Zuntz: Lesson 5

Greek Learning Greek
21

This is a bit of a red herring.

This is from the OED and should clear up the apparent anomaly.

wage, n.

The pl. was formerly often construed as sing.

1388: [see 2e].
1539: in Abstr. Protocols Town Clerks Glasgow (1897) IV. 118 “Everilk ane to haif ane lyik waigis.”
1551: Robinson tr. More’s Utopia ii. ix. (1895) 302 “Theire dayly wages is so lytle that it will not suffice for the same daye.”
1621: Sclater Quæst. Tythes Introd. (1623) B1, “How easie is it to answer, that Tythes was that inheritance, and Tythes is this wages.”
1679: L. Addison 1st St. Mahumedism 23 “As for his wages, it amounted to so little, that it would not do him much service.”
1731-9: Tull Horse-hoeing Husb. Notes on Pref. (1822) 321 “As their wages is supposed to be low, their masters find them in tools to work with.”

[> 2e is I think> ] Wyclif Rom. vi. 22 “The wagis [1382 hyris] of synne is deth.”

22

To answer Zembei’s question: “sind politische Wesen,” like ζῷα πολιτικά εισιν (not εστιν!). Not a problem. But why should der Mensch become Menschen?

If anyone wants to prolong the agony I really think it would be more productive to examine that Gildersleeve section that Joel linked to.

23

That’s my point exactly. Joel made the important point of pointing out the ”neuter plural singular verb” rule. However, in so doing he made himself the mistake of not properly distinguishing between subject and predicate. While there are some complications, linking to the Gildersleeve passage was indeed a bit of red herring, though his examples are interesting in themselves and worth discussing.

24

I did not. I’m sorry, but I’m not sure you (or anybody jumping in) has actually followed. The original poster used a singular verb with the plural subject in the original post. I pointed this out. The original poster then linked to Kühner, which has a similar (but not the same) formulation to Gildersleeve. We discussed whether 1) it applied, 2) how regular/exceptional it was. On 1, Herodotus (and Gildersleeve) was brought in to show that yes, there are closer parallels than the Kühner examples. On 2, no one in the discussion has claimed that this is the regular formation. I posted an example of the opposite (Plato), but would want to see exact stats.

25

I’m sorry, but I’m not sure you (or anybody jumping in) has actually followed. The original poster used a singular verb with the plural subject in the original post.

Sorry, my bad! You’re right when I look at it again.

26

Of course it’s that easy. Duh. Confusing the subject and the predicate. Back to Crosby and Schaeffer for me!

27

Well, I have. I’ve been trying to cut through to the essentials. The rot set in right at the outset with that horrid Οἱ ἄνθρωποι ζῷα πολιτικά ἐστιν.