ετρεψα or ετραπον
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:19 pm
- Location: Toronto
ετρεψα or ετραπον
These two words are given (in Mastronarde p. 403) as being the third principal part of τρεπω. One seems to be strong aorist and the other the weak aorist. Am I right? And is there any difference in meaning?
Thanks to all.
Thanks to all.
ὁ Βίος Χαλεπός
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4790
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
That's right. They differ in usage.
- Barry Hofstetter
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1739
- Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
τρέπω, Il.8.399, etc.: fut. τρέψω 15.261, etc.: aor. 1 ἔτρεψα 18.469, etc., Ep. τρέψα 16.645: besides aor. 1 Hom. has aor. 2 ἔτρᾰπον, Od.4.294, al., also Pi.O.10(11).15 (sts. also intr., v. περιτρέπω II and perh. Il.16.657, cf. III fin.): Aeol. aor. ἔτροπον
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (p. 1813). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
There is no difference in meaning. By "difference in usage" MWH appears to mean that the 2nd aorist ἔτραπον is nearly exclusive to Homer (note also reference in Pindar).
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (p. 1813). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
There is no difference in meaning. By "difference in usage" MWH appears to mean that the 2nd aorist ἔτραπον is nearly exclusive to Homer (note also reference in Pindar).
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Cuncta mortalia incerta...
Cuncta mortalia incerta...
- seneca2008
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2006
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
- Location: Londinium
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
M. p 134
"The strong aorist active ἔτραπον, from τρέπω, is poetic and intransitive in sense, but the middle, ἐτραπόμην, is used in Attic with the intransitive meaning turn."
This is not to contradict anyone but to show that the answers to questions can often be found in M.'s text itself. No harm in asking here though.
"The strong aorist active ἔτραπον, from τρέπω, is poetic and intransitive in sense, but the middle, ἐτραπόμην, is used in Attic with the intransitive meaning turn."
This is not to contradict anyone but to show that the answers to questions can often be found in M.'s text itself. No harm in asking here though.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.
- Barry Hofstetter
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1739
- Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
No harm in being corrected! However, in Pin. Od. 10.15, τράπε δὲ Κύκνεια μάχα καὶ ὑπέρβιον Ἡρακλέα, (ἐ)τράπε is pretty clearly transitive.seneca2008 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:03 pm M. p 134
"The strong aorist active ἔτραπον, from τρέπω, is poetic and intransitive in sense, but the middle, ἐτραπόμην, is used in Attic with the intransitive meaning turn."
This is not to contradict anyone but to show that the answers to questions can often be found in M.'s text itself. No harm in asking here though.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Cuncta mortalia incerta...
Cuncta mortalia incerta...
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:19 pm
- Location: Toronto
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
Well... my question was about the weak aorist vs the strong aorist of τρεπω, not about the difference between the active voice and the middle voice of the strong aorist ετραπον (as mentioned on M p134). So I am still not clear on the difference between the strong aorist (ετραπον) and the weak aorist (ετρεψα). Or am I hopelessly confused as usual...?
ὁ Βίος Χαλεπός
- seneca2008
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2006
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
- Location: Londinium
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
I am sorry I thought you had your answer to that.Asterisk1234 wrote:Well... my question was about the weak aorist vs the strong aorist of τρεπω
M. is saying that the strong aorist is poetic and intransitive (although Barry has an example he thinks is transitive in Pindar). The implication is that the weak aorist is used in prose. Goodwin 714. confirms that ἔτραπον is epic and lyric.
I quoted what M. said about the middle for completeness I didn't mean to confuse you.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:19 pm
- Location: Toronto
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4790
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
Does Mastronarde really say that the strong aorist active ἔτραπον is intransitive in sense? That’s wrong. It’s routinely transitive. I guess that’s what he meant to say.
(LSJ’s Pindar reference fastened on by Barry is not “Od.” but “O.”, the Olympians, and there’s nothing remarkable about it.)
(LSJ’s Pindar reference fastened on by Barry is not “Od.” but “O.”, the Olympians, and there’s nothing remarkable about it.)
- Barry Hofstetter
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1739
- Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
I cited it as an example of the transitive usage of the second aorist, in response to M.'s claim that that it was intransitive. Besides, Pindar.mwh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:49 pm Does Mastronarde really say that the strong aorist active ἔτραπον is intransitive in sense? That’s wrong. It’s routinely transitive. I guess that’s what he meant to say.
(LSJ’s Pindar reference fastened on by Barry is not “Od.” but “O.”, the Olympians, and there’s nothing remarkable about it.)
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Cuncta mortalia incerta...
Cuncta mortalia incerta...
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4790
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
Could someone please take a look at the book and answer my question? I gave away my own copy, so I can’t check for myself. If that’s what the book actually says (but I suspect a copying error), Prof. Mastronarde and the publisher should be alerted to the mistake so that it can be corrected in the next printing.mwh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:49 pm Does Mastronarde really say that the strong aorist active ἔτραπον is intransitive in sense? That’s wrong. It’s routinely transitive. I guess that’s what he meant to say.
(LSJ’s Pindar reference fastened on by Barry is not “Od.” but “O.”, the Olympians, and there’s nothing remarkable about it.)
Last edited by mwh on Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- jeidsath
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5332
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
- Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4790
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
Thanks Joel. It’s clear from the run of the sentence alone (not to mention Greek usage!) that “poetic and transitive” was meant, contrasting with Attic’s intransitive use of the middle (in prose as well as verse). And a look at LSJ would confirm that ἔτραπον is routinely transitive, as one would expect. I’m rather shocked that no-one here seems to have realized that something was amiss.
- Barry Hofstetter
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1739
- Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
Thinks? It's clearly transitive.Seneca wrote:M. is saying that the strong aorist is poetic and intransitive (although Barry has an example he thinks is transitive in Pindar).
Again, that's why I posted the Pindar, to show that there was at least one transitive usage out there. I took M.'s statement at face value, but it does look like a typo.MWH wrote:Thanks Joel. It’s clear from the run of the sentence alone (not to mention Greek usage!) that “poetic and transitive” was meant, contrasting with Attic’s intransitive use of the middle (in prose as well as verse). And a look at LSJ would confirm that ἔτραπον is routinely transitive, as one would expect. I’m rather shocked that no-one here seems to have realized that something was amiss.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Cuncta mortalia incerta...
Cuncta mortalia incerta...
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
I checked on Mastronarde's website (atticgreek.org) to see if perhaps he lists the error in his corrigenda lists, but no joy.
This is an email addresse for him (I don't know if it's current):
djmastronarde@berkeley.edu
This is an email addresse for him (I don't know if it's current):
djmastronarde@berkeley.edu
- seneca2008
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2006
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
- Location: Londinium
Re: ετρεψα or ετραπον
Well there is a moral here that one has to be alert to errors in textbooks. Just as well mwh was alert to the error in what I was quoting.
Barry don’t get too exercised about “thinks”. I was not doubting what you were saying.!
Barry don’t get too exercised about “thinks”. I was not doubting what you were saying.!
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.