As I understand it an enclitic must be placed directly after the first word of a sentence or clause. This normally makes them the second word of a clause except where there are several enclitics in which case a bunch of enclitics collectively occupy the second place. This I am aware must be an oversimplification not least because it assumes that the definition of sentence and clause our clear
I have been trying to puzzle out the below from theophrastos’ inquiry about plants:
εἰσὶ δ’ αἱ μὲν κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν καὶ τὰ πάθη καί τοὺς βίους εὐθεωρητότεραι καὶ ῥᾴους, αἱ δὲ κατὰ μέρη πλείους ἔχουσι ποικιλίας. The things according to the origin and experience and life are easier to see and easy while the things according to parts have more complexity.
What led me astray was the way the first two enclitics are split by αἱ. My thinking went something like this: μὲν is clearly part of the first clause hence αἱ is the first word and so εἰσὶ must somehow refer to the sentence as a whole.
My only explanation is that δ’ because it connects the sentence as a whole to the preceding bounces μὲν (which belongs specifically to the clause) to the next available position.
So what is going on?
And while I am about it – is their a beginners guide to the position of enclitics? All the textbooks I have seem to be only interested in accentuation.
δ’ is just δέ shortened because the α-sound in the next word gobbles up the ε-sound. It is called Elision. There is a good discussion of some of the sorts of the changes that you are likely to run in parts 62 through 75 of Smyth (and surrounding).
Crasis tends to trip me up more than elision. For example, I had no idea what κἀν meant for some time (καὶ ἐν).
EDIT:
Rereading your post, I realize that it’s unlikely that you were tripped up by what I thought you were. I think that you mean postpositive rather than enclitic?
EDIT 2:
I thought of the phrase “κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν καὶ τὰ πάθη καί τοὺς βίους” as a single feminine plural noun, and the sentence made more sense to me.
I wasn’t having trouble with that but others reading this thread may do so it is worth mentioning it for them.
Yes, you may be right that I mean postpositive rather than enclitic. In Serbocroat all enclitics are postpositive so the term enclitic means postpositive. Now you point it out me, I see that my experience of Serbocroat may have misled me and I may be seeking what I need under the wrong term.
hi, the book that covers this question is dover’s greek word order. it’s not a book for beginners. i don’t know any beginner’s book that does. it’s not as simple as all postpositive words being placed after the first word: there are different categories of word and they each have their preferred “slots” in the breath group, and it differs depending on whether the breath group is a parenthetical phrase or not, e.g. see the parenthetical clause here: ‘τί οὖν ;’, ἄν τις εἴποι, ‘σὺ γράφεις ταῦτ’ εἶναι στρατιωτικά’ (D.1.19) where words that would fall into what i call the “wackernagel” slot come at the beginning of the parenthetical clause. see dover for the different patterns that he found along with frequency stats for each pattern in different authors.
δε after the opening εισι is your regular sentence connective.
αι μεν … αι δε … “some …, others …”: the μεν and its corresponding δε come directly after the first word in their respective phrases (here αι in both cases). That’s perfectly normal. A μεν … δε pair can come at virtually any point in a sentence. (Although neither μεν nor δε is an enclitic in the proper prosodic sense—at least, not according to conventional dogma—, they might as well be: they behave as if they were position-wise.)
The only complication here—a very minor one—is that εισι is placed outside of the αι μεν .. αι δε … constituents, as if it were shared by them both, whereas as the sentence turns out the εισι belongs only with the first, since the second ends up with its own main verb (εχουσι). This results in a mild anacolouthon. If Aristotle were being more exact, rather than switching construction midway through, he’d have put the εισι within the αι μεν clause. And then the word order would have been αι μεν δε …, αι δε …. The μεν coheres so closely with the αι that the δε follows αι-μεν rather than intervening. The δε would still be effectively second word in the sentence, since αι-μεν constitutes an inseparable word-group.
As for the position of postpositives (including enclitics) more generally, they always come after the first word in their phrase or word-group or “breath” group as chad puts it (usually a good way to think of it, though I can’t imagine a speaker taking breath after εισι δ’ in εισι δ αι μεν …). When more than one is used (as in the hypothetical αι μεν δε above), they follow a set hierarchy; but I wouldn’t worry too much about that at this stage.
