reference for this last?

To become good at the game of Go (a.k.a. wei-qi, baduk, etc.) you can by books of problems and books of strategy. The strategy books are famous for making you play worse right after you read them, and only later making their value apparent. I sometimes feel that way reading Greek grammar papers.

[Bert]

Concerning the place of the adjective: I have heard that á½￾ ἄνθÏ￾ωπος á½￾ ἀγαθος is (slightly) more emphatic than á½￾ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθÏ￾ωπος.

I've heard this, too. But I have doubts.

That's fair.
Do you think that there might be any validity in the one emphasizing Man and the other emphasizing the fact that this man is Good?

Concerning the first word and/or the last word of a sentence having emphasis: I have read that if a word that you would not expect to be last in a sentence is in fact the last word of a sentence, the author is trying to draw attention to it.

Well that's precisely the problem — how are we supposed to judge what's expected, when our knowledge of Greek word order is still often so poor? Do you happen to have a reference for this last?

I tried to find where I found this but I had no success.

[chad]

i just saw this, i hardly have time to check out textkit anymore, but i give a ref for this (final word emphasised in prose) at the top of page 10 here:

http://www.freewebs.com/mhninaeide/Ilia ... xt2006.pdf

[annis]

i just saw this, i hardly have time to check out textkit anymore, but i give a ref for this (final word emphasised in prose) at the top of page 10 here:

Denniston?! That makes me even more suspicious.

[chad]

hi will, well denniston has said X, what makes you say X is wrong?

(apart from the fact that X was said by your favourite classicist)

[annis]

hi will, well denniston has said X, what makes you say X is wrong?

Not at all, but his track record in terms of actual linguistic insight is, in my opinion, very poor. When he's the only reference, extra checking is required.

(apart from the fact that X was said by your favourite classicist)

Who said what where?

[Bert]

With the help of a B-Greek member I've found one discussion concerning emphasis in the Greek sentence. Here follows a link to part of the B-Greek archives.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... html#22815
Towards the bottom of the page, (14th from the bottom) is the first post of a thread called; John 14:6 fronting
Three or four replies follow.
( I don't know Denniston, whose opinion seems suspect to William, but I have high regard for the opinion of both Iver Larsen and Carl Conrad, who btw hold somewhat opposing positions.)

[annis]

( I don't know Denniston, whose opinion seems suspect to William, but I have high regard for the opinion of both Iver Larsen and Carl Conrad, who btw hold somewhat opposing positions.)

That, unfortunately, is the state of the art at the moment, though it seems like their debate is taking place over larger scale — the connection of distinct clauses — which is a consideration one step back from the topic/focus/verb matter, which applies to any clause with a finite verb.

I really should make a summary of this stuff. Examples are better than abstract rules. Also, I remembered two situations where the final element in a clause might be considered the focus.

1. When the verb is elided, as when assumed from a previous clause (Topic, Focus):

Ï„á½° ἄχθεα οἱ μὲν ἄνδÏ￾ες á¼￾πὶ τῶν κεφαλέων φοÏ￾έουσι,
αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες á¼￾πὶ τῶν ὤμων. (Hdt. 2.35.3)

In discussing this inversion of load carrying practices between men and women, the mode of transport is the focus of the second clause, just as it is in the first. It's final, but only because there's no need to actually state the verb.

2. When the verb becomes the Topic (not terribly common, according to H. Dik on p.65 of Word Order in Ancient Greek: A Pragmatic Account of Word Order Variation in Herodotus). The examples for this all require hefty surrounding text for context, so I'll save that for some other time.

So final clause constituents might have focus (or be emphatic if you will, the most important piece of new information), but not by virtue of being last, but because the verb has left its usual spot.

[Bert]

Carl W. Conrad and Chet Creider have given some additional thoughts.
See Final Word Emphasis on the following page.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... /date.html

Chet mentions Gal. 2:20 which seems indeed to emphasize á¼￾γώ and ΧÏ￾ιστός. Both are final words in there respective clauses.

I just found out from Carl Conrad's post that he did a dissertation on word order.
This is a very interesting topic and obviously there is no shame in disagreeing. The sholars do!

[annis]

Chet mentions Gal. 2:20 which seems indeed to emphasize á¼￾γώ and ΧÏ￾ιστός. Both are final words in there respective clauses.

So that's where Chet got to! In any case, his example is a perfect illustration of the second point in my previous post — the final clause elements are focused only because the verb has moved to the head of the line.

