Eur.Hec.914 - Is ὠλλύμαν for ὠλλύμην? Hyper-Doric?

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Eur.Hec.914 - Is ὠλλύμαν for ὠλλύμην? Hyper-Doric?

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:15 pm

Am I correct in assuming that Is ὠλλύμαν for ὠλλύμην here? Is that standard Doric or a sort of hyper-Doric?
I notice that ἁδύς is not written for ἡδὺς though.
Euripides, Hecuba 914-916 wrote:μεσονύκτιος ὠλλύμαν,
ἦμος ἐκ δείπνων ὕπνος ἡδὺς ἐπ᾽ ὄσσοις 915
σκίδναται,
οὐ μέν πως πάντες βασιλεύσομεν ἐνθάδ᾽ Ἀχαιοί:
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω,
εἷς βασιλεύς, ᾧ δῶκε Κρόνου πάϊς ἀγκυλομήτεω
σκῆπτρόν τ᾽ ἠδὲ θέμιστας, ἵνά σφισι βουλεύῃσι. (Illiad 2.203-206)

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1553
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Eur.Hec.914 - Is ὠλλύμαν for ὠλλύμην? Hyper-Doric?

Post by Hylander » Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:04 pm

-μαν is "standard" Doric and represents the original 1st sing. middle secondary ending, which became -μην in Attic-Ionic. However, "standard" Doric is a term that should be used with caution, given the inconsistencies in the transmission of texts in dialects other than Attic-Ionic.

ὕπνος ἡδὺς is an epic echo and ἦμος is an epic word, and these are consequently Ionic forms even in Euripides' "Doric" chorus.

Not all etas in Attic-Ionic were originally long alphas. Eta was an inherited vowel in Greek, and dialects other than Attic-Ionic, including Doric, preserved this vowel. Some texts in those dialects have been altered to change inherited etas to alphas, and in some instances, long alphas may even have been originally written for genuine Doric etas in the thinly Doricized choruses of Attic drama. For the most part, the "Doric" choruses are Attic with long alphas substituted for etas and a few other salient Doric features.

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Eur.Hec.914 - Is ὠλλύμαν for ὠλλύμην? Hyper-Doric?

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:42 pm

A different point in that same passage... Why is the speaker describing themself adejectivally as μεσονύκτιος rather than using a temporal adverb to describe the destruction?
οὐ μέν πως πάντες βασιλεύσομεν ἐνθάδ᾽ Ἀχαιοί:
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω,
εἷς βασιλεύς, ᾧ δῶκε Κρόνου πάϊς ἀγκυλομήτεω
σκῆπτρόν τ᾽ ἠδὲ θέμιστας, ἵνά σφισι βουλεύῃσι. (Illiad 2.203-206)

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1553
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Eur.Hec.914 - Is ὠλλύμαν for ὠλλύμην? Hyper-Doric?

Post by Hylander » Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:16 pm

Why is the speaker describing themself adjectivally as μεσονύκτιος rather than using a temporal adverb
This is idiomatic Greek.

Smyth 1042:
1042. Several adjectives of time, place, order of succession, etc., are used as predicates where English employs an adverb or a preposition with its case: ““ἀφικνοῦνται τριταῖοι” they arrive on the third day” X. A. 5.3.2, κατέβαινον σκοταῖοι they descended in the dark 4. 1. 10. In such cases the adjective is regarded as a quality of the subject; whereas an adverb would regard the manner of the action.

a. Time, place: χρόνιος late, ὄρθριος in the morning, δευτεραῖος on the second day, ποσταῖος how many days? ὑπαίθριος in the open air.

b. Order of succession: πρῶτος, πρότερος first, ὕστερος later, μέσος in the midst, τελευταῖος last, ὕστατος last.

N.—When one action is opposed to another in order of sequence, the adverbs πρῶτον, πρότερον, ὕστατον, etc., not the adjectives πρῶτος, etc.. must be used: ““πρῶτον μὲν ἐδάκρυ_ε πολὺν χρόνον . . . εἶτα δὲ ἔλεξε τοιάδε” first he wept for a long time, then he spoke as follows” X. A. 1.3.2. Hence distinguish

πρῶτος τῇ πόλει προσέβαλε he was the first to attack the city.
πρώτῃ τῇ πόλει προσέβαλε the city was the first place he attacked.
πρῶτον τῇ πόλει προσέβαλε his first act was to attack the city.

The same rule applies in the case of μόνος, μόνον, as μόνην τὴν ἐπιστολη<*> ἔγραψα this is the only letter I wrote, μόνον ἔγραψα τὴν ἐπιστολήν I only wrote (but did not send) the letter. But this distinction is not always observed (Aes. 3.69).
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0007

Post Reply