Soph. OT 1187 ἴσα καὶ paratactic comparison

Greek Learning Greek
1

I am not sure why this is considered paratactic in Soph. OT 1187, see Cooper below.

Soph. OT 1187
Chorus
Ἰὼ γενεαὶ βροτῶν,
ὡς ὑμᾶς ἴσα καὶ τὸ μη-
δὲν ζώσας ἐναριθμῶ.

chorus
Ah, generations of men, how close to nothingness I estimate your life to be!

LCL Lloyd-Jones 1994

On the other hand I can see it as paratactic in Euripides Electra 994:

Euripides Electra 994
χαῖρε, σεβίζω σ᾿ ἴσα καὶ μάκαρας
πλούτου μεγάλης τ᾿ εὐδαιμονίας.

Greeting: I worship you as I do the blessed gods …
LCL Kovacs 1998

Smyth 1501a :

  1. With adjectives and adverbs of similarity and dissimilarity the comparison is often condensed (brachylogy) : ὁμοία_ν ταῖς δούλαις εἶχε τὴν ἐσθῆτα she had a dress on like (that of) her servants X. C. 5.1.4 (the possessor for the thing possessed, = τῇ ἐσθῆτι τῶν δουλῶν), Ὀρφεῖ γλῶσσα ἡ ἐναντία_ a tongue unlike (that of) Orpheus A. Ag. 1629.

a. After > adjectives and adverbs of likeness > we also find > καί> , ὅσπερ (ὥσπερ). Thus, ““παθεῖν ταὐτὸν ὅπερ πολλάκις πρότερον πεπόνθατε” to suffer > the same as > you have often suffered before” D. 1.8, οὐχ ὁμοίως πεποιήκα_σι καὶ Ὅμηρος they have not composed their poetry as Homer did P. Ion 531 d.

Guy Cooper (vol4, p3005, 2:69.41.6.A)

καί > introducing a paratactic comparison after expressions of comparability …

2

Maybe to have a way of contrasting it with ἴσα τῷ?

3

What do you see as essentially paratactic and non-paratactic about the two passages?

4

Miguel,

Perhaps, I am not sure. I have difficulty with Cooper’s analysis now and then.



Euripides Electra 994
χαῖρε, σεβίζω σ᾿ ἴσα καὶ μάκαρας
πλούτου μεγάλης τ᾿ εὐδαιμονίας.

Greeting: I worship you as I do the blessed gods …
LCL Kovacs 1998

Parataxis would be two clauses without subornation connected in some manner, in the case by ἴσα καὶ. In the Euripides Electra I can see how there would be two clauses with the same verb assumed in the second clause. Smyth 1501a “the comparison is often condensed (brachylogy).”

First clause: σεβίζω σ᾿
Second clause: [σεβίζω] μάκαρας

When I first looked at Electra 994 I thought it was straightforward by comparison to OT 1187 but I was misreading it.

Soph. OT 1187
Chorus
Ἰὼ γενεαὶ βροτῶν,
ὡς ὑμᾶς ἴσα καὶ τὸ μη-
δὲν ζώσας ἐναριθμῶ.

chorus
Ah, generations of men, how close to nothingness I estimate your life to be!

LCL Lloyd-Jones 1994

If we assume the Chorus at OT 1187 has the same deep structure, the verb ἐναριθμῶ is omitted in the first clause: [ἐναριθμῶ] ὑμᾶς.

Here are the Jebb notes:

[1187] ὡς with ἐναριθμῶ: τὸ μηδὲν adverbially with ζώσας: i.e. how absolutely do I count you as living a life which is no life. ζώσας should not be taken as = “while you live,” or “though you live.” We find οὐδέν εἰμι, “I am no more,” and also, with the art., τὸ μηδέν εἰμι, “I am as if I were not”: Soph. Trach. 1107 “κἂν τὸ μηδὲν ὦ”: Soph. Aj. 1275 “τὸ μηδὲν ὄντας.” Here ζώσας is a more forcible substitute for οὔσας, bringing out the contrast between the semblance of vigour and the real feebleness.

ἴσα καὶ = ἴσα （or ἴσον） ὥσπερ, a phrase used by Thuc. 3.14 “（ἴσα καὶ ἱκέται ἐσμέν）,” and Eur. El. 994 “（σεβίζω σ᾽ ἴσα καὶ μάκαρας）,” which reappears in late Greek, as Aristid. 1. 269 （Dind.）.

ἐναριθμῶ only here, and （midd.） in Eur. Orest. 623 “εἰ τοὐμὸν ἔχθος ἐναριθμεῖ κῆδός τ᾽ ἐμόν” = ἐν ἀριθμῷ ποιεῖ, if you make of account.

5

I sense you’re trying to interpret parataxis as having a meaning more narrow than the one Cooper intended here. Parataxis, as I’m sure you know, ultimately means no more than “laying alongside”. In both examples you’ve given, the words ἴσα καὶ are simply a means of laying alongside one another two things the writer wishes to assert as equivalent in some way. We see the same thing in Latin with aeque ac/atque/et.

6

This was what I found:

par•a•tax•is (părˌə-tăkˈsĭs)►

n.
The juxtaposition of clauses or phrases without the use of coordinating or subordinating conjunctions, as It was cold; the snows came.

More at Wordnik from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

Victor,

Your probably correct. I picked up my working notion of parataxis from reading works on the syntax of biblical Hebrew and never really set out to find out exactly what it means. There seems to be some variation in how this is defined. in Hebrew and LXX syntax some authors speak of two parallel clauses joined by KAI or WAW/VAV as paratatic. It looks like the Hebrew definition is strictly formal. There are no constituents that mark subordination such as a relative pronoun. However, functional subordination can be attained without formal marking .

Cooper talks the language of classical studies and I talk the language of several different branches of linguistics. I run into all kinds of difficulties reading Cooper. His style of discussion is very loose and verbose which at times makes one wish he would express himself more in the style of H. W. Smyth. I picked up Cooper a decade ago when I was reading Soph. Electra with man from Pennsylvania. He had two copies of Cooper and sold me one set. I thought it would help me with Attic and it has done that but there is price you pay in penetrating Cooper’s layer of fog he casts over his discussions of syntax. Cooper’s whole concept of syntax is different than you find in Generative Grammar. Someone who studied the disciples of early Chomsky eons ago when that was in vogue might look over Cooper’s treatment of Attic and conclude the subject of syntax rarely if ever comes up in his four volumes. Never the less I keep using it because it helps out in addition to Smyth which I have had for several decades. I have days when I think reading it is a waste of time.