Ajax 1140 θαπτέον

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.
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Ajax 1140 θαπτέον

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:44 pm

Verbal Adjectives. Impersonal? Smyth 2152.

ἕν σοι φράσω: τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον.

I will say one thing to you. This one must not be buried.

Not sure about τόνδ᾽ ... θαπτέον.

Stanford says the θαπτέον is a neuter and governs τόνδ᾽.
I understand most of what Smyth has to say about Verbal Adjectives
but I am not sure if the description of the impersonal in 2152
applies to this case. Are there other options?


C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Laertiades
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:56 pm

Re: Ajax 1140 θαπτέον

Post by Laertiades » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:06 pm

I don't think there are other options. I don't see what else the subject of the phrase could possibly be.

NateD26
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
Contact:

Re: Ajax 1140 θαπτέον

Post by NateD26 » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:23 pm

Every commentary I check seems to be more concerned about the placement of οὐχὶ.
I don't understand why.

Here are some notes on verbal adjectives by J.R. Pitman (§853a-e) that may help.
Nate.

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Ajax 1140 θαπτέον

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:54 pm

NateD26 wrote:Every commentary I check seems to be more concerned about the placement of οὐχὶ.
I don't understand why.

Here are some notes on verbal adjectives by J.R. Pitman (§853a-e) that may help.
Thank you Nate,

J.R. Pitman #853d actually cites Ajax 1140. So the prototype discussed by Smyth #2152 with the neuter singular verbal adjective taking an object in the case required by the verb is what we see in τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον. Cooper has a discussion of this (vol. 1:56.18.2) which is in substantial agreement with Smyth and J.R. Pitman. In 56.18.0 he explains in detail how the verbal adjective in teos, tea, teon is not simply synonymous with the imperatival infinitive. I might attempt to give a synopsis but it wouldn't do it justice.

C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. Stirling Bartholomew

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Ajax 1140 θαπτέον

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:10 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:
NateD26 wrote:Every commentary I check seems to be more concerned about the placement of οὐχὶ.
I don't understand why.

Here are some notes on verbal adjectives by J.R. Pitman (§853a-e) that may help.
Thank you Nate,

J.R. Pitman #853d actually cites Ajax 1140. So the prototype discussed by Smyth #2152 with the neuter singular verbal adjective taking an object in the case required by the verb is what we see in τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον. Cooper has a discussion of this (vol. 1:56.18.2) which is in substantial agreement with Smyth and J.R. Pitman. In 56.18.0 he explains in detail how the verbal adjective in teos, tea, teon is not simply synonymous with the imperatival infinitive. I might attempt to give a synopsis but I couldn't do it justice.

Thanks to Cooper (vol. 1:55.3.12) I discovered that θάπτω is actually used in an imperatival infinitive in Ajax 1089 Καί σοι προφωνῶ τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν. Cooper's explanation (vol. 1:56.18.0) of why this is not synonymous with Ajax 1140 ἕν σοι φράσω: τόνδ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον is difficult for me to understand. He claims that the two different idioms are not interchangeable. But it looks to me like Ajax 1089 and Ajax1140 are saying the same thing. Anyone else have access to Cooper? He isn't available on the web which is a shame.

Sophocles Trag., Ajax
Line 1089 w/context

Ἀλλ' ἑστάτω μοι καὶ δέος τι καίριον,
καὶ μὴ δοκῶμεν δρῶντες ἃν ἡδώμεθα
οὐκ ἀντιτίσειν αὖθις ἃν λυπώμεθα.
Ἕρπει παραλλὰξ ταῦτα. Πρόσθεν οὗτος ἦν
αἴθων ὑβριστής, νῦν δ' ἐγὼ μέγ' αὖ φρονῶ.
1189
Καί σοι προφωνῶ τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν, ὅπως
μὴ τόνδε θάπτων αὐτὸς εἰς ταφὰς πέσῃς.
{ΧΟ.} Μενέλαε, μὴ γνώμας ὑποστήσας σοφὰς
εἶτ' αὐτὸς ἐν θανοῦσιν ὑβριστὴς γένῃ.
{ΤΕΥ.} Οὐκ ἄν ποτ', ἄνδρες, ἄνδρα θαυμάσαιμ' ἔτι,
ὃς μηδὲν ὢν γοναῖσιν εἶθ' ἁμαρτάνει,

Sophocles Trag., Ajax
Line 1140 w/context

{ΤΕΥ.} Πόλλ' ἂν καλῶς λάθρᾳ σὺ κλέψειας κακά.
{ΜΕ.} Τοῦτ' εἰς ἀνίαν τοὔπος ἔρχεταί τινι.
{ΤΕΥ.} Οὐ μᾶλλον, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἢ λυπήσομεν.
1140
{ΜΕ.} Ἕν σοι φράσω· τόνδ' ἐστὶν οὐχὶ θαπτέον.
{ΤΕΥ.} Ἀλλ' ἀντακούσῃ τοῦτον ὡς τεθάψεται.
{ΜΕ.} Ἤδη ποτ' εἶδον ἄνδρ' ἐγὼ γλώσσῃ θρασὺν
ναύτας ἐφορμήσαντα χειμῶνος τὸ πλεῖν,
ᾧ φθέγμ' ἂν οὐκ ἀνηῦρες, ἡνίκ' ἐν κακῷ
1145
χειμῶνος εἴχετ', ἀλλ' ὑφ' εἵματος κρυφεὶς
πατεῖν παρεῖχε τῷ θέλοντι ναυτίλων.