2:19 á¼￾γὼ γὰÏ￾ διὰ νόμον νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. ΧÏ￾ιστῷ συνεσταύÏ￾ωμαι·
2:20 ζῶ δὲ οá½￾κέτι á¼￾γώ, ζῇ δὲ á¼￾ν á¼￾μοὶ ΧÏ￾ιστός· á½￾ δὲ νῦν ζῶ á¼￾ν σαÏ￾κί, á¼￾ν πίστει ζῶ τῇ ...

So Paul has said that he died to the law, and even to say he was crucified with Christ. Dying has been mentioned, and with that preparation he goes on to talk about living, using forms of ζῶ several times. It is exactly in this case of repeated verbs that you expect the verb to be topicalized (you keep saying it because it's the topic under discussion).

I would hope that seeing the phrasing á¼￾ν πίστει ζῶ in a letter of Paul would at least make one consider the possibility that the position immediately before the verb is where a speaker puts the most vital new information.

I just found out from Carl Conrad's post that he did a dissertation on word order.
This is a very interesting topic and obviously there is no shame in disagreeing. The sholars do!

Oh, that's good. Because I completely disagree with his interpretation of οá½￾λομένην in the second line of the Iliad. (How do we convince him to visit Textkit?)

I'm very suspicious of taking verse as a model for ideas about word order. There are other merciless constraints in play.

[Bert]

In any case, his example is a perfect illustration of the second point in my previous post — the final clause elements are focused only because the verb has moved to the head of the line.

Is that the same thing as saying that in order to draw attention to á¼￾γώ and ΧÏ￾ιστός, Paul moved the verb to the head of the line? I can't seem to read (in English) this verse without stressing I and Christ.
There is a contrast between the two clauses. It is I versus Christ.

So Paul has said that he died to the law, and even to say he was crucified with Christ. Dying has been mentioned, and with that preparation he goes on to talk about living, using forms of ζῶ several times. It is exactly in this case of repeated verbs that you expect the verb to be topicalized (you keep saying it because it's the topic under discussion).

Is topicalizing the same as emphasizing?
living is the topic. Died to the law to live to God. Not Paul who lives but Christ lives in him. The life he lives he lives in faith. But...the contrasts are different. In verse 19 the verbs are the last words in the clauses, living and dying. The first word is á¼￾γώ. But is á¼￾γώ the word that is emphasized? The subject in the main clause is the same as in the ἵνα clause. It makes more sense that law receives emphasis. (Both occurences of law are ahead of the verb.) But, due to the contrast between dying and living it would seem to me that maybe the verbs have more emphasis.
In verse 20 living is still the topic but here there is a contrast between I and Christ.

I would hope that seeing the phrasing á¼￾ν πίστει ζῶ in a letter of Paul would at least make one consider the possibility that the position immediately before the verb is where a speaker puts the most vital new information.

Your emoticon makes me think that I don't understand your point. At any rate, I think you are saying that πίστει is emphasized. I agree. Living is still the topic, but now he introduces living in faith. Same topic, new emphasis.
William, don't misunderstand me. I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. I am just trying to learn, but this topic may be out of my league yet.

I just found out from Carl Conrad's post that he did a dissertation on word order.
This is a very interesting topic and obviously there is no shame in disagreeing. The sholars do!

Oh, that's good. Because I completely disagree with his interpretation of οá½￾λομένην in the second line of the Iliad.

I guess you can count yourself among the sholars then.

(How do we convince him to visit Textkit?)

There is some evidence that he does, at least occasionally.

[annis]

Is topicalizing the same as emphasizing?

No. Here I use the term just to mean that the verb has been shifted out of its usual spot into the topic position. The topic simply acts to signal to listeners what the coming comment is about, and I don't think that's usually going to be emphasized.

William, don't misunderstand me. I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. I am just trying to learn, but this topic may be out of my league yet.

And I'm doing a very poor job of explaining it.

I've emailed Prof. Dik to see if she happens to have handouts for talks she might give on her word order work that I could use to produce a summary. In any case, I'm going to leave this post alone for a while and work up an overview of Dik's book — including better explanations of the technical vocabulary — with some more examples. That'll be more useful than me dribbling out bits and pieces of the theory.

[Bert]

Thanks for the discussion so far.
I hope you are successful writing a summary. I would probably get more use out of a summary with examples than out of reading the book.