Ανάγκη

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.
Post Reply
Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:10 pm

If I'm right here ανάγκη is the subject of δοκει, εἰπεῖν τὸν Σωκράτη, ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰκότος εἰ ἀνάγκη οὕτως, τὸ ἐπιθυμοῦν ἐπιθυμεῖν οὗ ἐνδεές ἐστιν, ἢ μὴ [200b] ἐπιθυμεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ ἐνδεὲς ᾖ. ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ θαυμαστῶς δοκεῖ, ὦ Ἀγάθων, ὡς ἀνάγκη εἶναι·
Semper Fidelis

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by mwh » Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:02 am

I wonder how you arrive at that conclusion. Unless you explain your understanding of the passage you will get no more answers from me.

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC
Contact:

Re: Ανάγκη Symposium 200 b

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:56 am

Plato, Symposium, 200b wrote: ἀνάγκη εἶναι·
Smyth 1972f

The following
σοὶ δὲ πῶς;
implies πῶς δοκεῖ σοι ὡς ἀνάγκη εἶναι ἢ εἰκός;

The πῶς and ὡς point us back to the former part of the passage that you quoted. The section of Smyth that I have given the hyperlink for has something to say about when there has been a previous mention of a word.
τί δὲ ἀγαθὸν τῇ πομφόλυγι συνεστώσῃ ἢ κακὸν διαλυθείσῃ;

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:58 pm

I think the complete phrase would be: ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ θαυμαστῶς δοκεῖ, ὦ Ἀγάθων, ὡς ἀνάγκη (εστι τούτο) ειναι. Am I right now?
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC
Contact:

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:17 am

Perhaps you could verbalise your understanding of the syntax or present it diagrammatically. Which function of which ὡς are you working with?
τί δὲ ἀγαθὸν τῇ πομφόλυγι συνεστώσῃ ἢ κακὸν διαλυθείσῃ;

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:59 am

It wonderfully seems how necessary it is that it should be so. I was confused with the absence of the predicate of ανάγκη which seems to be an elliptical εστι.
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC
Contact:

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:03 am

Plato, Symposium, 200b wrote:ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ θαυμαστῶς δοκεῖ, ὦ Ἀγάθων, ὡς ἀνάγκη εἶναι·
Constantinus Philo wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:59 am
It wonderfully seems how necessary it is that it should be so.
That rendering of yours has a wonderful poetic feel to it. The absence of any reference to anything allows us to freely imagine what it is saying.

Are you meaning to construct the ὡς phrase with θαυμαστῶς, or the εἶναι with δοκεῖ?
τί δὲ ἀγαθὸν τῇ πομφόλυγι συνεστώσῃ ἢ κακὸν διαλυθείσῃ;

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:12 pm

Ως with θαυμαστως: θαυμαστως δοκει ως ανάγκη εστί. Είναι depends on the elliptical predicate of ανάγκη, εστι.
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC
Contact:

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:57 pm

ἑκηβόλος wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:03 am
Are you meaning to construct the ὡς phrase with θαυμαστῶς, or the εἶναι with δοκεῖ?
Constantinus Philo wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:12 pm
Ως with θαυμαστως: θαυμαστως δοκει ως ανάγκη εστί. Είναι depends on the elliptical predicate of ανάγκη, εστι.
There is no elliptical predicate.

If we take out the discourse level stuff and the θαυμαστῶς ... ὡς then the basic structure is ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ ἀνάγκη εἶναι· I’m assuming that is not challenging, but if it is the Smyth reference will explain why it is not ἀνάγκην.

Let me ask about your understanding of the logic of what is being said. Does a weak man necessarily want to be strong or is being weak a necessary precondition for wanting to be strong? You can think of ἀνάγκη as “necessary precondition” in this context if that makes things easier for you.

