How then do you read ἄλλα as apposition? What would be as literal as possible rendering of it?pster wrote:I don't think we can change the gender of ἄλλα. The reason I brought up the Smyth section on ἄλλα is because it points out how without the article ἄλλα gets read by apposition. So that I thought gave me a convenient reason to keep it outside. Incorporation takes in Paeonian tribes, but not the ἄλλα in apposition. That was my thinking anyway. I can ramble on quite a bit. I think that I have demonstrated that pretty well in fact! But I am more interested in seeing what you come up with at this point.NateD26 wrote:
In which case I would read it as being masc. pl. in the pre-attraction phase,
as well as ἄλλα being of the same case ("and other Paeonians, all those that were tribes")
If a change can occur in the case alone, then there's really no difference
in the sentence in both phases. You wouldn't notice any incorporation or attraction happening here
seeing we're talking about the neuter.
I don't get the distinction, since you eventually get to the same meaning as that of panta tauta a P.pster wrote:panta tanta a P= all those who PNateD26 wrote:
My only problem with this is the quite common reading of ὅσα as if it were πάντα ἅ.
Why do we read this kind of clause as if it were no different than a regular one, albeit with the
inclusion of "all"? I know I defended such a reading elsewhere but I'm starting to think it's too
osos P = as many as P=how many P=the number of those who P=the number of (all those who P)
One refers to a set. The other refers to the number of elements in that same set.