κλαγγή // χÏ￾ύση

[Socrates the Cyborg]

Singular Plural Singular Plural
N κλαγγή κλαγγαί χÏ￾ύση χÏ￾ύσαι
G κλαγγῆς κλαγγάων χÏ￾ύσης χÏ￾ύσαων
D κλαγγῇ κλαγγῇσι χÏ￾ύσῃ χÏ￾ύσῃσι
A κλαγγήν κλαγγάς χÏ￾ύσην χÏ￾ύσας
V κλαγγή κλαγγαί χÏ￾ύση χÏ￾ύσαι

Dual
NAV κλαγγᾱ χÏ￾ύσα
GD κλαγγῇιν χÏ￾ύσῃιν

Anyone feel like checking my work! I have a question about χÏ￾ύσῃσι in particular because I wonder if the accute should stay on Ï… in this case, since if in Homeric pronunciation you would pronounce the ι even as a subscript then it seems the accent would be on the fourth syllable from the end. If the ι doesn't really count as a syllable (my guess) then it seems it seems the accent can remain. Thanks!

[modus.irrealis]

Hi,

I think there's only a few mistakes with accent, so you should have

ΧÏ￾ῦσαι - final -αι here is treated like a short vowel
ΧÏ￾υσάων - long vowel in the final syllable

At least that's what I think they would be, since I'm not sure if ΧÏ￾Ï￾ση is the best word, because as far as I can tell it's the name of a city, so I couldn't confirm these plural forms.

I have a question about χÏ￾ύσῃσι in particular because I wonder if the accute should stay on Ï… in this case, since if in Homeric pronunciation you would pronounce the ι even as a subscript then it seems the accent would be on the fourth syllable from the end. If the ι doesn't really count as a syllable (my guess) then it seems it seems the accent can remain. Thanks!

You have the right idea. You do pronounce the subscript ι but it forms a diphthong with the previous vowel (these are often called long diphthongs), so ηι still counts as one syllable -- it's exactly analogous to things like αι.

(I've been wondering lately, though, where these text-book duals come from, because I've read that these forms don't seem to occur in Homer, so is there any support for these forms outside of Homer?)

[GlottalGreekGeek]

Duals certainly do appear in Homer - they appear more in Homer than any other composer of words in the canon (I prefer the term "composer of words" over "writer" when it comes to the Greeks, since they were much less into writing than we are in our technology-enchanced age). I would have to do a bit of a search to find an example of a alpha-declension female dual, but I'm fairly certain they're there.

[perispomenon]

I also have the idea that the dualis is not rare in Homer. When I started reading the Iliad many many years ago, almost the first thing I stumbled over, were dual forms. Took me quite a while to actually figure out what they were, because I had not encountered them much learning Attic Greek in school.

I think the first ones appear in line 6 of the first book.

But if you are specifically referring to alpha declension duals, you might perhaps be right. Interesting.

[chad]

hi, no, no alpha-decl fem duals in homer, see s4.2 of my notes:

http://www.freewebs.com/mhninaeide/pharrnotes.pdf

cheers, chad.

[perispomenon]

Funny, I actually downloaded that file this very morning.

Thanks Chad!

[Socrates the Cyborg]

I just reviewed your corrections chad by finding the rules in the Pharr text. Thanks alot for the comments, I really think this accent stuff would be too much for me if I was studying alone. Those notes seem more and more valuable everytime you refer to them. I had downloaded and looked at them awhile ago and everything just seemed over my head, but the discussions have really helped clear stuff up. I was also able to clear up a question about adjective location by referring to them before asking here.

[chad]

no problemo

[modus.irrealis]

Can anybody then shed any light on where this -ηιιν ending for the dual gen./dat. comes from? I've only seen it in Pharr. It's not mentioned in Buck's The Greek Dialects and Perseus doesn't parse it as anything. Is this just a creation of the grammarians (ancient or modern)?

[chad]

hi, that form is clearly constructed, as the alpha-decl dual in the gen/dat isn't found in homer: see my notes linked above, s4.2.

pharr admits that this very form is uncertain: see s654.

other homeric grammars, e.g. chantraine 1958 chapter 17, thompson 1890 s17 &c., leave this part of the table blank.

the construction is based on the associated form of the other declensions, where the double iota is firmly attested in homer: see chantraine 1958 s81.

if you want to know what the physical evidence for the alpha-decl dual is (outside of homer), 1st place to look is inscriptions... see Threatte 1996 "The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, Vol 2: Morphology", worth having on your shelf. it shows the single-iota form of the gen/dat dual was always used.

I've scanned the section for you:

http://www.freewebs.com/mhninaeide/Thre ... emdual.pdf

don't have a reference for papyrological morphology here at work, but that'd be the other type of physical evidence to follow up, cheers, chad.

[modus.irrealis]

chad, thank you for that. I have to say, though, that Pharr's comments in that section have left me puzzled. I'd say there's quite a bit of difference between unattested and uncertain , and when he says "Instead of ηιιν, some read -αιιν (-αιν)," I don't see what he could be saying. Where are these people reading this exactly?

Anyway, I'll just add this to my list of odd things to figure out, but thanks again for providing me with all that information.

P.S. There's a bunch of Greek related books on my to-buy list but they keep refusing to price themselves into my reasonable-price range -- at least I have access to a very good library that has had almost any book I've ever looked for.