The θαυμαστῶς ... ὡς is added for emphasis. Although it can be rendered by “without doubt” etc. , I think it is something like I have heard people add “abso-f..ing-lutely” to what they say to emphasis a point, with the wow factor in English coming from the lexical infix and in Greek from the choice of word root.
τί δὲ ἀγαθὸν τῇ πομφόλυγι συνεστώσῃ ἢ κακὸν διαλυθείσῃ;

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:18 am

So my final understanding is that ανάγκη is the predicate noun in the nominative that goes with είναι. So the complete phrase is τούτο μοι δοκει ανάγκη είναι.
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC
Contact:

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:17 am

Nothing is affirmed in that phrase. S. is not making a point, he is addressing Agathon’s choice of words. There is no previous point that can be summarized and restated in a τοῦτο.

My final understanding is that S. makes it clear that Agathon should have said οὐκ ἔχων ὡς ἀνάγκῃ γε. a few lines earlier. He makes the point strongly using θαυμαστῶς - “it is so necessary that it would leave you amazed at how necessary it is”.

Is that the way you see this aside in the conversation working?
τί δὲ ἀγαθὸν τῇ πομφόλυγι συνεστώσῃ ἢ κακὸν διαλυθείσῃ;

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:37 pm

So what is the grammatical subject of δοκει then?
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC
Contact:

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:11 am

In that construction, the subject (actor) is grammaticalised in the dative.

The other way to say that is to say that there is an impersonal construction and a substantive verb.
τί δὲ ἀγαθὸν τῇ πομφόλυγι συνεστώσῃ ἢ κακὸν διαλυθείσῃ;

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by seneca2008 » Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:40 am

4 freq. impers., δοκεῖ μοι it seems to me, methinks, ὥς μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι ἄριστα Il. 12.215; ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ as I think, A. Th. 369, etc.; τὸ σοὶ δοκοῦν your opinion, Pl. R. 487d: freq. in inf. in parenth. clause, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκέειν to my thinking, Hdt. 9.113; δοκέειν ἐμοί Id. 1.172; ἀλλʼ, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν, τάχʼ εἴσει A. Pers. 246, etc.; without μοι, X. An. 4.5.1.
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/δοκέω

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:20 pm

Then ανάγκη is the subject of the infinitive είναι. This would be wrong however, therefore as Smyth says in 1983 this is a personal construction with δοκει, ανάγκη being the subject.
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC
Contact:

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:45 am

Do you agree that there is a difference between,
“The fruit seems good.” (based on sensory input) and
“The fruit seems good.” (a way of thinking),
where one is an appraisal and the other is an opinion?

In the first case, the speaker is directing the hearer’s attention to something, while in the second, the speaker is temporarily, directing attention to themself.

Your proposal to read this as personal puts it in the phrase structure, rather than in the discourse structure around the phrase structure. The grammar is the same, but where attention is expected is different. The following question suggests that attention should be given to the people, not only the subject matter. The whole aside is about addressing the person, in effect.

Furthermore, if ἀνάγκη is put with δοκεῖ, then what does εἶναι go with?
τί δὲ ἀγαθὸν τῇ πομφόλυγι συνεστώσῃ ἢ κακὸν διαλυθείσῃ;

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3306
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by jeidsath » Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:22 pm

σκόπει δή, εἰπεῖν τὸν Σωκράτη, ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰκότος εἰ ἀνάγκη οὕτως, τὸ ἐπιθυμοῦν ἐπιθυμεῖν οὗ ἐνδεές ἐστιν, ἢ μὴ ἐπιθυμεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ ἐνδεὲς ᾖ; ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ θαυμαστῶς δοκεῖ, ὦ Ἀγάθων, ὡς ἀνάγκη εἶναι: σοὶ δὲ πῶς;

κἀμοί, φάναι, δοκεῖ.
As mentioned before, there is an idiom in this passage, See the adverb with ὡς and a finite verb in 173c earlier:

