ὡσ ἔπος εἰπεἶν

[Kurama]

I know that this phrase is an idiom meaning 'so to say'. But I would like to know its literal meaning and its full, explicit grammatical analysis. I know that if you give the full analysis in the way I want, you will end up with something that is barely intelligible. But that is precisely what I want: I want to know why it is that the phrase is, strictly speaking, grammatical, even if it makes little sense when taken literally.

Mastronarde says that εἰπεἶν here is an epexegetic infinitive. I looked up ἔπος, and it is the nominative of 'word'. I assume ὡσ is an adverb meaning 'as'. So the literal translation would be 'as word to say'. So it is saying that something X is, in respect of being something to be said, like a certain unspecified word. But what is the implicit subject X of this claim? Take for instance the following sentence from Gorgias 456a:

εἰ πάντα γε εἰδείης, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὅτι ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἁπάσας τὰς δυνάμεις συλλαβοῦσα ὑφ᾽ αὑτῇ ἔχει.

Translated in a super-literal way:

And you would, indeed, Socrates, if you should know all, that, as word to say, it [rhetoric] holds all powers under itself, encompassing them.

So the question is, how does this 'as word to say' fit in the sentence? What is the X that is 'as word to say'? Is it the subject of the sentence that ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν modifies, i.e., rhetoric? Or is it implicitly referring to the whole proposition expressed by 'it holds all powers under itself, encompassing them'?

Thanks for helping with this highly abstruse question!

[bedwere]

ἔπος is neuter...

[Hylander]

It qualifies ἁπάσας. You could translate it "just about all" or "more or less all". It's an idiom that can't be translated literally into English.

LSJ ἔπος:

4. ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν almost, practically, qualifying a too absolute expression, esp. with πᾶς and οὐδείς (not with metaphors), Pl.Ap.17a, Phd. 78e, Grg.456a, al., Arist.Metaph.1009b16, Pol.1252b29, D.9.47, etc. ; opp. ὄντως or ἀκριβεῖ λόγῳ, Pl.Lg.656e, R.341b ; later “ὡς ἔ. ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν” POxy.67.14(iv A.D.) ; in Trag., “ὡς εἰπεῖν ἔ.” A.Pers.714(troch.), E.Heracl.167,Hipp.1162, once in Pl.,Lg.967b(s.v.l.).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 3De)%2Fpos

See Smyth sec. 2012 for grammatical analysis:

2012. Certain idiomatic infinitives are used absolutely in parenthetical phrases to limit the application of a single expression or of the entire sentence.

a. Verbs of Saying.—ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ὡς εἰπεῖν so to speak, almost; (ὡς) ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν, ὡς συνελόντι (1497) εἰπεῖν, ὡς (ἐν βραχεῖ or) συντόμως εἰπεῖν to speak briefly, concisely; ὡς ἐπὶ πᾶν εἰπεῖν, τὸ σύμπαν εἰπεῖν speaking generally; σχεδὸν εἰπεῖν so to say, almost (paene dixerim); σὺν θεῷ εἰπεῖν in God's name; and so ὡς with λέγειν, φράζειν, εἰρῆσθαι, as ὡς ἐν τύπῳ εἰρῆσθαι in general. Examples: ἀληθές γε ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν οὐδὲν εἰρήκα_σιν not one word of truth, I may say, did they utter P. A. 17a, ἀγαθὸν μὲν ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν οὐδὲν γέγονε τῇ πόλει in a word the State gained no advantage Dinarchus 1.33.

b. ὡς (ἔπος) εἰπεῖν is often used to limit too strict an application of a general statement, especially πᾶς or οὐδείς. Thus, πάντες ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν nearly every one, οὐδεὶς ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν almost no one. It is thus used like paene dixerim; rarely, like ut ita dicam, to soften the strength of a metaphor.

