οὐχὶ

Greek Learning Greek
1

Technically speaking, is οὐχὶ the deictic form of οὐκ? Replies greatly appreciated.

2

Deixis is something that referentially points to something else{1}. Pointing includes exophora, anaphora, cataphora …


So are you suggesting that:
οὐχὶ is +deixis
οὐκ is -deixis
or:
οὐ is -deixis


seems like this introduces confusion somewhere. Not sure where.




[1] private communication with Cindy Westfall (McMaster Div.) many moons ago.

3

A quick scan of my lexical resources (LSJ, BDAG) show nobody using this terminology. They simply report it as “a strengthened form of οὐ…”

4

I think I was half asleep when I wrote my earlier response. The deictic iota in Greek has nothing to do with the way deixis and deictic are used in discourse analysis. It simply makes the word to which it is attached emphatic. I think originally οὐχί certainly had a deictic (emphatic) force, but that tends to be lost in later Greek and even in some Classical contexts.

5

See Smyth 333g deictic iota with demonstrative pronouns and 1120c deictic article.

deictic is used in linguistics not just discourse analysis. A demonstrative pronoun, article, point to something that is either present as member of a currently active cogitative framework, scenario, “present to the mind” or something which is actually present as in on the scene, in view on stage.

English slang: this here man with the red beard.

here is +deixis


οὐχὶ may be empathic but I don’t think it is deictic.

6

Good to talk to you in this context. Yes, I absolutely agree, but I still think that the origin of the iota was as a deictic particle. What would it point out with regard to οὺ? Perhaps the fact of the negation, hence it becomes emphatic.

7

I find it difficult to see how οὐχί could be deictic. However – and I’m just guessing here – perhaps (as far as the iota goes) it is related to οὑτοσί, the emphatic variant of οὗτος, in which -i is a “demonstrative”, according to LSJ. Perhaps the two are etymologically related, οὐχί being merely emphatic and the deictic force no longer felt. One further caveat: the -i is short in οὐχί and long in οὑτοσί; I’d like to see a serious discussion to the effect that they are related before actually believing it…

LSJ on οὗτος:

In Att. οὗτος was freq. strengthd. by the demonstr. -ί, οὑτοσί, αὑτηί, τουτί, gen. τουτουί, dat. τουτῳί, acc. τουτονί; pl. nom. οὑτοιί, neut. ταυτί, etc., this man here: sts. a Particle is inserted between the Pron. and -ί, as αὑτηγί for αὑτηί γε, Ar.Ach.784; τουτογί for τουτί γε, Id.V.781, Av.894, al.; ταυταγί for ταυτί γε, Id.Eq.492, Pax1057, al.; τουτοδί for τουτὶ δέ, Id.Pl.227; τουτουμενί for τουτουὶ μέν, Id.Ra.965.—In codd. the ν ἐφελκυστικόν is sts. added in the forms οὑτοσίν, οὑτωσίν, and οὑτοσίν is said to be Att. by A.D.Pron.59.24, 82.11. [This ι is always long, and a long vowel or diphthong before it becomes short, as αὑτη̆ί, τουτῳ̆ί, οὑτοῐί, Ar.Nu.201, Pl.44, Ach.40, etc.]

8

That’s a very good observation, Paul, and I agree.

9

Unfortunately my theory seems to be wrong. I checked Chantraine’s Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, and the these iotas seem to be quite different in origin. To sum up:

  1. Long iota in οὑτοσί etc. is a demonstrative, as in LSJ, and seems to go back to Indo-European.
  2. οὐχί and οὐκί (both short iota) are actually apparently two different formations; -χι is the same enclitic particle as in Homeric ἧχι “where”, while -κι comes from the indefinite -kwi, the same that brought about τι (and Latin qui, etc.).
10

Paul, this is excellent. I regularly check Chantraine, just didn’t think to do so here for some reason. Nor did I take into account the varying vowel quantities. I simply assumed that the iota was originally the same. I really should have known better, but sometimes we get comfortable in our dogmatic slumbers…

11

It’s emphatic. Compare ναί vs ναίχι (the latter poorly attested in literature, I think Gignac on sub-literary language in papyri will have something?).

12

I’m mortified to see that I never replied to all your kind replies to this question, which I forgotten I’d posted. More later after I go through them, and thanks so much and sorry.

13

Comparing the -κι of οὑκι with that of ἡκι doesn’t seem quite right. *kʷ only becomes k next to u/w which isn’t the case in ἡκι, maybe it’s analogical? *kʷ does fall together with k before y though, which then is palatalized to give classical σσ/ττ. οὑκι btw. goes back to *(ne) h₂oi̯u kʷid (approx. ‘(not) in a lifetime’).

14

Cowgill’s paper suggesting that derivation is available on JSTOR.

It rests on a number of speculative possibilities, any one of which being wrong would invalidate the entire chain of reasoning. But that’s historical linguistics for you. It is a fun read. The idea is the Aóyu (theoretical proto-Indo European word for lifetime), compare αἰών, δόρυ, γόνυ, was the basis of the “not in a lifetime” phrase suggested above, and eventually morphed into ουκι, which is really just the same as ου.

Maybe? But it seems more likely to me that it’s just emphatic.

15

Certainly not deictic. I haven’t looked into this at all, but could it be that the –χι in ουχι is the same as in ἡχι but that ουχι was (most of the time) “corrected” to unaspirated ουκι in Homer (and hence Herodotus) as being the proper ionic form? Aristarchus prescribed ουκι rather than ουχι in Homer, Herodian calls it the ionic form of ουχι, and Porphyry compares δεκεσθαι. If there’s anything in this, then ουκι is a fictive form that permeated the tradition.

16

Thanks much for resolving my confusion over deictic and emphatic. Much appreciated!