Is it possible (and if so, is it common) that a seemingly masculine pronoun would be used as neuter?
ἦν δέ τις τῶν πολιτικῶν πρὸς ὃν ἐγὼ σκοπῶν τοιοῦτόν τι ἔπαθον,...
But he was someone of the politicians about whom, while examining [him] well,
I felt something of this sort.
Pl. Ap. 21c4
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
- Contact:
Pl. Ap. 21c4
Nate.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
- Location: Toronto
Re: Pl. Ap. 21c4
Here it's just that τοιοῦτον is neuter. See Smyth 333e.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
- Contact:
Re: Pl. Ap. 21c4
Thank you, modus. In class, our teacher kept saying that sometimes the masculine acc. was used as neuter,
but after reading this section in Smyth, I now see that it's the more common neuter form.
but after reading this section in Smyth, I now see that it's the more common neuter form.
Nate.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
- Location: Toronto
Re: Pl. Ap. 21c4
Yeah, I'd say that this the final -ν is due to analogy with τοῖος and with regular adjectives, rather than the masculine form being used as neuter. Did your teacher mean just for such words, or something more general?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
- Contact:
Re: Pl. Ap. 21c4
No, I'm pretty sure he meant just for such words as τοιοῦτον.
My Greek study book (written in Hebrew) had for the neuter τοιοῦτο with
no -ν form in parenthesis or footnote. Then again, despite being an Attic Greek study book,
it has ἔστων for the 3rd pl. imperative of είμί, where Attic had ὄντων,
and non-enclitic ἔστε for the 2nd pl., where Attic just used the enclitic ind. ἐστέ.
βασιλεῖς (and only in parenthesis βασιλῆς) for nom.pl. where in Attic, up to 329B.C. according to Smyth,
the regular form was βασιλῆς. and so on...
My Greek study book (written in Hebrew) had for the neuter τοιοῦτο with
no -ν form in parenthesis or footnote. Then again, despite being an Attic Greek study book,
it has ἔστων for the 3rd pl. imperative of είμί, where Attic had ὄντων,
and non-enclitic ἔστε for the 2nd pl., where Attic just used the enclitic ind. ἐστέ.
βασιλεῖς (and only in parenthesis βασιλῆς) for nom.pl. where in Attic, up to 329B.C. according to Smyth,
the regular form was βασιλῆς. and so on...
Nate.