c. Especially common is the absolute εἶναι in ἑκὼν willingly, intentionally, if you can help it, usually in negative or quasi-negative statements (ἑκών may be inflected). Also in τὸ κατὰ τοῦτον (ἐπὶ τούτῳ) εἶναι as far as he is concerned, ὡς . . . εἶναι as far as . . . is concerned, τὸ νῦν εἶναι at present. Examples: ““οὐδὲ ξένοις ἑκὼν εἶναι γέλωτα παρέχεις” nor do you intentionally cause strangers to laugh” X. C. 2.2.15, ““ἑκοῦσα εἶναι οὐκ ἀπολείπεται” it is not willingly separated” P. Phae. 252a, τό γε ἐπ᾽ ἐκεῖνον εἶναι ἐσώθης (ἄν) so far, at least, as it depended on him you would have been saved L. 13.58.

d. Other expressions: ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν, ὡς ἐμοὶ κρῖναι as it seems to me, in my opinion, (ὡς) εἰκάσαι to make a guess, (ὡς) συμβάλλειν to compare, (ὡς) ἀκοῦσαι to the ear, ὡς ὑμομνῆσαι to recall the matter, ὅσον γέ μ᾽ εἰδέναι as far as I know, etc.; ὀλίγου δεῖν, μι_κροῦ δεῖν almost, all but (δεῖν may be omitted, 1399). Examples: ὁ γὰρ Κτήσιππος ἔτυχε πόρρω καθεζόμενος τοῦ Κλεινίου, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν for Ctesippus, it seems to me, happened to be sitting at a distance from Clinias P. Eu. 274b, ““μι_κροῦ δεῖν τρία τάλαντα” almost three talents” D. 27.29.

e. Some of these absolute infinitives may be explained by reference to the idea of purpose (2008) or result. Thus, συνελόντι εἰπεῖν for one compressing the matter to speak (cp. ut paucis dicam), μι_κροῦ δεῖν so as to lack little. Others recall the adverbial accusative (1606); cp. ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν with γνώμην ἐμήν.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0007

[mwh]

επος is not the subject of ειπειν, as you took it, but internal accusative, lit. “to say a word” (επος and ειπειν are cognate). For the use of the infinitive see Smyth 2012, esp. b. For the use of ὡς (which here does not mean “as”) see LSJ ὡς B.II.3, where you will find analogous phrases; cf. LSJ ἔπος ΙΙ.4. You can find both Smyth and LSJ on this site. And welcome to Textkit!

EDIT Hylander’s ahead of me, but I post this anyway in case it adds anything.

[Kurama]

επος is not the subject of ειπειν, as you took it, but internal accusative, lit. “to say a word” (επος and ειπειν are cognate). For the use of the infinitive see Smyth 2012, esp. b. For the use of ὡς (which here does not mean “as”) see LSJ ὡς B.II.3, where you will find analogous phrases; cf. LSJ ἔπος ΙΙ.4. You can find both Smyth and LSJ on this site. And welcome to Textkit!

EDIT Hylander’s ahead of me, but I post this anyway in case it adds anything.

This is exactly what I needed to know, thanks! I understand the grammatical structure of the phrase now. What the sentence is literally saying can be paraphrased like this: To say it in a certain way [i.e., 'to say a word'], I will say it thus: all powers, etc. So it is modifying an implicit 'I will say it thus'. Gorgias is telling us that he will say it thus in order to have a way of saying it. Hence why Mastronarde said it is an infinitive of result (epexegetic). Wonderful!

[mwh]

Well, not quite. It’s a stock idiom best not understood literally at all, and qualifies only απασας. See the beginning of Hylander’s post.

[Kurama]

Well, not quite. It’s a stock idiom best not understood literally at all. See the beginning of Hylander’s post for its function and meaning.

But if you are going to force a literal interpretation on it, that's a way to make it come out as a grammatically correct construction, right?

[mwh]

No. It qualifies nothing but απασας, as I just said in editing my post, redundantly echoing Hylander and the authorities I referred to and he quoted.

[Hylander]

Why do you want to force a literal interpretation on it? In using this idiom, Gorgias is doing nothing more than qualifying ἁπάσας, to make it less absolute. People don't think about the literal meaning of this kind of idiom when they use it.

It's like unthinkingly using "literally" in English to emphasize a point when it doesn't mean "literally" at all, as some people do: "He literally died laughing!" He didn't die--he just laughed very hard.