καὶ γὰρ ἔγωγε καὶ ἄλλως, ὅταν μέν τινας περὶ φιλοσοφίας λόγους ἢ αὐτὸς ποιῶμαι ἢ ἄλλων ἀκούω, χωρὶς τοῦ οἴεσθαι ὠφελεῖσθαι ὑπερφυῶς ὡς χαίρω

This same thing is going on with:

θαυμαστῶς...ὡς ἀνάγκη

"incredible what a necessity it is"

Now, δοκεῖ clearly isn't a simple interjection or "methinks" here. It is answered by κἀμοὶ δοκεῖ. If we didn't have the unusual adverb + ὡς construction, I would expect δοκεῖ ἀνάγκην εἶναι. However, the ὡς appears to be enough to disrupt the accusative with infinitive. Anacoluthon? However, maybe I'm missing something obvious.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:58 pm

As I said Smyth 1983 explains it all.
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC
Contact:

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:33 am

Constantinus Philo wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:58 pm
As I said Smyth 1983 explains it all.
Which part if that?
1983
The personal constructions δοκῶ, ἔοικα ( cross2089 c), δέω are regular instead of δοκεῖ, ἔοικε it seems, δεῖ it lacks (much or little). So with φαίνομαι for φαίνεται.

δοκῶ γάρ μοι ἄδυνατος εἶναι for I seem to be unable P. R. 368b, δοκοῦμέν μοι καθῆσθαι it seems to me that we are encamped X. A. 1.3.12, νῦν γε ἡμῶν ἔοικας βασιλεὺς εἶναι now at least you seem to be our king X. C. 1.4.6, πολλοῦ δέω ἐγὼ ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ ἀπολογεῖσθαι I am far from speaking in my own defence P. A. 30d, μι_κροῦ ἐδέησεν Κύπρον ἅπα_σαν κατασχεῖν he almost (lacked a little) occupied the whole of Cyprus I. 9.62, εὖ σὺ λέγειν φαίνει you seem to speak well Ar. Nub. 403.

a. δοκεῖ μοί τινα ἐλθεῖν for δοκεῖ τίς μοι ἐλθεῖν it seems to me that some one came is very rare. δοκεῖ meaning it seems good, it is decreed always takes the infinitive ( cross1984, cross1991). δοκῶ believe has the construction of 1992 c. Cp. cross1998.
τί δὲ ἀγαθὸν τῇ πομφόλυγι συνεστώσῃ ἢ κακὸν διαλυθείσῃ;

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:36 am

The a part
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC
Contact:

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:56 am

Constantinus Philo wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:36 am
The a part
1983
...
a. δοκεῖ μοί τινα ἐλθεῖν for δοκεῖ τίς μοι ἐλθεῖν it seems to me that some one came is very rare. δοκεῖ meaning it seems good, itis decreed always takes the infinitive ( cross1984, cross1991). δοκῶ believe has the construction of 1992 c. Cp. cross1998.
You said that it was personal. That part of Smyth discusses the impersonal.

Perhaps you would like to restate your understanding in another way?
τί δὲ ἀγαθὸν τῇ πομφόλυγι συνεστώσῃ ἢ κακὸν διαλυθείσῃ;

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:08 am

Here Smyth says that the personal construction with δοκει, like δοκει μοι τις έλθειν is the regular construction, unlike the impersonal one, δοκει μοι τινα έλθειν, which is very rare. Now, in the personal construction the subject of the verb δοκει is τις, that's why it is called personal, whereas in the impersonal construction there is no subject. The infinitive έλθειν depends on the predicate δοκει as a complimentary infinitive. The same personal construction appears to be in δοκει μοι ανάγκη είναι in the passage quoted from the Symposium.
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3306
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by jeidsath » Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:23 pm

That seems persuasive to me, but I don't know if ὡς would separate a subject from its verb like that.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC
Contact:

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:49 pm

I read that section a. as an exception.

My first interpretation is as if it were saying that the indefinite pronoun (unlike other nominals) does not form the impersonal construction. That the section of Smyth was about the impersonal and the a. was a particular exception to what we might expect.