In τί οὖν ;’, ἄν τις εἴποι, ‘σὺ γράφεις ταῦτ’ εἶναι στρατιωτικά, the position of the postpositive αν suggests that we may be wrong to think in terms of a parenthesis. Certainly there’s no justification for a comma before it. Editors habitually get this wrong. I don’t know if chad would agree. (And I forget what Dover says on this point, if anything.)
Indeed. That’s actually what gave me all the trouble! Perseus mistakenly confuses κἄν and κἀν. The original Middle Liddell entry gets it right, of course. But if you look up the definition for κἀν at the Tufts Perseus or UoC, it gives you the definition for κἄν.
Everyone, buy a print copy of the LSJ. Better yet, buy both the Middle Liddell and the Great Scott. They will do two positive things for you: 1) They will give you better information, and 2) The Great Scott will get you out of the habit of looking up unimportant things, as it is such a pain to use. You find out how a dictionary is meant to be used instead: you will browse through it on lazy days on the lookout for interesting nuggets.
What you say here is that it my understanding of the rules is correct but that Theophrastos has chosen to break that rule. Indeed the position you suggest would be normal for εισι to be is exactly where I would expect such a verb. The placement of εισι outside the clause may be minor complication for you but for me it was crippling leading me to struggle over that single sentence for several days.
So is there really nothing more to be said than that Theophrastos has broken the normal rules on a whim or even as a mistake?
While this was an especially difficult sentence for me it is generally the case that I will take an afternoon to read a single sentence of real Greek. It is increasing clear to me that the word order of Ancient Greek is the prime cause of my difficulty. Given that to be only able to decode real Greek that laboriously is a very real problem I do have to worry about such issues of word order.
It maybe that the majority of Greek learners just “get” Greek word order intuitively and that may explain why textbooks almost ignore this issue. It may also be the fact that I am a good deal older than the average Greek learner may explain my difficult. But that given that intuitive grasp of Greek order has not come to me after three years of study it is clear that I need an analytic approach.
I do however very much appreciate you taking the time to confirm what the normal rules of postpositives would dictate for the word order of this sentence.
In my view, it’s misleading to think of this as a whim or a mistake.
εἰσὶ placed at the beginning of the first clause (with connective δ’) is equivalent to English “there are some that…” This is a statement about the existence of the first category, not a copula connecting predicate adjectives with the subject.
The second clause is a statement about the second, contrasting category. To highlight the contrast, Theophrastus uses the characteristically Greek μὲν . . . δὲ.
This results in what mwh describes as a mild anacolouthon, but only if you expect strict grammatical parallelism between the μὲν clause and the δὲ clause, but Greek doesn’t necessarily insist on strict parallelism. It isn’t helpful to think of this as a violation of the rules–you need to assimilate and internalize this, and accept it as perfectly natural Greek.
By just adding a single letter, he could have written: εἰσὶ δ’ αἱ μὲν κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν καὶ τὰ πάθη καί τοὺς βίους εὐθεωρητότεραι καὶ ῥᾴους, αἱ δὲ κατὰ μέρη πλείους ἔχουσαι ποικιλίας if he felt the need to observe strict parallelism, but he obviously didn’t feel compelled to do so. He wrote what came to him as a native speaker of Greek.
The sentence could be translated: “There are some that are . . . ; others have . . . .”
I think you’re too hard on yourself. You found difficulty because unlike most Greek learners you’re closely analyzing what you encounter. It’s a very good thing to pay attention to word order, even if hard and fast rules are hard to come by. And I can tell you that most Greek learners’ grasp of word order is very weak indeed, after three years or many more. Still, I would advise you to alternate such slow reading with faster. The more you read the more you’ll become habituated to the behaviour of the language.
Theophrastus would not have been conscious of breaking any rule, and I certainly wouldn’t say he made a mistake. It’s just that his thought shifted slightly (and scarcely noticeably) in the course of the sentence. By the time he gets to the αι δε clause the opening εισι has fallen out of the picture. Only a pedant (aka prescriptive grammarian) would have found anything amiss with the sentence. Isocrates would have hanged himself rather than have perpetrated it, but Theophrastus writes plain ordinary Greek.