[Kurama]

No. It qualifies nothing but απασας, as I just said in editing my post, redundantly echoing Hylander and the authorities I referred to and he quoted.

"ὡς (ἔπος) εἰπεῖν is often used to limit too strict an application of a general statement, especially πᾶς or οὐδείς."

As you can see, what you said is not quite what the authority says. In any case, whether it qualifies απασας or the statement as a whole, is a question on which nothing much hinges.

Why do you want to force a literal interpretation on it?

Because I care about grammar, very much. I understand what an idiom is quite well. And I am not going to think of the literal meaning when I am reading a Greek text. But right now I just want to understand the syntax at the level of what is literally being said for the sake of understanding the grammar. The references you gave me were just what I needed to clear all doubts, thanks!

[Hylander]

mwh wrote:
No. It qualifies nothing but απασας, as I just said in editing my post, redundantly echoing Hylander and the authorities I referred to and he quoted.


"ὡς (ἔπος) εἰπεῖν is often used to limit too strict an application of a general statement, especially πᾶς or οὐδείς."

As you can see, what you said is not quite what the authority says. In any case, whether it qualifies απασας or the statement as a whole, is a question on which nothing much hinges.

What mwh wrote is exactly what the "authority" says. ὡς (ἔπος) εἰπεῖν qualifies απασας. That has the effect of making the statement less general and less categorical.

And the "grammatical" discussion in Smyth ("epexegetical infinitive") is nothing more than a description of an idiomatic usage, a convenient label and not an explanation of syntax. The expression, and similar expressions, don't really fit into the syntax of the sentence except taken as a whole as quasi-adverbial modifiers.

[Kurama]

mwh wrote:
No. It qualifies nothing but απασας, as I just said in editing my post, redundantly echoing Hylander and the authorities I referred to and he quoted.


"ὡς (ἔπος) εἰπεῖν is often used to limit too strict an application of a general statement, especially πᾶς or οὐδείς."

As you can see, what you said is not quite what the authority says. In any case, whether it qualifies απασας or the statement as a whole, is a question on which nothing much hinges.

What mwh wrote is exactly what the "authority" says. ὡς (ἔπος) εἰπεῖν qualifies απασας. That has the effect of making the statement less general and less categorical.

And the "grammatical" discussion in Smyth ("epexegetical infinitive") is nothing more than a description of an idiomatic usage, a convenient label and not an explanation of syntax. The expression, and similar expressions, don't really fit into the syntax of the sentence except taken as a whole as quasi-adverbial modifiers.

First of all, I would like to thank you both for the help you've given me. It's very hard to navigate LSJ and Smyth, and you have made things much easier for me by pointing out the resources.

I also want to say that I agree with you that one can take the expression as modifying απασας and as an absolute construction for which 'epexegetic infinitive' is only a handy description. I understand that from the point of view of contemporary linguistics, traditional grammar is limited because its categories and their application aren't always well defined, so that it sometimes shoehorns certain data into a mold that doesn't quite match the data.

Setting that aside, I just wanted to understand in what way and how the traditional grammarians have made sense of the expression. I understand they were probably aware that not everything would fit into their framework, and so that sometimes the explanations they gave would only be 'handy labels'.

But with that qualification, I think the way they dealt with the expression is that they came to see it as an expression that qualifies a choice of words. They construe "ὡσ ἔπος εἰπεἶν" as giving an answer from the speaker, at the literal level of meaning, to the hypothetical question "Why do you choose απασας and not another word?" or "Why do you choose the sentence that you are using?" The answer being: "To have a way of saying what I want to say. If I am going to say this at all, I find myself in need to use these words".