The second is that I don’t think that personal is the opposite of impersonal. Impersonal = no explicit subject. Personal = talking specifically about a person.
τί δὲ ἀγαθὸν τῇ πομφόλυγι συνεστώσῃ ἢ κακὸν διαλυθείσῃ;

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:21 am

jeidsath wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:23 pm
That seems persuasive to me, but I don't know if ὡς would separate a subject from its verb like that.
Basically this is an inversion, the regular order being ως θαυμαστως εμοί δοκει ανάγκη είναι. The ως here is an adverb that modifies another adverb, it is not a conjunction to separate the subject from its predicate. This kind of inversion is mentioned in Bailly under ως, several other examples from Plato being provided. In addition, there is no ground to affirm that the personal construction with δοκει happens only with indefinite pronouns, I have come across the same construction already reading the Symposium further.
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by seneca2008 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:23 am

Basically this is an inversion, the regular order being ως θαυμαστως εμοί δοκει ανάγκη είναι. The ως here is an adverb that modifies another adverb, it is not a conjunction to separate the subject from its predicate.
I don't agree with this. Nor do I think it helpful to re-order the Greek in order to buttress your opinion. This thread seems to me an attempt to justify your original reading rather than an attempt to understand the syntax as it stands.

As Joel has pointed out there is an idiom here.

There are two passages which have a parallel construction 173c and 200b.

173c
καὶ γὰρ ἔγωγε καὶ ἄλλως, ὅταν μέν τινας περὶ φιλοσοφίας λόγους ἢ αὐτὸς ποιῶμαι ἢ ἄλλων ἀκούω, χωρὶς τοῦ οἴεσθαι ὠφελεῖσθαι ὑπερφυῶς ὡς χαίρω·

Dover says of this “ ..then lit. “Extraordinarily how I enjoy it i.e. “it’s extraordinarily how …”; the idiom is common with words meaning “wonderful”, etc. (eg 200b1)

200a-b

σκόπει δή, εἰπεῖν τὸν Σωκράτη, ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰκότος εἰ ἀνάγκη οὕτως, τὸ ἐπιθυμοῦν [200b] ἐπιθυμεῖν οὗ ἐνδεές ἐστιν, ἢ μὴ ἐπιθυμεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ ἐνδεὲς ᾖ; ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ θαυμαστῶς δοκεῖ, ὦ Ἀγάθων, ὡς ἀνάγκη εἶναι: σοὶ δὲ πῶς;

κἀμοί, φάναι, δοκεῖ.

Here Dover refers us back to the first quotation.

I think that θαυμαστῶς δοκεῖ, ὦ Ἀγάθων, ὡς ἀνάγκη εἶναι have to be taken together, and I don't really see a problem with it.

I agree with Joel that δοκεῖ here is answered by κἀμοὶ δοκεῖ and this reinforces by view that it means it seems to me/ I think.

A modern translation (Seth Benardete Chicago) has it as follows:

"Think," Socrates said, "is it not a necessity rather than a likelihood that the desirous thing desires what it is in need of, and does not desire unless it is in need? For in my opinion, Agathon, it is a marvellous necessity. What is your opinion?

"It's my opinion too," he said.

Even Steadman glosses it as "θαυμαστῶς......ὡς : how strongly it seems to me; lit. “it seems marvellously to me how...

I also agree with ἑκηβόλος - I too read Smyth section a. which you quoted as an exception.

I think that the Cambridge Grammar is clearer on δοκῶ/δοκεῖ personal/impersonal use and I refer you to 51.30.

As ever I stand ready to be corrected by more knowledgeable and wiser heads.

