ὅσα in Th. 2.96

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

Re: ὅσα in Th. 2.96

Post by NateD26 » Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:03 pm

pster wrote:
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")
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.
How then do you read ἄλλα as apposition? What would be as literal as possible rendering of it?

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.
pster wrote:
NateD26 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
convenient.
panta tanta a P= all those who P

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.
I don't get the distinction, since you eventually get to the same meaning as that of panta tauta a P.
Nate.

User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: ὅσα in Th. 2.96

Post by pster » Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:02 am

NateD26 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
convenient.
I didn't understand the motivation for it exactly, but this was your original question regarding "all". Sometimes in Greek and English you can substitute the one expression for the other. Sometimes you can't. It depends on what is going on in the sentence and the context.

Consider:

I want so many beers, as many beers as are cold.

I want all the beers that are cold.

Consider again:

I want so many beers, as many beers as Bob has.

I want all the beers as Bob has.

In English and Greek, the first pair are usually interchangeable. But the second pair are not. You don't want Bob's beers, you just want as many as he has. The context and the exact form of the sentence are going to determine whether they are interchangeable. Indeed, if you call in the philosophers, they will easily construct contexts in which the first pair aren't even interchangeable.

User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: ὅσα in Th. 2.96

Post by pster » Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:38 am

NateD26 wrote:
pster wrote:
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")
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.
How then do you read ἄλλα as apposition? What would be as literal as possible rendering of it?

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'm not quite defending apposition. As I say I don't have a reading. I mention it because Smyth seemed to say that we should expect incorporation in these copula examples. But the alla wasn't incorporated. That seemed to be a big obstacle for incorporation. Then I looked closer at Smyth on alla. As he says, we can translate it, "besides", "moreover", "as well". But that is for readable English. If it really is apposition, then I'm going to use "others" and a comma if need be.

ἀνίστη δὲ καὶ Ἀγριᾶνας καὶ Λαιαίους καὶ ἄλλα ὅσα ἔθνη Παιονικὰ ὧν ἦρχε καὶ ἔσχατοι τῆς ἀρχῆς οὗτοι ἦσαν:

Let me try expanded English and see how it goes. Context is important. The Agrianians and the Laeaeans are Paeonian tribes. In addtion, there are some other Paeonian tribes that Sitalces rules. But he doesn't rule them all. Naturally, going to war, he is going to levy all the ones he rules. That is the context. And that is what Thucydides wants to tell us with these subordinate clauses.

And he levied the Agrianians and the Laeaeans and others, ((so many)) tribes, as many as were Paeonian that he ruled...

Frankly, I don't like the incorporation here. (Do we need it??)

And he levied the Agrianians and the Laeauans and ((so many)) others, as many as were Paeonian tribes that he ruled...

I think it reads better without incorporation. But one good thing about incorporation is that since tribes is neuter, we don't have any gender question. Here without incorporation we are left with the weird question of what gender to use for "others". And even what is it referring to? If you make it masc. pl. to refer to people, then the logic of it isn't really correct. We have so many other men, then we have as many tribes. Ugh.

It's just like in indirect discourse, they talk about the form of the direct discourse, but it often seemed to me that there was more than one possible direct form.

(It's late, so there may be typos or blantant nonsense.)

John W.
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: ὅσα in Th. 2.96

Post by John W. » Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:57 am

pster wrote: I didn't understand the motivation for it exactly, but this was your original question regarding "all". Sometimes in Greek and English you can substitute the one expression for the other. Sometimes you can't. It depends on what is going on in the sentence and the context.

Consider:

I want so many beers, as many beers as are cold.

I want all the beers that are cold.

Consider again:

I want so many beers, as many beers as Bob has.

I want all the beers as Bob has.

In English and Greek, the first pair are usually interchangeable. But the second pair are not. You don't want Bob's beers, you just want as many as he has. The context and the exact form of the sentence are going to determine whether they are interchangeable. Indeed, if you call in the philosophers, they will easily construct contexts in which the first pair aren't even interchangeable.
pster - I don't think that, in idiomatic English, one could ever say 'I want so many beers, as many beers as are cold'. Surely one would say either 'I want all the beers that are cold' or (less commonly) 'I want as many beers as are cold'. In the latter case the 'as many ... as ...' construction does everything necessary; putting 'so many' in front of it sounds like an attempt to impose on English a τοσαῦτα ... ὅσα construction.

With regard to your second pair, again one couldn't actually say in English 'I want so many beers, as many beers as Bob has' - realistically it would just be 'I want as many beers as Bob has'. But of course you're right about the difference in meaning between this and 'I want all the beers Bob has'. As far as I'm aware (and without checking), in Thucydides the ὅσα construction we're discussing carries the second meaning, i.e. referring to the specific items in question, rather than simply to another set of the same number.