That is the way I make sense of ὡς being called by LSJ a conjunction that expresses a final clause in ὡσ ἔπος εἰπεἶν. If LSJ did not want this interpretation, I think they would just have created a separate category for this use of ὡσ. Yes, to some extent this is probably just a label that gives an approximate description of what is going on, but to the extent that the label is not arbitrary, that is the logic I see behind it. Note how another example they give under ὡσ fits just this account:

3. ὡς c. inf., to limit an assertion, “ὡς μὲν ἐμοὶ δοκέειν” Hdt.6.95, cf. 2.124; ὡς εἰπεῖν λόγῳ ib.53; or ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, cf. “ἔπος” 11.4;

The interpretation I am proposing would make no sense if δοκέειν were taken as 'to seem'. 'To seem to me' cannot be answer to the question 'why are you choosing these words?'. We would need a verb that could grammatically have 'I' as its subject, but it does not make sense to take 'to seem' like that here. Hence, we'd have to take “ὡς μὲν ἐμοὶ δοκέειν” merely as a loose adverbial expression used to express a limitation of the assertion it modifies. We'd not have an explanation as to why δοκέειν should be taken here as an epexegetic that would mirror any of the explanations that we have available for the epexegetic use of the infinitive in other contexts. (And why did the Greek native speaker feel inclined to use that dative form of the 1st personal pronoun? Who knows! Maybe they just liked to erratically throw in loose words like that into sentences. Or maybe there is actually a grammatical account of why the phrase made intuitive sense to them...)

And yet, look at the entry for δοκέω:

2. abs., have or form an opinion, “περί τινος” Hdt.9.65; mostly in parenthetic phrases, “ὡς δοκῶ” Pl.Phdr.264e;

LSJ are telling us that when δοκέω is used in an absolute construction, including with ὡς, it means to have or form an opinion. Why? The best explanation for me is that they want to explicitly make a provision for the way in which, according to me, they shoehorn this use of the infinitive into a limiting expression of result. Contrary to 'to seem', it would make sense to use 'to have an opinion' with 'I' as its subject. So in my reading, LSJ want “ὡς δοκῶ” to be translated literally as saying 'so that I have an opinion'. Analogously with “ὡς μὲν ἐμοὶ δοκέειν”, which is to be translated literally as "to have an opinion for myself". Again, here, we can make sense of it as answering a hypothetical question "Why are you choosing these words?", answer: "Well, in order to have a way of giving myself an opinion".

As to whether it qualifies απασας or more than that, Smyth seems a bit equivocal. First he says:

"Certain idiomatic infinitives are used absolutely in parenthetical phrases to limit the application of a single expression or of the entire sentence."

All right, so he's telling us that they can apply either to a single expression or to an entire sentence. So far, then, we only know that it could apply to απασας or to the entire sentence in which it figures. Then he says:

"ὡς (ἔπος) εἰπεῖν is often used to limit too strict an application of a general statement, especially πᾶς or οὐδείς."

Well, but πᾶς is not a statement, the sentence in which it figures is. So this is confusing language from Smyth. Though, note how the examples he then gives imply that he meant what he said to apply only to πᾶς. But as to what he is actually saying, that is confusing.

On the other hand, LSJ say:

"3. ὡς c. inf., to limit an assertion,"

An assertion, not an expression. But then again they say:

"4. ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν almost, practically, qualifying a too absolute expression, esp. with πᾶς and οὐδείς (not with metaphors),"

Oh, so now it is only an expression, not an assertion. Confusing. =S

But as I said, it does not matter. If am right in reading both groups of scholars as taking the expression to qualify a choice of words, it matters very little whether it qualifies the choice of πᾶς only or of the entire sentence.

[jeidsath]

The orthography is like this: ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν. Notice the form of the final sigma for ὡς and that εἰπεῖν has a circumflex over ει but no breathing mark. "ὡσ" and "εἰπεἶν" are always incorrect. Writing in this way might make it look to some that you haven't quite mastered the basics yet.

You may want to try looking at the classical usages of the phrase (there are more than 100 in the extant texts):

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi ... eekFeb2011

But with that qualification, I think the way they dealt with the expression is that they came to see it as an expression that qualifies a choice of words. They construe "ὡσ ἔπος εἰπεἶν" as giving an answer from the speaker, at the literal level of meaning, to the hypothetical question "Why do you choose απασας and not another word?" or "Why do you choose the sentence that you are using?" The answer being: "To have a way of saying what I want to say. If I am going to say this at all, I find myself in need to use these words".

