As many of you know, I’ve been trying to study Greek using the Direct Method for quite a while now, and I think I’ve done pretty good so far. But there is one thing that has given me lots and lots of trouble: the particles, especially μέν, δέ, γά?. They are driving me crazy! Because I don’t use (nor like) translation as a method for figuring out each and every instance of μενδεγα?, I was wondering if someone here knew of a source wherein these damn things are explained logically, so that when writing AG, knowing where to put the particles comes intuitively.
And, is it just me, or did ancient Greek really liked to abuse them? They’re everywhere!
Even though, as Annis says, Denniston’s Greek Particles does tend to mistreat Homer, it is in my opinion the definitive English reference on Greek particles, especially if you are studying the Attic dialect. It gives a plethora of examples of each usage, and most importantly, it explains thoroughly the etymology of each particle and gives concise radical definitions that have been immeasurably helpful to me. I will tell you though that I believe particles are the most difficult aspect of learning Greek and that there is much debate still over their signification. You can only truly comprehend them through seeing them in context.
Gratias tibi, vir litterarum! I will definitely have a look at that book. Right now the price is a bit high for me, but given the reviews it has made my list of must-buy books.
Re: context. Yes, in my studies I’ve started writing down where each participle appears, i.e., if it’s part of a list, if it introduces a new subject, etc. But they still don’t make complete sense to me, and I’m quick to despair (although I’ll be less prone to despair from now on, thanks to your input).
Btw, do you know if Modern Greek still uses particles? Irene?
Particles! Love to hate them! Yes, we have quite a few but while there are many things changed in the Greek languages over the years that I am sorry about I must say that I am particulary happy that our particles’ meaning is much better defined and we don’t really abuse them as much as our they did way back then when they apparently had enough time to kill that puzzling out what each particle meant each time helped them pass the time (really, they could back on using them a bit couldn’t they?). Mind you, it’s not as if we don’t use them a lot, but we don’t use them in every other sentence either.
Anyone wanting to study modern Greek will be happy to know that, for instance, “γέ” is dead and buried
Particles, I assure you, cannot be learned just like any other vocabulary. The variety of usage of particles such “ara” or “dh,” for example, can only truly be understood by seeing them in context. To give them a concrete definition is an oversimplification of the meaning they add to the sentence.
with respect to Greek particles: one professor of mine (the late Timothy Gantz, author of Early Greek Myth) told us that the particles were at one time used, in part, for the same purposes that we use inflection of tone or pitch (e.g., in MEng. we typically raise the pitch at the end of questions); this variation of vocal pitch was restricted in Greek, unlike in English, by each word’s accent (which, of course, was originally a pitch accent): the particles helped by providing the listener with clues that we, in modern Eng., would convey through pitch variation and pacing. Some particles fulfill mainly syntactic roles as well, such as the men . . . de . . . combination. Dr. Gantz often told us NOT to translate the particles per se, or at least not in a ‘literal’ sense, but to let them guide us in our spoken inflection and our thinking of how the sentence was constructed and how it fit with other surrounding sentences. Thus, as has been mentioned in this thread already, context is crucial when dealing with particles. I would only recommend Denniston if you have the money and already have other more crucial reference tools (Smyth’s grammar); it is much more helpful than a lexicon for getting a sense of particles (but this is more important at the intermediate stage as opposed to the beginning stage of learning the language -in my opinion); & it is better for Attic than Homeric. Toi eutykhe!
But Denniston even goes so far as to compare English inflection of tone with particle usage, describing how different particles correspond to different inflections of the voice. Furthermore, inflection cannot be used as a means of understanding particular connective usages of certain particles such as “ouv,” and, even more importantly, inflection of tone in English often cannot convey the delicate nuance created by particle combinations. Denniston provides a plethora of examples in context of such combinations, an invaluable resource especially for doing comparative studies.
Thanks Gonzalo! I shall take a look at that link. And yes, I have read A Greek Boy At Home. In fact my question arose partly because I couldn’t make sense of Rouse’s excessive use of the particles in comparison with Tharsymachus and Athenaze. It is a real noodle scratcher. For now, I’m taking Hesperios’ advice and shall leave the issue alone for now until I make a second reading of Thrasymachus.
Btw, Gonzalo, were you able to download the Google book? I tried several times this morning, but downloading stops at 80% and when you try to view it an error message pops up.
If anyone is able to download the document, would you be so kind as to send me a copy?
Oh dear! I hope you don’t like δή as much as you like γέ 'cause it is only used by more educated people who want to emphasise something and not all that often. Even in such cases you’ll actually hear it only in connection with “και” (και δη) .