Best wishes,

John
Last edited by John W. on Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

John W.
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: ὅσα in Th. 2.96

Post by John W. » Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:06 pm

pster wrote:John, before we close the question. Do you have any thoughts as to why he uses the pluperfect? It seems doubly odd because here in 2.96.1 the main clause verb is the (historical?) present ἀνίστησιν while it is only later in 2.96.3 that he switches to the imperfect ἀνίστη.
I assume that the pluperfect just signifies 'had settled' (which is tantamount to 'were dwelling'). The historic present of course relates to the specific action being principally described, and does not seem to colour the use of the pluperfect. Do you have any other thoughts on this? I think there's a fairly recent study of the use of the historic present in Thucydides, which presumably touches on its interplay with other adjacent verb tenses - possibly another title for the reading list :) .

Best wishes,

John

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

Re: ὅσα in Th. 2.96

Post by NateD26 » Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:34 pm

pster wrote:I'm not quite defending apposition. As I say I don't have a reading. I mention it because Smyth seemed to say that we should expect incorporation in these copula examples. But the alla wasn't incorporated. That seemed to be a big obstacle for incorporation. Then I looked closer at Smyth on alla. As he says, we can translate it, "besides", "moreover", "as well". But that is for readable English. If it really is apposition, then I'm going to use "others" and a comma if need be.
But wouldn't invoking Smyth 1272 require that our Thuc. sentence include the article with alla?
His examples in this section surely suggest it.
Nate.

User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: ὅσα in Th. 2.96

Post by pster » Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:00 pm

John W. wrote:
pster - I don't think that, in idiomatic English, one could ever say 'I want so many beers, as many beers as are cold'. Surely one would say either 'I want all the beers that are cold' or (less commonly) 'I want as many beers as are cold'. In the latter case the 'as many ... as ...' construction does everything necessary; putting 'so many' in front of it sounds like an attempt to impose on English a τοσαῦτα ... ὅσα construction.

With regard to your second pair, again one couldn't actually say in English 'I want so many beers, as many beers as Bob has' - realistically it would just be 'I want as many beers as Bob has'. But of course you're right about the difference in meaning between this and 'I want all the beers Bob has'. As far as I'm aware (and without checking), in Thucydides the ὅσα construction we're discussing carries the second meaning, i.e. referring to the specific items in question, rather than simply to another set of the same number.

Best wishes,

John
John, in these discussions, what we count as idiomatic English is not always clear, at least to me. If 90% of the population is incapable of formulating a sentence, does that make it unidiomatic? (Truth be told, I'm actually a fairly strong believer in idiolects.) Now, of course you are right about "I want all the beers that are cold" being the usual formulation for short sentences like these. But when the clauses get longer or we move to the genitive and the dative, then shoehorning them into this usual formulation makes the thought unintelligible and often simply doesn't work. Then we have to revert to the demonstrative in one clause and the relative in the other. Thus: As many rooms as the lady wants ready for the event, so many wet bars will need to be immediately ordered to ensure their arrival from the mainland in time, and so many qualified bartenders will need to be hired. And the sentences get even longer. And there are no usual idioms. In these longer sentences, we begin where we begin and we use our command of the language to drive on through to make our point precisely. And Thucydides' sentences are even longer.

As for your second point, I am skeptical. The Polybius example that started this whole affair would be a counterexample if the one historian were the other. Indeed, almost all the adverbial examples are going to be counterexamples. In so far as she needed money, I believe that she was capable of murder.
Last edited by pster on Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: ὅσα in Th. 2.96

Post by pster » Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:18 pm

NateD26 wrote: But wouldn't invoking Smyth 1272 require that our Thuc. sentence include the article with alla?
His examples in this section surely suggest it.
You are right. I must be getting old. I thought that those examples excluded the article. OK, I'm going to check LSJ.

User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: ὅσα in Th. 2.96

Post by pster » Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:42 pm

LSJ:

:pl., ἄλλοι when the several parties are pl., “λείπουσι τὸν λόφον . . ἄλλοι ἄλλοθεν” X.An.1.10.13.

I guess this suggests that alla refers to tribes.

User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: ὅσα in Th. 2.96

Post by pster » Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:08 pm

I am moving towards the view that in the first osa instance osa and alla are in the opposite order because what Thucydides is actually saying is that the number of Getae and the number of other μέρη that were levied were about the same. I think I can justify it with maps if not with population counts.

What is that French expression? Better the interesting and false than the boring and true? :lol:

Post Reply