As to the ordering of successive enclitics, well it doesn’t happen all that often, and you can simply observe the order if you come across an instance. In speaking of a set hierarchy I had in mind the particles (e.g. γε τοι), not εστι or possessive pronouns, where there’s less rigidity.
In Greek as in Serbocroat (you tell me) all enclitics are postpositive, but in Greek not all postpositives are enclitic. Theophrastus’ teacher formulated the false syllogism.
Michael
EDIT: Now I see Qimmik’s post, with which I’m essentially in agreement.
I think I get it now. My first guess, that I had rejected by the time I first posted, no longer seems so far off the mark. Your example ἔχουσαι seems to me the equivalent of “And there are these things and then there are those things.” And yes it was that that led me astray. In ἔχουσαι example both sub-clauses are commanded by εἰσὶ. When I realized that with ἔχουσι the second clause didn’t need εἰσὶ I jumped to the conclusion that εἰσὶ must be internal to the first clause. Thanks to your alternative wording I see that was a wrong assumption because making the second clause stand on its own feet doesn’t alter the fact that εἰσὶ is operating at the level of the sentence as a whole. The second clause doesn’t need εἰσὶ but εἰσὶ is available if it did.
In short, why there are three second place positions and why each of the postpositives fall into a different slot is now clear.
Thank you, I really appreciate your (and Michael’s) help on this.
That duel strategy sounds like very good advice. Thanks.
After I posted I did realize I did come far too close to implying that you were saying that Theophrastus had made a mistake. My bad wording was a down to a combination of anacolouthon being a new word for me and that is what the results of a google search seemed to be saying it could mean along with the fact that even the possibility of mistakes in what you are reading is scary to a begginer like me.
If Isocrates would find fault in Theophrastus then he goes up in my estimation.
In which case there is a third way in which Ancient Greek is more complicated than Serbocroat for in Serbocroat all enclitic-postpositives must also fall in the second place position which now you draw my attention to it doesn’t apply to words like μου. μου is postpositive in the sense that it can’t start a sentence but not in the sense that it gravitates towards the second position of a clause or sentence. Is there a term that specifically means 2nd position words like μὲν?
“making the second clause stand on its own feet doesn’t alter the fact that εἰσὶ is operating at the level of the sentence as a whole.”
Ah, but it does, and it isn’t. The sentence starts out as if it will be, but that’s abandoned with the 2rd part. I think you understand, but this misstates the situation slightly.
Anacoluthon, as you now know, is something that in strictly syntactical terms doesn’t “follow” (ακολουθεῖν), something that’s not in grammatical accordance with what precedes. That applies here, but only just.
μου is like μεν in that it’s postpositive. They both need something to cling to, and that’s likely to be a major or major-ish word, most often the first word or word-unit of a colon (to define which would be rather circular). The difference is that μεν is less weighty than μου. So you’d say οι φιλοι μου but οι μεν φιλοι (though sometimes οι φιλοι μεν). It’s worth observing the position of enclitic datives in particular.
daivid, I want to make sure you understand. εἰσὶ does not operate at the level of the sentence as a whole–it’s the verb of the first clause. It’s “fronted” because it means "there are . . . ". The second clause has a different verb, ἔχουσι, and stands on its own. Although the contrast is highlighted by αἱ μὲν … αἱ δὲ, the two clauses are not exactly parallel. This lack of parallelism is not a violation of any rules–it’s perfectly good Greek.
In the example you gave isn’t εἰσὶ applying to both sub clauses?
εἰσὶ δ’ αἱ μὲν κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν καὶ τὰ πάθη καί τοὺς βίους εὐθεωρητότεραι καὶ ῥᾴους, αἱ δὲ κατὰ μέρη πλείους ἔχουσαι ποικιλίας
Both you and Micheal seem to suggest while εἰσὶ is part of the first clause it is also a little aloof from it.
If it really is utterly firmly attached to the first clause why doesn’t μὲν join δ’ ? And if it is thus attached why does the lack of parallel between the two clauses explain μὲν falling behind αἱ?