Your thought does not appear to fit with how the Greeks used the phrase, nor how the grammars explain it.

***

This thread may not be a useful place to talk about it, but the Greeks were "sensitive to rude or boastful speech" according to Shorey in a note to Republic 361E "καὶ δὴ κἂν ἀγροικοτέρως λέγηται, μὴ ἐμὲ οἴου λέγειν..." He cites 613E, Gorg. 486c., 509A, Apol 32D.

At first I thought that some of Plato's uses of this phrase also count. See Apol 17a, for example. But on reflection, it doesn't appear to be the case. Plato is using it to say "I'm not speaking precisely" rather than "I'm not totally in earnest."

[Paul Derouda]

If I understood correctly, Kurama is asking here what the literal meaning of the expression would be. I don't think the question is illegitimate and we shouldn't just dismiss it because ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν a fixed expression. I'm sure that paying close attention to this kind of thing helps to make progress with Greek, as long as one doesn't lose sight of the fact that it's an idiom.

I think "to have a way of saying what I want to say" is pretty close, as is "so to say". In English we might also say "to put it simply/short/bluntly (depending on context)", which I think isn't too far either. But I think the biggest problem with (and an important fact to glean from) translating literally this idiom is that the word ἔπος is difficult to render in English. "Utterance" is perhaps the closest equivalent in this context; the usual translation is "word", but I'm not sure if an equivalent for "word" exists at all in Greek.

So perhaps ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν "to say it with short utterance"?

[Hylander]

So perhaps ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν "to say it with short utterance"?

ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν doesn't mean "to say it with a short utterance". It's generally used with words meaning "all" or "none", and qualifies those words to make them less categorical or absolute. "More or less" or "just about" convey the meaning better than "so to speak". It could be translated literally as "to speak a word", or "to utter an utterance," but that doesn't convey the meaning of the expression at all.

Maybe you could analyze it grammatically as an expression of "purpose", but ὡς + infinitive is not a normal way to express purpose in Greek. The construction is limited to a few mostly fixed phrases which serve as adverbial modifiers.

[mwh]

Kurama, I’m afraid you’re completely wrong about ως εμοι δοκεειν, where the verb does mean “seem” (used impersonally, cf. Latin ut mihi videtur). No-one with any knowledge of Greek would question that, regardless of their preferred grammatical framework. You say “The interpretation I am proposing would make no sense if δοκέειν were taken as 'to seem'.” So much the worse for your interpretation.

As to the syntax of these phrases, the essential point is that the infinitive has no syntactical relation to the rest of the sentence, i.e. it’s “absolute.” But pragmatically such expressions are adverbial modifiers, as Hylander says.

[Paul Derouda]

I don't think anyone on this thread denies the fact that ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν is an idiom and that its meaning that can't be extracted from its constituent parts. As far as I understand, the point was to dissect the idiom to see how it has come about diachronically, what its origin is.

"To speak a word" doesn't convey the meaning at all, because ἔπος hardly means "word", not at least in this context. Actually, I don't remember ever seeing ἔπος in the basic sense of "word" (as taken from Oxford English Dictionnary), "a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed". Maybe this meaning exists, perhaps in later Greek, but that's certainly not the case here, and its not the primary meaning of the word. Typically ἔπος is used with reference to the content of the utterance, a meaningful speech act.

"Speak" doesn't convey the meaning either too well here, because the verb εἰπεῖν is also typically used with reference to the content of the utterance – "say", "tell", "name" rather than "speak". Again, this doesn't mean that εἰπεῖν couldn't be translated "speak" in some context, just that it refers to a meaningful speech act and not just the act of emitting speech sounds.

What I mean is that we can't really discuss the meaning of ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν without entering semantics. As far as Greek words for speech acts are concerned (not just ἔπος, but μυθος and others as well), I find the question thrilling. If anyone wants to discuss that...

Let's not go into ὡς μὲν ἐμοὶ δοκέειν, which seems to take us into muddy waters...

[mwh]

ok then let's say "to make a meaningful speech act of a meaningful speech act."

