I believe the words below contain some typos; could anyone please confirm.
925 Pluperfect Indicative 3rd plural (page 294)
ἐτερταπντο → ἐτετραπντο
932 First Aorist Middle (page 296)
(By the way, is it possible to represent sonant consonants (597, page 221) and consonantal iota (600, page 222) in unicode characters?)
Hi Vasile,
All I’ve been able to come up with is:
ἐτερταπντο remains unchanged in the 1959 edition
ἐφημάμε(σ)θα remains unchanged in the 1959 edition
I’ve checked Monroe’s Homeric Grammar, the LSJ, Smyth and Cunliffe. I did not check the CGCG, as it does not address Homeric Greek. These forms are not present in those sources, nor would the roots (τρεπ-,τραπ-,τροπ-)(φαν-) appear to yield them. They certainly seem to be typos.
φνηαίμην is corrected to φηναίμην in the 1959 edition.
In the first yes -ρτ- is presumably a typo for -τρ-, but wherever did Pharr get ἐτετραπντο from? It’s an impossible form.
The rest are obvious enough. (But εφηναμεσθα cannot be Homeric: it wouldn’t fit the meter.)
Hi Michael,
What’s not shown in the original post is that in ἐτετραπντο, the ν is a sonant nasal (vocalic nu). Pharr adds these forms parenthetically to show how the ending -ατο, and other personal endings were influenced by euphonic changes when added to roots.
Thank you all…
Right now I am working on translating Pharr’s book into Romanian language for the purpose of publishing it as a website. (I am installing the material as I get parts of it ready). Below are two other typos I have found:
939 Middle and Passive (page 299)
Imperative 3rd dual
τῑμάεσθων → τῑμαέσθων
940 Active (page 299)
Present Imperative 2nd dual
ποεῖτον → ποιεῖτον
In case I find some other such cases, I can later compile a list of them and post it here (instead of picking and posting them one at a time). I suppose this might be somewhat useful.
Hi Vasile,
τῑμάεσθων is corrected to τῑμαέσθων in the 1959 edition.
ποεῖτον is not corrected in the 1959 edition; however, he gives the correct uncontracted form: ποιέετον, which would contract to ποιεῖτον.
Good Luck on your project!
Thank you…
Thanks Aetos. I remember a lengthy if not very fun thread on such pseudo-phonologies with erudite contributions by Hylander, on the future of σπένδω I think it was.
Surely this thread belongs on the Homeric Greek board, if anywhere.
I can see some small difference in Iliad 1.115 as found in Perseus vs Pharr (1014):
οὐ δέμας οὐδὲ φυήν, οὔτ’ ἂρ φρένας οὔτέ τι ἔργα (Perseus)
οὐ δέμας οὐδὲ φυήν οὔτ’ ἄρ φρένας οὐδέ τι ἔργα (Pharr, 1014)
Could somebody please check and confirm…
Hi Vasile,
I’ve looked in the 1959 edition and Pharr’s text remains the same, (no comma and οὐδέ τι for οὔτέ τι). I’ve checked the Teubner edition (Ameis-Heintz) of 1903 and Benner’s Selections , which uses Cauer’s critical edition (1890-1891) and they agree with the Munro-Allen 3rd edition (1920) which is used in Perseus. I’m guessing that Pharr did a little editing of his own, which from what I’ve seen, is not unusual. None of the editions mentioned above indicate variants and the Munro-Allen shows no variants in its critical apparatus.
BTW, for those wondering where the (1014) comes from, it’s the paragraph in the Grammar section that discusses the Accusative of Specification.
Thank you, Aetos.
One detail is still unclear to me - doubtful to my ‘ear’ -, i.e. the two accents with οὔτέ τι. I guess the second is applied as potentially required by the enclitic τι, but that would be the case if the first one were circumflex. When I try to read it and have both accents work somehow, the first one sounds indeed as if it were circumflex. This way of accenting appears to be not in harmony with my understanding that the effect of the acute extends over two syllables. Or, is it that the verse metric may lead to such arrangement?
I think the answer is in Smyth 185 and 186:
οὔτε is accented with the acute because it is a compound of two enclitics, οὐ + τε. When τι is added, τε receives an accent according to S.185, so:
οὐ + τε > οὔτε
οὔτε +τι > οὔτέ τι
Metrical weight of syllables does not influence accentuation. Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, p.279, Section 24.7 - Note 1
Thank you very much…
In the meantime, I encountered something similar in Iliad 1.194:
εἰ δὴ σοὶ πᾶν ἔργον ὑπείξομαι ὅττί κεν εἴπῃς·
The explanation is perhaps similar.
I believe you mean Il. 1.294!
εἰ δὴ σοὶ πᾶν ἔργον ὑπείξομαι ὅττί κεν εἴπῃς·
Looking in the Munro Allen edition, I see that the acute is not added, nor is it added in Pharr. I’m not completely clear on the etymological background of the ὅττι, but I’m not sure if this is the same case as οὔτε +τι. Unlike οὔτε, ὅτ(τ)ι is a combination of a relative pronoun (ὄ)and an enclitic indefinite pronoun (τι), whereas οὔτε is a combination of two particles. Whether this makes a difference in accentuation, I’m really not sure. Munro and Pharr seem to be treating ὄττι as a normal paroxytone followed by a monosyllabic enclitic, hence no change. Hopefully, one of our experts can provide an explanation.
One detail has been overlooked in this analysis, i.e. the accent of ἀρ: it is grave in Perseus and acute in Pharr. I would appreciate if you could comment on that.
T
That appears to have been corrected in the 1959 edition, both in the text of Lesson XXXIV and in section 1014 as they now feature the grave accent.
Thank you…