Hello,
can someone please help me to transform the blue verse below into direct speech?
It was Alexander’s favourite verse from the Ilias.
It means: “to be brave, and to take the lead in the ranks of the foremost”
Here you can find it: XI, 784 (or VI, 208)
Πηλεὺς μὲν ᾧ παιδὶ γέρων ἐπέτελλ᾽ Ἀχιλῆϊ
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔμμεναι ἄλλων:
The result should be: Be brave, and take the lead in the ranks of the foremost!
Thanks for your help!
You can actually leave it just as it is, since infinitives (which is what we have here) can also be used as imperatives. To change it would be to destroy it.
I studied my ancient greek grammar book and indeed it’s possible to use infinitives as imperatives. Thank you!
But i don’t agree with you to leave ὑπείροχον unchangend. ὑπείροχος seems to be correct.
Sometimes it’s necessary in order to write grammatically correct. But of course i want to keep Homer’s style and it’s beauty.
Thank you for sharing your ideas, mwh!
You’re welcome, that’s what’s this forum’s for. And you’re quite right, you’ll want to change υπειροχον to υπειροχος (whether it’s addressed to a boy or a girl, a man or a woman), or to υπειροχοι if it’s a group. It doesn’t affect the meter, so the modification is fine.
I can’t say I approve of the injunction myself (Alexander may have made it to godhead, but how much good did he do the world?), but that’s by the way.
I can’t say I approve of the injunction myself ([…] but how much good did [Alexander] do the world?)
The way how he achieved his aims is definitely doubtful. He caused too many wars and subjugated too many poeple. But he promoted the cultural exchange between Orient and Occident as well.
It doesn’t affect the meter […]
This is a good keyword.
I’m not familiar with greek metrics yet, but i know latin very well.
These verses seem to be hexameters.
I tried to analyze it, but forgive me, if i made some silly mistakes:
—|—|—|—|—|ᴗ|ᴗ|—|ᴗ|ᴗ|—|ᴗ|ᴗ|—|ᴗ
Πη | λεὺς | μὲν | ᾧ | παι | δὶ | γέ | ρων | ἐ | πέ | τελ | λ᾽ Ἀ | χι | λῆ | ϊ
—|ᴗ|ᴗ|—|—|—|—|—|—|ᴗ|ᴗ|—|ᴗ|—|—|—
αἰ | ὲ | ν ἀ | ρισ | τεύ | ειν | καὶ | ὑ | πεί | ρο | χον | ἔμ | με | ναι | ἄλ | λων:
In the second verse are definitely at least two mistakes. I guess τεύ | ειν must be something like τ’ειν and long (—), and ναι | ἄλ must be something like ν’ἄλ and short (ᴗ) (both by synaloiphe).
It would be great to hear your opinion mwh (or from another reader) about this analysis.
Thank you!
Χαῖρε βάρϐαρε!
The correct scansion is this:
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔμμεναι ἄλλων
—ᴗᴗ|——|—ᴗᴗ|—ᴗᴗ|—ᴗᴗ|——
αἰ ὲ ν ἀ | ρισ τεύ | ειν καὶ ὑ | πεί ρο χον | ἔμ με ναι | ἄλ λων
If the a word ends in a long vowel/diphthong AND the next word begins with a vowel, that end syllable is shortened. This is called “epic correption”. For that reason, καὶ and (ἔμμε)ναι above are scanned short.
Also, υ in ὑπείροχον is short.
Χαῖρε παύλε!
Why τεύ | ειν is an exception? (ends with diphthong and next word starts with a vowel (diphthong))
You forgot to tell me HOW they are shortened. But in the wiki-article i found that link to a greek grammar reference: καὶ and (ἔμμε)ναι lose their ι (jota)!
—ᴗᴗ|——|—ᴗᴗ|—ᴗᴗ|—ᴗᴗ|——
αἰ ὲ ν ἀ | ρισ τεύ | ειν κα ὑ | πεί ρο χον | ἔμ με να | ἄλ λων
Now the beauty of this verse is revealed. It sounds really amazing! 
Thank you for your help, Paul!
Another question:
Does κα keep the gravis (`)?
It’s not an exception… Epic correption occurs only between two different WORDS. Greek doesn’t like hiatus, i.e. the situation where two vowels meet at the border of two different words. No correption happens with ἀριστεύ-ειν, since it’s a single word.
I don’t know if it’s possible to completely sure about these things, since we don’t have native speakers to ask questions. But I rather think that with a diphthong, the i is not lost but rather becomes a j (or y, which ever letter you prefer) sound at the beginning of the next word.
ai e na | ris teu | ein ka hjy | pei ro khon | em me na | jal lwn.
