Declension inconsistencies?

[Socrates the Cyborg]

I'm working through lesson three now and I have a question about declension patterns. It seems as if sometimes the pattern isn't really followed even in what are presented as basic model cases. For example, in section 638 Pharr uses the example θεός, οῦ, á½￾ god to show how you should read off the vocab. list entry to know that this word is second declension masculine. Now I can see that it is masculine by the pronoun á½￾ that is associated with it, but I can't see how οῦ conforms to the pattern of ο(ιο) that is listed for the genitive of second declension nouns. This also happens for κᾱλὴ βουλή. These have stems κᾱλᾱ- and βουλᾱ- and so in the nominativ for instance I would think the stem would either be unchanged or add Ï‚ as the pattern indicates. However, instead in the nominative we have κᾱλὴ βουλή. There seem to be other little inconsistencies like this throughout these first few examples. What should I make of these variations? Should I just accept them as they are? Or is there something I am missing?

[chad]

hi, see sections 3.2 (1st declension) and 6.1-6.2 (2nd) in my notes here:

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

cheers, chad.

[Socrates the Cyborg]

Thanks chad. My compliments on the notes too, they are quite nice. I guess the point I am getting is that essentially there is a reason for these but that it's pretty complicated and historical, and may have a degree of randomness to it. Is that accurate?

I did realize one thing about the accents though, I realized that the reason κᾱλὴ has the grave and βουλή has the acute is because of that rule about the acute in the last syllable changing to a grave when it's in front of another word.

[Socrates the Cyborg]

Ok as I read on (I had copied out the declensions to cards before without reading the text carefully) I get to section 647, which refers to section 621, these, along with the explanation in your notes are making this more clear. Thanks again.

[chad]

hi, yep the spelling differences have all sorts of reasons. i just uploaded for you pg 1 of another one of my iliad editions, this one by Bolling 1950, Ilias Atheniensium: The Athenian Iliad of the Sixth Century BC, which tries to capture the iliad at an earlier stage than previous iliad editions.

http://www.freewebs.com/mhninaeide/Pg1Atheniensium.jpg

note the spelling of the 1st word in line 9 compared to your pharr version.

for more on the differences between iliad editions see chapter 6 of West 2001, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad, worth a read, cheers, chad.

[Socrates the Cyborg]

It's interesting that in section 80 where Pharr lists that word for the first time, he spells it as in the Bolling edition but then lists what he writes in the actual poem lines and refers to the contraction rules. These rules though he says aren't often applied. Your notes on the other hand are talking about the genitive singular. I take it that this example is in the nominative though. These seem like different phenomena to me. Am I off base with that?

[chad]

hi, i was just showing an e.g. of spelling differences between editions...

but btw on the grk side, have another quick think about the case, nom? gen?. cheers, chad.