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:04 pm

how would you understand the following then: Xen., Anab., III, 1, 21 : λελύσθαι μοι δοκεῖ καὶ ἡ ἐκείνων ὕβρις καὶ ἡ ἡμετέρα ὑποψία. Are ὕβρις and ὑποψία not the subject of δοκεῖ ? For the inversion θαυμαστῶς ὡς I have no grounds to disagree with Bailly's Dictionnaire Grec - Français, where it is clearly said that it has the same meaning as ὡς θαυμαστῶς; see also LS to the same effect.
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3306
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by jeidsath » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:09 pm

I also agree with ἑκηβόλος - I too read Smyth section a. which you quoted as an exception.

I think that the Cambridge Grammar is clearer on δοκῶ/δοκεῖ personal/impersonal use and I refer you to 51.30.
Smyth 1983 a. does not read like an exception at all, and in fact the Cambridge Grammar at 51.30 explicates it (with a nice and clear discussion):

Following the CG, it says that δοκέω is 1) an impersonal verb with a dynamic infinitive, 2) a verb with personal forms and a declarative infinitive and dative complement, 3) a verb with personal forms and an accusative plus infinitive.

1 = "it seems good to (someone) to (do something)"
2 = "seem (to someone) to"
3 = "think, deem"

Out of the three, only 2 can fit here, making δοκεῖ a personal form.

I see the section in Bailly, where he mentions "avec inversion." Kühner also references Pl.Symp.200b under inverted attraction (II.415 in my 2015 printing), with some good related examples.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:38 pm

thats what i have been saying, and that makes ananke the subject of dokei
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC
Contact:

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:16 am

@Constantine, if you do state and restate that ἀνάγκη is the subject, and if people agree with you, what do you actually achieve?

It is the nominative. Saying it is the subject is an interpretation of its grammaticalisation. If it was another verb, the word subject would have more meaning. There are two parts to the δοκεῖ construction. The word ἀνάγκη has to fit in somewhere. If it is more closely associated with the infinitive, it is more likely to be accusative. If it is closer to the δοκεῖ it is more likely to be nominative.

What you seem to be pushing is the simple truth that a nominative with a verb is the subject. If that is the extent of the subtlety of grammatical understanding that you want to bring to the text, then you will find affirmations for what you have stated.

The requirement of the language is that nominals need cases. Unlike ἔοικε this δοκεῖ construction forces the conformity of the syntax regardless of whether it is a comment put into the phrase structure, or indeed integral to the phrase structure.

Another way to think of it is to extract the δοκεῖ μοι from the syntactic structure. In the phrase ἀνάγκη ἔστιν it is the “subject” of the emphatic ἔστι. Does that change when the δοκεῖ is added? It is grammaticalised as either nominative or accusative, but it is still the subject of what it was.
τί δὲ ἀγαθὸν τῇ πομφόλυγι συνεστώσῃ ἢ κακὸν διαλυθείσῃ;

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:21 am

Ok, yes I begin to understand what you mean.
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC
Contact:

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by ἑκηβόλος » Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:26 am

In terms of onion skins, the δοκεῖ is the more outer skin. If the noun has been mentioned before it is in the nominative because grammaticalisation stays closer to the surface of the onion. If ἀνάγκη was in the accusative it is at a more contained level of the onion.
τί δὲ ἀγαθὸν τῇ πομφόλυγι συνεστώσῃ ἢ κακὸν διαλυθείσῃ;

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Constantinus Philo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:02 am

By the way does anyone know what it means when the icon of a post changes from a page like image into a flame like here?
Semper Fidelis

Bart
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by Bart » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:28 am

Spontaneous combustion? Bored moderators?

seanjonesbw
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 7:06 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Ανάγκη

Post by seanjonesbw » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:22 pm

Constantinus Philo wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:02 am
By the way does anyone know what it means when the icon of a post changes from a page like image into a flame like here?
Your thread is, as the kids say, lit. On Twitter, that would mean 100,000 retweets or something, but 24 replies to your thread seems to do it on textkit.
ἁλὶ γὰρ δέδμητο φίλον κῆρ 🌊

Post Reply