From a syntactical point of view, these lines are easy to comprehend, but I stumbled upon the accents of the two verbs in bold text. Now, ἀγγεῖλαί is the infinitive with θέλοις ἄν, meaning ‘‘would you, if I would save you, be willing to send …’’. Since the -αι in infinite forms counts as one, the iota gets the circumflex. But I do not see why the second verb, ἀγγείλαι, gets a different accent. This could only be the case if it would be an (1) imperative form, which is impossible in this context. τ᾽ in line 589 suggests it should be, like πέμψειε, an (2) optative aorist 3rd person singular. This is probably why it was inserted by an editor. But how is this form of the optative actually ‘‘formed’’? I would appreciate any valuable comment.
Is my analysis correct? I’m okay with accents, but these things are rather difficult. The second ἀγγείλαι can’t really be an infinitive, I guess? (it would have the circumflex)
Your analysis looks correct to me, I think ἀγγείλαι is an optative. But I as far as I know, the aorist imperative would be accented ἀγγεῖλαι like the infinitive.
ἀγγεῖλαι is aorist infinitive. The aorist active infinitive of verbs in -ω is always on the penult. This is an exception to the normal rule that verbal accents are recessive.
The ending -αι is treated as short, so the accent on the penult, the diphthong -ει- (which, as a diphthong, is long) must be circumflex. (The acute accent on the ending -αι here, ἀγγεῖλαί, is due to the following sequence of enclitics.)
ἀγγείλαι is aorist optative, so the ending -αι is treated as long, and prevents the recessive verbal accent from going back further than the penult. But because -αι is long, the accent on the penult -ει- cannot be circumflex: it must be acute.
ἀγγείλαι is formed from the aorist stem ἀγγειλ- + the 3rd sing. 1st aorist optative active ending -αι.
the aorist imperative would be accented ἀγγεῖλαι like the infinitive.
The aorist imperative 2d pers. sing. is ἄγγειλον. The accent is recessive.
“Isn’t ἀγγείλειε a possibility?” Yes, πέμψειε is an alternative form–in fact, a more common alternative–to ἀγγείλαι for the 3rd pers. aor. opt. act.. but of course it wouldn’t fit the iambic trimeter here.
I wrote: “The aorist active infinitive of verbs in -ω is always on the penult.”
Correction: The first aorist active infinitive of verbs in -ω is always on the penult. The second aorist infinitive active is perispomenon (circumflex on ultima), e.g., λιπεῖν.
Yes, you’re completely right. I understood what you said, but confused ἄγγειλαι (medium aorist 1st person singular) with ἄγγειλον (active aorist 1st person singular).
Thanks GJCaesar for starting this thread, and to Paul Deruda and Qimmik for joining in. This was an excellent review, and it reminded me that I need to sharpen up a bit here, too. I “think” I understand Greek accentuation pretty well, but then and again I get reminded that I maybe don’t know some things as well as I thought. Textkit poster CB mentioned Philemon Probert’s book on accentuation in his excellent list of things one needs to understand to properly read ancient Greek. I recently purchased a copy and intend to work through it for just these kind of reasons. Dan
Probert’s book seems good to me. I also have acquired it, but haven’t read it yet except the beginning.
Mistakes are bound to happen with accents. According to this, even Chantraine’s Grammaire Homérique has enough accent and other mistakes to warrant a new edition. And I - though I noticed where GJC had mixed up accentuation rules, my correction was yet another mistake, and much a more basic than one than Qimmik’s.
Yikes! I just realized I spelled “Derouda” incorrectly. My apologies. Well, I guess this the appropriate thread for making mistakes! And I agree that accentuation mistakes are pretty much inevitable, from pro to amateur.
The bold part, I am not able to comprehend the construction syntactical wise. πλὴν normally governs a genitive, but without it can mean ‘‘except (that)..’’ But ὅσ’ might be some sort of genitive? Then νιν is the object of ὁρῶσά, and refers to Orestes. I know that the translation should be something like this.
‘‘Because, strangers, I am not brotherless, except that I do not see him’’
πλήν can be a conjunction, rather than a preposition governing the genitive, and can be combined with ὅσον or ὅσα: “except insofar as”. See LSJ πλήν B.II.5:
