Aoidoi.org — another Homeric Hymn
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
- Location: Madison, WI, USA
- Contact:
Aoidoi.org — another Homeric Hymn
Homeric Hymn Six, to Aphrodite, has received the usual treatment.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/ — http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:55 am
hey will, thanks very much for this excellent doc!
just v. quickly, you took πε?ί (in line 6) as adverbial, but my 1st reading was in tmesis, i.e. πε?ιέννυμι; also you read ἑλικοβλέφα?ος (in line 19) as "quickly-glancing (?)", but I thought it was quite similar to the familiar homeric ἑλίκωψ, which Hesychius reads as "black-eyed" (for ref, see my notes to Iliad A 98 here: http://www.freewebs.com/mhninaeide/IliadANotes.pdf ).
thanks again, cheers, chad.
just v. quickly, you took πε?ί (in line 6) as adverbial, but my 1st reading was in tmesis, i.e. πε?ιέννυμι; also you read ἑλικοβλέφα?ος (in line 19) as "quickly-glancing (?)", but I thought it was quite similar to the familiar homeric ἑλίκωψ, which Hesychius reads as "black-eyed" (for ref, see my notes to Iliad A 98 here: http://www.freewebs.com/mhninaeide/IliadANotes.pdf ).
thanks again, cheers, chad.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
- Location: Madison, WI, USA
- Contact:
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/ — http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 2:07 am
- Location: Somerville, MA (Boston Area)
I always thought that from a linguistic point of view, the notion of tmesis was merely an artificial construct invented during the hellenistic period and anachronistically applied back to the language of the Homeric period, during which the elements which later became prefixes were still adverbs and still just as naturally able to appear separately from the verb as attached ... At least, if I remember my Sihler, I think that's what he said .
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:55 am
hey will,
yeah re tmesis i agree both readings work, i just mentioned my 1st reading in passing (if you wanted to add it as a note for your readers who study homer), nb that whole phrase is lifted from iliad 16.670 and 16.680, and lsj states that the verb there is πε?ιέννυμι, and so i doubt the tmesis reading is worse than the other reading (although both readings work because they both take the acc.)
i think the tmesis artificiality point you mention comes from the fact that tmesis isn't found in mycenean: see my notes to Iliad A 25: http://www.freewebs.com/mhninaeide/IliadANotes.pdf )
interesting about hesychius, what other readings have caught your attention as being accommodating?
thanks again for the doc, cheers, chad.
yeah re tmesis i agree both readings work, i just mentioned my 1st reading in passing (if you wanted to add it as a note for your readers who study homer), nb that whole phrase is lifted from iliad 16.670 and 16.680, and lsj states that the verb there is πε?ιέννυμι, and so i doubt the tmesis reading is worse than the other reading (although both readings work because they both take the acc.)
i think the tmesis artificiality point you mention comes from the fact that tmesis isn't found in mycenean: see my notes to Iliad A 25: http://www.freewebs.com/mhninaeide/IliadANotes.pdf )
interesting about hesychius, what other readings have caught your attention as being accommodating?
thanks again for the doc, cheers, chad.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
- Location: Madison, WI, USA
- Contact:
Well, that's the question. That's the common opinion, but it might not be so simple. Chad's post addresses the Myc. data.IVSTINIANVS wrote:I always thought that from a linguistic point of view, the notion of tmesis was merely an artificial construct invented during the hellenistic period and anachronistically applied back to the language of the Homeric period,
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/ — http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
- Location: Madison, WI, USA
- Contact:
Exactly.chad wrote:i think the tmesis artificiality point you mention comes from the fact that tmesis isn't found in mycenean:
No one thing, just a vague sense he can confirm whatever you want. That so many entries are without context causes me a little worry, too. But as I said, I've never made a close study of him.interesting about hesychius, what other readings have caught your attention as being accommodating?
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/ — http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 2:07 am
- Location: Somerville, MA (Boston Area)
I thought it was much more than that -- for instance comparison with, e.g., Vedic Sanskrit.chad wrote:i think the tmesis artificiality point you mention comes from the fact that tmesis isn't found in mycenean: see my notes to Iliad A 25: http://www.freewebs.com/mhninaeide/IliadANotes.pdf )
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
- Location: Madison, WI, USA
- Contact:
Further questions: 1. Was the fixed preverb location in Myc. typical of all the Greek dialects, or did they each move toward that at different paces? 2. Was the Myc. chancery language typical of spoken Mycenaean (in this matter; pretty clearly it was not in general)?chad wrote:the artificiality point will mentioned is that preverbs were attached to verbs in earlier grk (myc), but are sometimes separated in homer,
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/ — http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Contact:
The best book I know on this interesting topic is Horrocks' "Space and Time in Homer: Prepositional and Adverbial Particles in the Greek Epic." Concerning the matter of this thread he argues:
1. In its use of particles Mycenaean differs very little from classical Greek. That is, the tablets exhibit no evidence of the so-called independent adverbial particle in "tmesis." Rather, particles are either "pre-positions" in construction with a NP, or they have become "pre-verbs" in construction with a VP.
