Longus 1.14 2 τουτὶ τὸ νύττον noun or articular participle?

[ἑκηβόλος]

Is it possible for an articular participle to be used with a demonstrative, or is this necessarily a noun?

The question arises while reading:

@Longus 1.14.2

Πόσοι βάτοι με ἤμυξαν, καὶ οὐκ ἔκλαυσα: πόσαι μέλιτται κέντρον ἐνῆκαν, ἀλλὰ ἔφαγον: τουτὶ δὲ τὸ νύττον μου τὴν καρδίαν πάντων ἐκείνων πικρότερον. Καλὸς ὁ Δάφνις, καὶ γὰρ τὰ ἄνθη: καλὸν ἡ σύριγξ αὐτοῦ φθέγγεται, καὶ γὰρ αἱ ἀηδόνες. Ἀλλ̓ ἐκείνων οὐδείς μοι λόγος. Εἴθε αὐτοῦ σύριγξ ἐγενόμην, ἵν̓ ἐμπνέῃ μοι:

[ἑκηβόλος]

To phrase that question in a more concrete way:

I am unaware of another example of οὗτος used in this current syntactic pattern, ie. with an articular participial phrase in the position signified by N1 in the following tree diagram.

In non-technical terms, the use of an articular participle with this demonstrative in attributive position (or in juxtaposition) seems too “heavy”. So, then, the following serm like pertinent questions:

• Are there other (or similarly complex) syntactic patterns with this demonstrative?
• Is it particularly that this emphatic form of the pronoun can be used attributively (or in juxtaposition) with an articular participle"?
• Does the complexity of the comparative adjectival phrase allow for the balance in the syntax?

http://ironcreek.net/phpsyntaxtree/?
[S [Conj δὲ][NP [Demon τουτὶ] [NP [Art τὸ] [N [PartP [V νύσσειν][N -ον][Obj [NP μου τὴν καρδίαν]]]]]] [AdjP [CompP [Reference [NP πάντων ἐκείνων]][CompAdj [Adj πικρό-ν] [Comp -τερο-]]]]]

[Barry_Hofstetter]

As far as I know, the demonstrative can be used with any substantive, including “articular participles.” νύττον is clearly from νύσσω, but your clever parsing software seems to have figured that out.

[jeidsath]

There were a number of TLG results from searching for “τουτὶ δὲ τὸ”. Here are the first couple that seem to have participles following:

Galeni in Hippocratis prorrheticum I commentaria iii

τουτὶ δὲ τὸ προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἀλλόκοτον ἐν πολλαῖϲ ῥήϲεϲιν ἔχει τὴν ἑρμηνείαν, ὥϲπερ ἐπὶ τῶν οὔρων ἐν τῇδε τῇ νῦν προκειμένῃ.

Philostrati maioris imagines

Τὸ μὲν ἐπὶ ταῖς Ὥραις εἶναι τὰς τοῦ οὐρα-
νοῦ πύλας Ὁμήρῳ ἀφῶμεν εἰδέναι καὶ ἔχειν—εἰκὸς
γάρ που αὐτὸν ξυγγενέσθαι ταῖς Ὥραις, ὅτε τὸν
αἰθέρα ἔλαχε—τουτὶ δὲ τὸ σπουδαζόμενον ὑπὸ τῆς
γραφῆς καὶ ἀνθρώπῳ ξυμβαλεῖν ῥᾴδιον.

[ἑκηβόλος]

@Barry Hofstetter

νύττον is clearly from νύσσω,

At first, when I was reading this over dinner in the restaurant, there was some ambivalence about whether I had missed the entry for a noun in LSJ. Now however, even though the neuter plural doesn’t occur in the searchable Perseus collection, the following accusative singular suggests what it should be:

@Lucian

δέχῃ τοίνυν τὸν χαλινὸν μύσας καὶ τὰ πρῶτα εὐάγωγος εἶ πρὸς αὐτὸν οὐ πάνυ περισπῶντα οὐδὲ ὀξέως νύττοντα, μέχρι ἂν λάθῃς τέλεον αὐτῷ συνήθης γενόμενος.
So you open your mouth for the bit, and are very manageable from the first. You give your rider no occasion to keep a tight rein, or to use the spur; and at last by imperceptible degrees you are quite broken in to him.