This is what I would have expected:
εἰσὶ δὲ μὲν αἱ κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν καὶ τὰ πάθη καί τοὺς βίους εὐθεωρητότεραι καὶ ῥᾴους, αἱ δὲ κατὰ μέρη πλείους ἔχουσι ποικιλίας.
(And thank you to both of you for taking the trouble to make sure I have it right.)
No you shouldn’t have expected εἰσὶ δὲ μὲν αἱ. The contrast is between αι μεν … and αι δε …. The μεν must follow the αι.
With the order as is it, with εισι up front, it initially looks as if its force will extend beyond the first clause. But by the time we reach the second clause it’s been lost sight of.
It’s as if a textbook writer were to write:
“There are:
(1) some that are easier;
(2) others have more complexities.”
A copy-editor would make short work of that.
An English copy-editor, not a Greek one (unless his name happens to be Isocrates). This is slightly off-balance in English, but not intolerable in good Greek.
I’m really not sure whether I basically get it but put an emphasis in a place that is not strictly kosher or whether I really don’t get it at all.
Are you saying that moving εἰσὶ to the front would lead the reader to expect that εἰσὶ would apply to the second sub clause or are you saying it is the way μὲν and the second δὲ that leads to that expectation.
Either way, however, that does seem to me to be the same as saying that Theophrastos was thinking of εισι as in some sense acting at the level of the sentence as a whole even though it doesn’t.
It is here that my real difficulty. Why are there two post positive slots here? And why the emphasis on αι? It just happens to be the second non-postpositive in the sentence. What possible claim could it have to host μεν after itself?
Also would “εἰσὶ δὲ μὲν αἱ…” actually be illegal and if so why?
Why are there two post positive slots here? And why the emphasis on αι? It just happens to be the second non-postpositive in the sentence. What possible claim could it have to host μεν after itself?
Also would “εἰσὶ δὲ μὲν αἱ…” actually be illegal and if so why?
The contrast between the two categories is drawn by αἱ μὲν . . . αἱ δὲ. These are fixed expressions–think of the article and the particle as a single word that can be declined but not broken apart, like the English “some . . . others”. μὲν and δὲ must follow the articles in this expression.
The first δὲ–the connective δὲ–follows the first word of the sentence, as is normal: εἰσὶ δὲ. Here εἰσὶ is moved to the front of its clause because it means "there are [some] . . . ". It’s not a copula connecting the adjectives that follow to the subject of the clause (αἱ μὲν). Instead, it’s an existential statement about one class of whatever the antecedent of the two αἱ’s is. It leads to the expectation that there will be a similar existential statement about the other class, something like εἰσὶ ἕτεραι δὲ . . . ἔχουσαι, but he has used αἱ μὲν to draw the contrast between the two classes in the first clause and so uses αἱ δὲ . . . ἔχουσι in the second clause, abandoning εἰσὶ and using a new verb.
The alternative with εἰσὶ acting at the level of the entire sentence, applying to both clauses, would more likely be something like: εἰσὶ δέ τινες μὲν κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν καὶ τὰ πάθη καί τοὺς βίους εὐθεωρητότεραι καὶ ῥᾴους, ἕτεραι δὲ κατὰ μέρη πλείους ἔχουσαι ποικιλίας. Instead, using the natural Greek expression αἱ μὲν to mark the contrast leads him to abandon existential εἰσὶ when he comes to αἱ δὲ.
Are you saying that moving εἰσὶ to the front would lead the reader to expect that εἰσὶ would apply to the second sub clause
Yes.
or are you saying it is the way μὲν and the second δὲ that leads to that expectation.
No. Once he has used αἱ μὲν, it’s natural for him to abandon εἰσὶ for a new construction with αἱ δὲ.
that does seem to me to be the same as saying that Theophrastos was thinking of εισι as in some sense acting at the level of the sentence as a whole even though it doesn’t.
Again, I think this is a slightly misleading way to think about this. You could find a million examples of this sort of mild anacol(o)uthon with μὲν . . . δὲ in Greek, and I think it would be better to simply accept that he has changed horses in mid-stream, in a way that is wholly unobtrusive and perfectly natural in ancient Greek.