Scansion doesn’t affect the way we write the Greek. You would still write καὶ. What actually happened in pronunciation is another thing. That’s a good question still. κα would still have the gravis, but if the last syllable had the circumflex, what would happen then? In writing, we would still put the circumflex, but I don’t think they pronounced it that way. How then? I don’t know.
One other apparent anomaly here: μὲν is scanned as a long syllable even though the vowel -ὲ- is short and -ν is followed by a vowel, not a second consonant. That’s because ᾧ was originally *σϝωι. The sigma and the digamma were lost, but in the epic language the word continued to be treated as if it began with two consonants.
“The sigma and the digamma were lost, but in the epic language the word continued to be treated as if it began with two consonants.”
Small correction: treated as if it began with one consonant (the digamma). Cf. e.g.
τιμὴ δ’ ἐκ Διός ἐστι, φιλεῖ δέ ἑ μητίετα Ζεύς
In the examples at hand we need only one extra consonant, but then we have:
Il. 3.172 αἰδοῖός τέ μοί ἐσσι φίλε (σϝ)ἑκυρὲ δ(ϝ)εινός τε
Il. 5.343 ἣ δὲ μέγα (ϝ)ἰ(ϝ)άχουσα ἀπὸ (σϝ)ἕο κάββαλεν υἱόν
(Examples from M.L. West’s Introduction to Greek Metre p. 23.)
In these cases, two consonants (σϝ) are needed for the meter. (Although the first a in μέγα (ϝ)ἰ(ϝ)άχουσα still needs explaining. Is it a lengthening of an initial continuant (which, according to West on p. 22, nearly always occurs in the princeps) – but then couldn’t “lengthening of an initial continuant” be used to explain away many of the other cases where σϝ could be posited?)
An addition to the preceding: According to West, p. 17, μέγα ἰάχουσα = me-ga(w)-(w)i-(w)a-khoo-sa.
I’m very doubtful that the lengthenings in these two verses, all in the princeps, are to be explained by reference to the long-gone initial σ. I’d assign them to metrische Dehnung of familiar type. As West puts it (Greek Metre p.38), the princeps position “will admit … any other syllable that has any pretence to length,” and one of his five categories is “a short vowel before initial *ϝ, λ, μ, ν, ῥ, σ” (which never had σ in front of them). It seems reasonable to assume that in such cases the consonant was “slightly prolonged” (GM p.15), and indeed that’s often reflected in the geminate spelling (ενιμμεγαροις is normal in the early papyri, for instance; obviously not with ϝ, which has vanished from sight). So in these three instances (φίλε ἑκυρὲ, μεγα ιαχουσα, and the formulaic ἀπὸ ἕο), I see no reason to imagine that anything but the erstwhile digamma is making its effect felt, just as everywhere else (when it has any effect at all, that is: it’s only an intermittent relic itself, after all).
I think philologists are sometimes too prone to seek explanation of epic’s ubiquitous prosodic fudging (often disguised by fiddling with the spelling) in historical linguistics. Apart from intractable cretics, there’s remarkably little that can’t be stretched or squeezed or somehow or other made to fit into a meter that’s really not very well suited to Greek.
As for how correption was phonetically actualized, well no, we have no sure way of telling. Given how και behaves in other situations, however, in crasis for example in later Greek, I’m sceptical of the yod explanation (κα/j/). Likewise with postulated yods after consonants (GM p.14): how to distinguish with any assurance from cases of synecphonesis (p.12)? I queried West’s treatment in my review of his Greek Metre (not the subsequent Introduction, which in fact I’ve never seen). I expect he’s right for all that. He usually is.
epic’s ubiquitous prosodic fudging (often disguised by fiddling with the spelling)
We have that here, too: ὑπείροχον.
Not to mention Ἀχιλῆϊ (or not?)
Well, it seems to me that the simplest explanation that explains all the evidence at hand is the most likely. As far as I’m any judge, I suppose you’re likely right. This one occurred even to me 
Actually I have asked the question myself, but still have accepted the consonantal syllable-initial /j/, because it has such great authority behind it. But the big problem is that the consonantal /j/ sound doesn’t seem to exist otherwise. I suppose correption and synecphonesis are really one phenomenon, then. But what puzzles me in this regard is the almost total absence of crasis in Homer in comparison.
I don’t have an explanation for epic’s inhibition against crasis. Evidently it wasn’t in the ionic tradition. It’s all over the place in aeolic.