2. There was much less dialectical diversity in the Mycenaean period than in the classical period. There were two basic dialects, East Greek (Mycenaean) and West Greek.
3. There is little evidence of West Greek features in Homer. Hence Homer can only inherit from Mycenaean.
4. Inherited features present in Homer but absent from the Mycenaean of the tablets must therefore have entered the Epic tradition at a time when they were current in East Greek, i.e., prior to the tablets.
Cordially,
Paul
1. In its use of particles Mycenaean differs very little from classical Greek. That is, the tablets exhibit no evidence of the so-called independent adverbial particle in "tmesis." Rather, particles are either "pre-positions" in construction with a NP, or they have become "pre-verbs" in construction with a VP.
2. There was much less dialectical diversity in the Mycenaean period than in the classical period. There were two basic dialects, East Greek (Mycenaean) and West Greek.
3. There is little evidence of West Greek features in Homer. Hence Homer can only inherit from Mycenaean.
4. Inherited features present in Homer but absent from the Mycenaean of the tablets must therefore have entered the Epic tradition at a time when they were current in East Greek, i.e., prior to the tablets.
Cordially,
Paul
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:55 am
hi paul thanks for that can i ask, point 4 of your post, and further question 1 of will above, imply (to me) that there was a phase at some point prior to homer where preverbs were separated from verbs in grk, and moved towards a "fusion". how do we know this, if our earliest grk records (myc) don't show separation of preverb from verb? (i.e., why is it assumed that "tmesis" is a hangover from some more ancient stage of the language, which the epic bards somehow still had access to?).
this essay by duhoux on the myc verb is also interesting: i've extracted the relevant page (s6 in the article) on preverbs in myc:
http://www.freewebs.com/mhninaeide/Foot ... 20verb.pdf
cheers, chad.
this essay by duhoux on the myc verb is also interesting: i've extracted the relevant page (s6 in the article) on preverbs in myc:
http://www.freewebs.com/mhninaeide/Foot ... 20verb.pdf
cheers, chad.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Contact:
Hey Chad,
Yes, a quite reasonable question. Give me some time to dig further into the matter. BTW: Horrocks' book is a revision of his 1978 Ph.D. thesis at Cambridge.
Thanks for the Duhoux link. Yet another opportunity, after Chantraine and Humbert, to dust off my always slightly dusty French.
Cordially,
Paul
Yes, a quite reasonable question. Give me some time to dig further into the matter. BTW: Horrocks' book is a revision of his 1978 Ph.D. thesis at Cambridge.
Thanks for the Duhoux link. Yet another opportunity, after Chantraine and Humbert, to dust off my always slightly dusty French.
Cordially,
Paul
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
- Location: Madison, WI, USA
- Contact:
We have to contend with the Vedic comparative evidence, which is somewhat similar to Greek. Tmesis is fairly common in verse, rare but not unheard of Vedic prose. In both languages the preverbs (several directly cognate) are separated from the verb by the past tense augment, and are further freely usable as prepositions or adverbs.chad wrote:(i.e., why is it assumed that "tmesis" is a hangover from some more ancient stage of the language, which the epic bards somehow still had access to?).
It seems our choices are either that tmesis reflects an early stage of the language which Indic and Hellenic poetic traditions kept as an archaism, or that tmesis is an ancient innovation of poetic syntax preserved in both verse traditions. Both seem possible to me, and the Myc. evidence doesn't seem old enough to resolve the question.
I wonder how a Homeric audience responded to these.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/ — http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
- Location: Madison, WI, USA
- Contact:
How on earth does he know that?! I'll have to track down a copy of this myself. Oddly, it seems easier to come by than his more recent book.Paul wrote:The best book I know on this interesting topic is Horrocks' "Space and Time in Homer: Prepositional and Adverbial Particles in the Greek Epic." Concerning the matter of this thread he argues:
...
2. There was much less dialectical diversity in the Mycenaean period than in the classical period. There were two basic dialects, East Greek (Mycenaean) and West Greek.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/ — http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
- Location: Madison, WI, USA
- Contact:
Oy. I should always consult Fortston before commenting in these discussions. (Sections 8.9, 8.10).
The intrusion of a non-clitic word between preverb and verb is attested in Old Avestan, Old Hittite, Old Irish, Old Latin, in addition to Vedic and Homeric. Gothic (and Old Irish) quite frequently admit clitics between preverb and verb.
Surely in Homer tmesis is an archaism.
The intrusion of a non-clitic word between preverb and verb is attested in Old Avestan, Old Hittite, Old Irish, Old Latin, in addition to Vedic and Homeric. Gothic (and Old Irish) quite frequently admit clitics between preverb and verb.
Surely in Homer tmesis is an archaism.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/ — http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:55 am
hey will, thanks for that your posts, along with paul's, wrap it up i think (but it'd be interesting, from a curiosity standpoint only, to know how the grk epic bards knew about this archaism, i.e. from earlier grk, or from one of the other non-grk IE traditions you mention above... interesting implications in either case, although the answer to this is probably unrecoverable, i'm not sure), cheers, chad.