[Translation from: https://lucianofsamosata.info/TheDependentScholar.html]

@Barry Hofstetter

your clever parsing software seems to have figured that out.

Ha ha. That was done manually during my dinner break today.

[ἑκηβόλος]

@jeidsath

There were a number of TLG results from searching for “τουτὶ δὲ τὸ”. Here are the first couple that seem to have participles following:

Thanks for that. The Perseus search engine employs stops for the most common words, with οὗτος, viz. ou(=tos) being one of them. The query just arose, then, out of a lack of “fanatic” level interaction (intimate familiarity) with enough texts + limited search options.

[ἑκηβόλος]

@jeidsath

@Philostratus the elder

Τὸ μὲν ἐπὶ ταῖς Ὥραις εἶναι τὰς τοῦ οὐρα-
νοῦ πύλας Ὁμήρῳ ἀφῶμεν εἰδέναι καὶ ἔχειν—εἰκὸς
γάρ που αὐτὸν ξυγγενέσθαι ταῖς Ὥραις, ὅτε τὸν
αἰθέρα ἔλαχε—τουτὶ δὲ τὸ σπουδαζόμενον ὑπὸ τῆς
γραφῆς καὶ ἀνθρώπῳ ξυμβαλεῖν ῥᾴδιον.
but the subject that is here treated in the painting is easy for a man to understand

[Translation from http://www.theoi.com/Text/PhilostratusElder2B.html#34]

Without offering a comment on any passage other than this last one of Philostratus’, let me say that I read this as a predicative use of this demonstrative, ie. “notwithstanding (the deference we ought to afford Homer), this (knowledge about the Hours) is the study (ie. subject matter) of the painting and (as a painting) [it] is easy for (those of us) people (who have not (yet) found a share in the aether or mixed with the Hours) to understand.”

In terms of the “clever parsing software”, there are a number of ways to present the information, but it might look like this:

http://ironcreek.net/phpsyntaxtree/?
[S [Conj δὲ][NP [Demon τουτὶ]] [NP [NP [Art τὸ] [N [PartP [V σπουδάζειν][Voice -ομεν-][N -ον][Mod [PrepP ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς]]]]] [Conj καὶ] [NP [AdjP [DatRes [NP ἄλλῳ]][Inf [VP ξυμβαλεῖν]][Adj ῥᾴδιον]]]]]

[Barry_Hofstetter]

Sorry about the “clever parsing software” comment, but I really did think you used something automatic. But this actually looks interesting, something I could use for my students from time to time, especially with long periodic Ciceronian sentences.

[mwh]

τουτὶ δὲ τὸ νύττον μου τὴν καρδίαν πάντων ἐκείνων πικρότερον.
The only notable thing about this is the position of μου, preceding την καρδιαν instead of following it. (μου can’t be adnominal with το νυττον, νυττον being a participle not a noun.) There’s nothing at all exceptional about τουτὶ (or τοῦτο) δὲ τὸ νύττον τὴν καρδίαν. I think what this indicates is that τὸ νύττον μου τὴν καρδίαν is functioning (unusually) as a single indivisible unit, with no internal boundaries, so that μου falls into its habitual 2nd position in the phrase (almost as if τὸ νύττον τὴν καρδίαν meant “heart-stinger”).

[ἑκηβόλος]

@Barry Hofstetter

Sorry about the “clever parsing software” comment, but I really did think you used something automatic.

I didn’t think anything bad of the comment. Because I myself did the parsing using the grey matter as “hardware”, the clever comment was (unwittingly) complementary.