P.S.
In originally translating it as “to say a word” (while noting that επος and ειπειν are cognates), I was merely making it clear that επος is not the subject of ειπειν as Kurama mistakenly thought.

As to origin, well, who knows? I think of ως επος ειπειν as being quintessentially Attic (Ionic-Attic if you must). Was it ever used before the 5th cent.? επος and ειπειν occur together in Homer, in various forms, so in prose ως ειπειν may have come with επος in attendance from the start. επος (unlike ειπειν) is not an ordinary prose word, but its presence is readily accounted for not only by epic influence (epic is unmistakably in the background) but also by Greek’s fondness for cognate expressions (λογον λεγειν etc etc). ως επος ειπειν may sound like a hexameter ending but is surely confined to prose; not even επος ειπειν is a Homeric collocation (unlike ειπειν επος; no doubt the digamma has something to do with that). Originally επος must have lent the phrase some degree of epic color, but it doesn’t seem at all elevated in its actual usage. The words won’t carry the same semantic load as in epic, precisely because we’re not in epic. ειπειν will mean just what it ordinarily does in prose; and that goes double for the very frequent ως ειπειν without επος.

I thought Hylander dealt quite satisfactorily with εμοι δοκειν in that Crito thread.

It is getting dark. Is this the end of the world?

[Kurama]

The orthography is like this: ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν. Notice the form of the final sigma for ὡς and that εἰπεῖν has a circumflex over ει but no breathing mark. "ὡσ" and "εἰπεἶν" are always incorrect. Writing in this way might make it look to some that you haven't quite mastered the basics yet.

I find it terribly complicated to type Greek with a standard qwerty keyboard. I only ever started doing it a few days ago. As you can see from my posts, I can get it right sometimes, but I need more practice. Of course, I am aware of the difference between final and non-final sigma, and of the conventions regarding the breathings.

You may want to try looking at the classical usages of the phrase (there are more than 100 in the extant texts)

That is well beyond my current skills. I've been studying Greek on my own for less than 10 weeks. What I have done up to now is finish the first 35 chapters of the first edition of Mastronarde, and not much else. I am a student at a building that is shared with the classics department of my university, so I will see if I can find a Greek professor and ask them what they think about the construction.

I don't think anyone on this thread denies the fact that ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν is an idiom and that its meaning that can't be extracted from its constituent parts. As far as I understand, the point was to dissect the idiom to see how it has come about diachronically, what its origin is.

Exactly. Thank you for addressing my original question! I am not disagreeing with any of the explanations people have given or with what the grammar and the dictionary say. I only wanted, first, an account of why the expression is a syntactically valid construction in a way that does not appeal to ad hoc rules, and secondly, an account of why LSJ say that ὡς is being used to introduce a final clause in the expression we are discussing (please, I am not making any of this up! It's right in the dictionary entry!). I am satisfied that explaining it by analogy with phrases like 'to put it a certain way' or 'to give an example' achieves this.

What do you think about ὡς μὲν ἐμοὶ δοκέειν? I think the best way to analyze it is as a construction that limits an assertion in the following way:

In so far as the idea expressed by the following infinitival form is concerned: [insert infinitive, e.g. ἐμοὶ δοκέειν], the following assertion holds: [insert modified assertion].

So for instance, with ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, we could analyse the construction as literally saying that the assertion it modifies (that rhetoric holds all powers under itself) holds in so far as the notion of saying/uttering/speaking is concerned. In the case of ὡς μὲν ἐμοὶ δοκέειν, the construction would literally mean that the assertion it modifies holds in so far as the notion of something seeming a certain way to me is concerned. I think this is a neat account because it could also explain what is going on in 'beautiful to see'. It would literally mean simply 'beautiful in so far as the notion of seeing is concerned'.

Kurama, I’m afraid you’re completely wrong about ως εμοι δοκεειν, where the verb does mean “seem” (used impersonally, cf. Latin ut mihi videtur). No-one with any knowledge of Greek would question that, regardless of their preferred grammatical framework.