C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. Stirling Bartholomew

NateD26
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
Contact:

Re: Ajax 1140 θαπτέον

Post by NateD26 » Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:22 pm

It seems to be synonymous with 1140.
Can you please post Cooper's explanation as to why it isn't so?
Nate.

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Ajax 1140 θαπτέον

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:29 pm

NateD26 wrote:It seems to be synonymous with 1140.
Can you please post Cooper's explanation as to why it isn't so?
Nate,

I goes on for pages, here is some of it.

Cooper vol 1:58:18:0 page 864
If verbals in -TEOS were simply interchangeable with imperatival infinitives one would expect to see verbals used in place of infinitives in some passages. Actually this never happens. If a verbal is needed after DOKEI for instance, then EINAI is added. This goes against the general practice with verbals. Where they are felt as independent verbs their finite supporting forms such as ESTI are easily omitted. EINAI is called for simply to create a periphrastic infinitive in a place where a verbal adjective is not felt as an acceptable substitute for an imperatival infinitive. Exceptions can be explained.

{snip}

Furthermore imperatival infinitives and verbals in -TOS do not alternate with one another freely when they are used as independent verbs. Rather, such alternation follows rigid patterns. If the period starts off with infinitives which are identified as imperatival by a leading expression, the verbals may subsequently take over, have the purpose of restating the imperatival idea which may be weakened in the infinitives by removal from their introductory expressions e.g. DEI. Or an infinitive without introductory expression my succeed to verbals in -TEOS (= DEI c. inf.) as a climax of moral intensity, the simple imperatival infinitive having an absolute imperatival color which is more powerfully authoritative than any other kind of imperative.
This was hand typed, so please ignore errors.


C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. Stirling Bartholomew

NateD26
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
Contact:

Re: Ajax 1140 θαπτέον

Post by NateD26 » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:01 pm

Thanks for writing it here, CSB.

I've always struggled with abstract explanations like this.
I somewhat understand his meaning regarding the force of imperatival infinitives
vs. that of verbal adjectives in -τέος, the former absolute, the latter merely a moral necessity.

But I do not understand why those in -τος can come in place of imperatival infinitives.
According to Smyth §472, verbal adjectives in -τος either have
a meaning of a perfect passive participle or they express possibility. Nothing here to suggest
any connection to an imperative.

Edit: Oh, I guess it was a typo. Sorry. :oops:

I'm posting some sentences from Plato's Apology containing the same imperative
in different constructions, and I would like to see them being rated on some sort of an axis
according to Cooper's theory posted above.

(a) καὶ μέντοι καὶ πάνυ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦτο ὑμῶν δέομαι καὶ παρίεμαι· ἐὰν διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν λόγων ἀκούητέ μου ἀπολογουμένου δι᾽ ὧνπερ εἴωθα λέγειν καὶ ἐν ἀγορᾷ ἐπὶ τῶν τραπεζῶν, ἵνα (locative)
ὑμῶν πολλοὶ ἀκηκόασι, καὶ ἄλλοθι, μήτε θαυμάζειν μήτε θορυβεῖν τούτου ἕνεκα. (17c-d)

(b) καί μοι, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, μὴ θορυβήσητε, μηδ᾽ ἐὰν δόξω τι ὑμῖν μέγα λέγειν· (20e)

(c) —καί, ὅπερ λέγω, μὴ θορυβεῖτε, ὦ ἄνδρες— (21a)

(d) ὑμεῖς δέ, ὅπερ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ὑμᾶς παρῃτησάμην, μέμνησθέ μοι μὴ θορυβεῖν
ἐὰν ἐν τῷ εἰωθότι τρόπῳ τοὺς λόγους ποιῶμαι. (27a-b)

(e) ἀποκρινέσθω, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ μὴ ἄλλα καὶ ἄλλα θορυβείτω. (27b)

(f) μὴ θορυβεῖτε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐμμείνατέ μοι οἷς ἐδεήθην ὑμῶν,
μὴ θορυβεῖν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἂν λέγω ἀλλ᾽ ἀκούειν· (30c)
Nate.

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Ajax 1140 θαπτέον

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:51 am

But I do not understand why those in -τος can come in place of imperatival infinitives.
According to Smyth §472, verbal adjectives in -τος either have
a meaning of a perfect passive participle or they express possibility. Nothing here to suggest
any connection to an imperative.

Edit: Oh, I guess it was a typo. Sorry.

Nate,
I checked Cooper, -τος is the reading at:
Furthermore imperatival infinitives and verbals in -TOS do not alternate with one another freely when they are used as independent verbs. Rather, such alternation follows rigid patterns.
I don't understand all of what Cooper is saying which is why I started this thread.
Cooper isn't nearly as "transparent" as Smyth.

C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. Stirling Bartholomew

NateD26
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
Contact:

Re: Ajax 1140 θαπτέον

Post by NateD26 » Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:01 am

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate,
I checked Cooper, -τος is the reading at:
Furthermore imperatival infinitives and verbals in -TOS do not alternate with one another freely when they are used as independent verbs. Rather, such alternation follows rigid patterns.


I don't understand all of what Cooper is saying which is why I started this thread.
Cooper isn't nearly as "transparent" as Smyth.

C. Stirling Bartholomew
I wonder what is the meaning of verbals in -TOS according to Cooper. It is quite a technical
and abstract terminology for me to understand.

I'm sure much more experienced users would elucidate his meaning.
Nate.

Post Reply