It would be interesting to get some form of analysis like this across a wide range of texts. Customisation vs. standardisation is a continual juggling act. There is a degree of subjective tailoring possible in creating those diagrams. The inability to make design level decisions, would be a major drawback in any implementation of automation. Designing a tree for somebody, whom you can justifiably assume will be able to read the Greek, requires a different approach than for somebody struggling with the language, that you hope the tree will help with some very basic understanding of a particular point or relationship between points.

I had hoped that the Arethusa site would have been such a thing, but so far I haven’t worked out how to use it.

@Barry Hofstetter

But this actually looks interesting, something I could use for my students from time to time, especially with long periodic Ciceronian sentences.

Longer sentences do get a bit complex, but that is a feature of the Classical languages.

Within the transformation stage if the SAMR model for the implementation and integration of digital technologies into educational settings, this could allow for some good engagement. The multilinear nature of a hierarchical diagram allows for Modification of reading and analysis tasks in regards to both categorisation and comparison. Moreover, the top down nature of the diagrams, allows for degrees of depth of analysis of meaning, from whole sentence right down to individual morphological units. That progressively deeper and more complex analysis can allow a Redefinition of the way that a cyclic presentation of grammar in use within syntactic units can be managed and presented. Those things would not, of course be “new”, in so far as tree diagramming is not new, but the ease with which they can be created and changed, allows for a number of possibilities.

Progressive analysis is possible by working the tree around the text. Here is a small example from Diodorus Siculus, Library 16.20.4.

Begin with the text, thus:

• διὰ δὲ τὸ παράδοξον τῆς παρουσίας καὶ τὴν ἀταξίαν καὶ τὴν ταραχὴν τῶν διαφορούντων τὰς κτήσεις εὐχερῶς ἅπαντες ἐχειροῦντο.

1. Add the first level, the sentence:

• [S διὰ δὲ τὸ παράδοξον τῆς παρουσίας καὶ τὴν ἀταξίαν καὶ τὴν ταραχὴν τῶν διαφορούντων τὰς κτήσεις εὐχερῶς ἅπαντες ἐχειροῦντο.]

2. Next, make the first logical break, which in this case is between the adverbial prepositional phrase and the verb, thus:

• [S [VP [AdvP διὰ δὲ τὸ παράδοξον τῆς παρουσίας καὶ τὴν ἀταξίαν καὶ τὴν ταραχὴν τῶν διαφορούντων τὰς κτήσεις] [VP εὐχερῶς ἅπαντες ἐχειροῦντο]]]

3. Then, the elements of the adverbial prepositional phrase could be isolated, like this:

[S [VP [Conj δὲ][AdvP [PrepP [Prep διὰ] [NP τὸ παράδοξον τῆς παρουσίας καὶ τὴν ἀταξίαν καὶ τὴν ταραχὴν τῶν διαφορούντων τὰς κτήσεις]]] [VP εὐχερῶς ἅπαντες ἐχειροῦντο]]]

4. And then a further step in analysing the structure within the preposition’s noun phrase:

[S [VP [Conj δὲ][AdvP [PrepP [Prep διὰ] [NP [NP τὸ παράδοξον τῆς παρουσίας] [Conj καὶ] [NP τὴν ἀταξίαν καὶ τὴν ταραχὴν τῶν διαφορούντων τὰς κτήσεις]]]] [VP εὐχερῶς ἅπαντες ἐχειροῦντο]]]

5. Following that, the relationship between nouns expressed by the genitives:

[S [VP [Conj δὲ][AdvP [PrepP [Prep διὰ] [NP [NP [NP τὸ παράδοξον] [NP τῆς παρουσίας]] [Conj καὶ] [NP [NP τὴν ἀταξίαν καὶ τὴν ταραχὴν] [NP τῶν διαφορούντων τὰς κτήσεις]]]]] [VP εὐχερῶς ἅπαντες ἐχειροῦντο]]]

6. etc.

With the aid of perhaps a ppt or animation, the once static tree diagram, now becomes a dynamic tool for presenting syntactic relationships between elements in the sentence. An animated picture of words (from the text) is worth a thousand words (of explanation).