That seems right. Which only makes things more difficult, as I still don't understand why on Earth LSJ tell us that both ὡς μὲν ἐμοὶ δοκέειν and have the same syntactical structure. All they ever tell us is that they are final clauses that limit an assertion. But how do they limit it? In a completely haphazard way? So why do they get lumped together in the exact same entry? No, I insist, there is something both of these constructions are expressing at a literal level of meaning, however removed that may be from their idiomatic use. All I want is to understand the rationale LSJ were following when they wrote the entry.

[jeidsath]

secondly, an account of why LSJ say that ὡς is being used to introduce a final clause in the expression we are discussing (please, I am not making any of this up! It's right in the dictionary entry!)

I believe that you may be misreading this entry. In the entry for ὡς, B. II. 1. refers to final clauses. B. II. 3. is the section that discusses ὡς c. inf. I think it's probably a fair question why the LSJ groups these uses together in B. II., except that they obviously don't fit in B. I., III., or IV.

[mwh]

Kurama, It’s true that LSJ included the construction under Final clauses (it's jeidsath who's misreading), and they certainly should not have. But ως in this construction is exceptionally hard to classify, and I guess they dumped it here, at the end of the section, faute de mieux. Probably they’d have done better to isolate the usage, or to link it with C. I and II. The more I look at the ως entry the more of a mess it appears. Βut make no mistake, for all its unsatisfactory features LSJ remains a truly excellent dictionary, put together by scholars who really knew Greek (better than anyone does today), and were pretty good amateur lexicographers into the bargain.

What I don’t understand is why you “still don't understand why on Earth LSJ tell us that both ὡς μὲν ἐμοὶ δοκέειν and <ως επος ειπειν?> have the same syntactical structure.” They are both absolute infinitives (as I explained) preceded by ὡς. They even have the same qualifying function.

You “insist” that “there is something both of these constructions are expressing at a literal level of meaning.” Well, yes, but it’s hardly different from their actual meaning. The closest English can come to expressing the literal meaning of ως επος ειπειν is “so to speak” (I'm not saying that ως means “so”). What it means, as Hylander said, is “more or less” or “just about.” I attempted to account for the επος ειπειν combo by reference to its Homeric antecedents; the ὡς and the infinitive each fall into line with post-homeric usage. Perhaps you’re thinking of the constructions as if they were something like metaphors, where of course there is a literal level of meaning, however much faded, different from the metaphorical meaning. With these quasi-parenthetical qualifying phrases, however, what they say is pretty well what they mean, what they always meant.

Hope this helps.

[Hylander]

If you are wondering how ως επος ειπειν came to mean what it does, I doubt that there is an demonstrable explanation if LSJ doesn't address the question. But I suspect that a word indicating approximation simply dropped from the expression, perhaps ως σχεδον επος ειπειν.

[Kurama]

Kurama, It’s true that LSJ included the construction under Final clauses (it's jeidsath who's misreading), and they certainly should not have. But ως in this construction is exceptionally hard to classify, and I guess they dumped it here, at the end of the section, faute de mieux. Probably they’d have done better to isolate the usage, or to link it with C. I and II. The more I look at the ως entry the more of a mess it appears. Βut make no mistake, for all its unsatisfactory features LSJ remains a truly excellent dictionary, put together by scholars who really knew Greek (better than anyone does today), and were pretty good amateur lexicographers into the bargain.

What I don’t understand is why you “still don't understand why on Earth LSJ tell us that both ὡς μὲν ἐμοὶ δοκέειν and <ως επος ειπειν?> have the same syntactical structure.” They are both absolute infinitives (as I explained) preceded by ὡς. They even have the same qualifying function.

You “insist” that “there is something both of these constructions are expressing at a literal level of meaning.” Well, yes, but it’s hardly different from their actual meaning. The closest English can come to expressing the literal meaning of ως επος ειπειν is “so to speak” (I'm not saying that ως means “so”). What it means, as Hylander said, is “more or less” or “just about.” I attempted to account for the επος ειπειν combo by reference to its Homeric antecedents; the ὡς and the infinitive each fall into line with post-homeric usage. Perhaps you’re thinking of the constructions as if they were something like metaphors, where of course there is a literal level of meaning, however much faded, different from the metaphorical meaning. With these quasi-parenthetical qualifying phrases, however, what they say is pretty well what they mean, what they always meant.

