Pharr para 107 line2

[Bert]

My question is concerning the subject of [face=SPIonic]dhqu/nei[/face] in <br />[face=SPIonic])Agame/mnwn ou) kixh/setai geronta para\ koi/lh|si nhusi/n, ou) ga\r dhqu/nei e\n stratw|= )Axaiw=n [/face]<br />Agamemnon will not overtake the old man by the hollow(empty?) ships, for he did not loiter in the camp of the Achaeans.<br />If I take Agamemnon as the subject of both overtake and loiter, the sentence does not make sense. It would follow logically that he did not overtake him if he did loiter.<br />In the case of dependent clauses starting with [face=SPIonic]i(/na[/face] or [face=SPIonic]o(/ti[/face] the subject is different from the one in the main sentence. Is this the case here? Does [face=SPIonic]ga/r[/face] also introduce a dependent clause? Then the old man would be the subject of loiter, and the sentence makes good sense.<br />Thanks in advance.

[Paul]

There is in the meaning of the sentence a kind of subordination of ideas: it is because the old man doesn't tarry that he is not overtaken by Agamemnon.<br />The second idea (not tarrying) explains the first idea (not overtaken). Such subordination suggests that we are in the realm of the complex sentence. So from a semantic perspective it does indeed seem that [face=SPIonic]ga/r[/face] is introducing a dependent clause.<br /><br />But from a formal perspective, [face=SPIonic]ga/r[/face] is a particle that can function as a causal, coordinating conjunction; what Smyth calls " Causal [face=SPIonic]ga/r[/face] ". Coordination by means of such a conjunction places us in the realm of the compound sentence. In compound sentences there is no subordinate (dependent) clause.<br /><br />So, "Does [face=SPIonic]ga/r[/face] also introduce a dependent clause?" I guess my answer is it depends on the perspective. Mind you, I am not trying to be clever. I really find this problematic. The ideas of the sentence so readily conform to a kind of subordination which makes the second clause dependent. But [face=SPIonic]ga/r[/face] is supposed to be a coordinating conjunction....<br /><br />I'd very much like to know what others have to say.<br /><br />Cordially,<br /><br />Paul<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Skylax]

[quote author=Bert de Haan link=board=2;threadid=356;start=0#2619 date=1059951824]<br />My question is concerning the subject of [face=SPIonic]dhqu/nei[/face] in <br />[face=SPIonic])Agame/mnwn ou) kixh/setai geronta para\ koi/lh|si nhusi/n, ou) ga\r dhqu/nei e\n stratw|= )Axaiw=n [/face]<br />Agamemnon will not overtake the old man by the hollow(empty?) ships, for he did not loiter in the camp of the Achaeans.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />"hollow" here is an "Homeric attribute" (if you call it so). It is maybe opposing "real" sea going ships to rafts...<br /><br />The subject of [face=SPIonic]dhqu/nei[/face] is obviously the old man. But it emerges from the context.<br /><br />

<br />In the case of dependent clauses starting with [face=SPIonic]i(/na[/face] or [face=SPIonic]o(/ti[/face] the subject is different from the one in the main sentence.

<br /><br />I've never heard of such a tendency...<br /><br />See for example Plato, Republic, 426d:<br />[face=SPIonic]o(/soi oi)/ontai politikoi\ ei)=nai o(/ti e)painou=ntai u(po\ tw=n pollw=n[/face]<br />"...those who (...) suppose themselves to be in truth statesmen because they are praised by the many."<br /><br />The subject is the same for both verbs.<br />Can you provide some more information?<br /><br />[face=SPIonic]e)/rrwso[/face]

[Ptolemaios]

The problem is: even Pharr is not a native speaker. The subject of [face=SPIonic]dhqu/nei[/face] can (logically) be no other than the old man. But I think that in real Greek such a topic shift (from Agamemnon to the old man) would have been marked in some way.<br /><br />[face=SPIonic]Eu)/xomai se e)rrw=sqai[/face]<br /><br />Ptolemaios

[Bert]

(skylax)<br />In the case of dependent clauses starting with [face=SPIonic]i(/na[/face] or [face=SPIonic]o(/ti[/face] the subject is different from the one in the main sentence.

<br /> <br />I've never heard of such a tendency...<br /><br />I didn't say that right. It is possible for the subject to be the same, but because it can be a different one, you don't look for the main subject in the dependent clause. <br /> English examples;1. If I work hard, I get a sore back.<br /> 2. If I work hard, my children can eat three meals per day.<br /><br />I don't want to assume that after [face=SPIonic]ga/r[/face] the subject can change, because then I am making my own grammar rules. I am barely able to abide by someone else's rules, let alone make up my own as I go.<br /><br />Thanks for the replies.<br /><br /><br />

[annis]

[quote author=Bert de Haan link=board=2;threadid=356;start=0#2717 date=1060004868]<br />I don't want to assume that after [face=SPIonic]ga/r[/face] the subject can change, because then I am making my own grammar rules.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Ahah! I found it.<br /><br />It is true that you cannot assume that the subject has changed when you see [face=SPIonic]ga/r[/face]. But I did know this, but I only now found the reference. Smyth 1112 says, "[face=SPIonic]o( de/, h( de/, to\ de/[/face] (without a preceding [face=SPIonic]me/n[/face] clause) often means but (or and) he, she, this. In the nominative the person referred to is usually different from the subject of the main verb: [face=SPIonic]Ku=roj di/dwsin au)tw=| muri/ouj dareikou/j: o( de\ labw\n to\ xrusi/on k.t.l.[/face] Cyrus gives him (Clearchus) 10,000 darics; and he taking the money... etc."

[Ptolemaios]

[quote author=William Annis link=board=2;threadid=356;start=0#3334 date=1060528596]<br /><br />Smyth 1112 says, "[face=SPIonic]o( de/, h( de/, to\ de/[/face] (without a preceding [face=SPIonic]me/n[/face] clause) often means but (or and) he, she, this. In the nominative the person referred to is usually different from the subject of the main verb: [face=SPIonic]Ku=roj di/dwsin au)tw=| muri/ouj dareikou/j: o( de\ labw\n to\ xrusi/on k.t.l.[/face] Cyrus gives him (Clearchus) 10,000 darics; and he taking the money... etc."<br />[/quote]<br /><br />I think this should be: is usually different from the preceding topic. The particle [face=SPIonic]de/[/face] is a sign of what is called 'topic shift' (topic as a technical term from functional linguistics). Though the main verb of the [face=SPIonic]o( de\ labw\n to\ xrusi/on k.t.l[/face] isn't cited, my guess is that this is not a subordinate clause with (is that the right preposition?) the preceding sentence, so in this case de can't signal that the subject is different from the main subject.<br />The article to read on this subject is by Egbert Bakker (I can't remember any further bibliographical data)<br /><br />[face=SPIonic]Eu)/xomai se e)rrw=sqai[/face]<br /><br />Ptolemaios