Hope this helps.

Just to make sure that I understand the entry, I'd like to ask a question. I've noticed that there are two ways, within the entry for ὡς itself, of starting a list that is headed by an uppercase Roman numeral. One way is like in Ab.II. Here it goes like this:

Ab.II. with Adverbial clauses:
1. parenthetically, in qualifying clauses,
2. in elliptical phrases, so far as
etc.

Another way is as in B. II. There it goes like this:

B.II with Final Clauses, that, in order that;
2. ὡς is also used with past tenses of the indic. to express a purpose which has not been or cannot be
fulfilled,
3. (text). ὡς c. inf., to limit an assertion,

I.e., in one case the first gloss (to clarify what I mean by gloss, there are three glosses of ὡς in section B.II) gets a separate entry from the text that immediately follows the Roman numeral, in the other case it does not.

What does this mean? If the number system is to have any consistency, I would assume that when they list the 1. separately, it means that 2, 3, etc. are not considered subcases of 1, but rather all of them are considered subcases of the Roman numeral, with 1 being no more special than the others. And when they don't list the 1, that it means that 2, 3, etc. are subcases of the gloss that is immediately given after the Roman numeral (the one that doesn't start with a 1). In other words, since B.II doesn't have a separate 1, I would assume that what it is telling us is that the gloss "that, in order that" also applies to the use of ὡς with infinitive, which is what B.II.3 defines. If this is correct, then indeed jeidsath misread. But if he did not, it seems that 'Final Clauses' would only apply to the first gloss (what would have been B.II.1) but not to B.II.3.

If it helps, I went to the library today and looked at the Brill dictionary (in English, they don't have it in Italian here). There, all 3 uses of ὡς that LSJ place under B.II get unequivocally classified as final clauses. Interestingly, though, even if they class it as a final clause, they also clearly separate the use of ὡς with infinitive from the use that means "that, in order to", unlike LSJ, where the format makes the entry a bit fuzzy. I also found something interesting in Bailly's Dictionnaire grec-francais. It tells us that ὡς plus infinitive means "de telle sorte que". That is, they treat it almost like ὡς as a relative pronoun indicating manner.

What I find so puzzling about this construction with ὡς is that if instead of the infinitive we had a finite form, then we could basically treat ὡς as a relative and translate ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν as 'such as I say'. That would make it more comprehensible how exactly the ὡσ is working with the verb. But alas, we do not have a finite form...

I agree with you that ὡσ works to limit the assertion it governs, but what I am so frustrated about is that I haven't found an explanation of how exactly it uses the infinitive to limit the assertion. I am working under the assumption that language is compositional, so there must be some one thing that ὡσ is doing to the infinitive of ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν and of ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκέειν. Yes, it is clear that both phrases have the same syntax. But what really is going on with the semantics of ὡς here? To say that it somehow compounds with the infinitives to limit the assertion it governs just doesn't give me more than a very vague account of what is going on here. Quite simply, if it weren't for the examples and the translations I have consulted, I would be left with no idea at all of what the phrases mean just from reading the dictionary entry.

By the way, all this is extremely interesting, but it is overloading my head. I'm just going to focus for now on finishing Mastronarde (only 5 more units to go) and come back to this issue when I've had a few months of reading, so I can see more examples of the construction.

[Kurama]

I'm so sorry, double post again created accidentally while editing.

[mwh]

Something to bear in mind is that ως is not governing the construction. ως can be put in front of all sorts of things to more or less subtle effect but without affecting the construction itself (see e.g. LSJ C I & II, as I mentioned), and in such circumstances its “meaning” can be hard to pin down. So here: absolute infinitives don’t really need the ως to be grammatical, as you can see from the examples in Smyth.

all this is extremely interesting, but it is overloading my head. I'm just going to focus for now on finishing Mastronarde (only 5 more units to go) and come back to this issue when I've had a few months of reading, so I can see more examples of the construction.

That seems much the best plan. All this is overloading my head too.

---------
Bill, No, surely not.