Republic 330 B

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Republic 330 B

Post by jeidsath »

ἐγὼ δὲ ἀγαπῶ, ἐὰν μὴ ἐλάττω καταλίπω τουτοισί, ἀλλὰ βραχεῖ γέ τινι πλείω ἢ παρέλαβον.

Does the ἢ mean "instead" there, to signal the contrast against μὴ ἐλάττω καταλίπω? "...rather for them to have received a little bit more instead."

Also someone may wish to explain the aorist παρέλαβον to me there, referring to this future event.

And completely unrelated on the next line:

Οὗ τοι ἕνεκα ἠρόμην, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, ὅτι μοι ἔδοξας οὐ σφόδρα ἀγαπᾷν τὰ χρήματα.

Shouldn't the infinitive be ἀγαπᾶν? I thought that the infinitive was a contraction from ε-εν, and that α contract verbs contract α-εν to ᾶν for their infinitive. Is this a typo or an alternate form?
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2504
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by Hylander »

"I'm content if I don't leave these guys less, but rather just a teeny bit more, than I inherited."

παρέλαβον is first person singular. I hope that makes the construction clear--it seemed best to offer a translation rather than an explanation.

He's in the process of responding to Socrates' question, πότερον δέ . . . ὧν κέκτησαι τὰ πλείω παρέλαβες ἢ ἐπεκτήσω; "Did you inherit most of what you have, or did you acquire it on top of [what you inherited]?

You're right--ἀγαπᾷν is a typo for ἀγαπᾶν.

Thanks again for your help yesterday!
Bill Walderman

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by jeidsath »

Thank you for the help today! ἢ παρέλαβον makes perfect sense now. As you see, I had expected:

...ἀλλὰ βραχεῖ γέ τινι πλείω παραλήψονται.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2504
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by Hylander »

It would have to be aorist subjunctive after ἐὰν, like καταλίπω:

...ἀλλὰ βραχεῖ γέ τινι πλείω παραλάβωσιν

but you would need a comparison with ἐλάττω and πλείω: less or more than what?
Bill Walderman

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by mwh »

...ἀλλὰ βραχεῖ γέ τινι πλείω παραλήψονται would mean (utilizing Hylander) "I'm content if I don't leave these guys less, but in fact they’ll inherit just a teeny bit more.” But as you now realize, the αλλα clause continues the εαν clause, and the η παρελαβον (1st pers.) is needed, as Hylander says. The γε implies he may leave them more than a teeny bit more, but that’s not necessary to his contentment. As with Mr Micawber, that sixpence more or less makes all the difference.

And since Timothée hasn’t stepped in to say so: αγαπᾶν is not a contraction of –αεν but of -αειν (ει “improper” diphthong, so loses iota). Similarly with the other contract –ω verbs.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by jeidsath »

Thanks everyone!
And since Timothée hasn’t stepped in to say so: αγαπᾶν is not a contraction of –αεν but of -αειν (ει “improper” diphthong, so loses iota). Similarly with the other contract –ω verbs.
I was a bit muddled writing above, but I was under the impression that it works like this:

non-contract εεν -> ειν
contract in α: αεεν -> αεν -> αν

I recall something in Smyth about the order of contraction when multiple vowels meet. But I assume that's what you are saying with 'ει "improper" diphthong.'
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2504
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by Hylander »

The long vowel corresponding to ε, which is written as ει and looks like a diphthong, even though it really isn't a diphthong -- just a long vowel (that's why ει is called an "improper" or "spurious" diphthong--it isn't really a diphthong).

In contraction, α + any of the vowels ε η or ει > long α, so the alpha contract infinitive ά + long ε-ν (witten as -ειν) is ᾶν.

Hope this helps, though maybe it's just more confusing.
Bill Walderman

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by jeidsath »

I'm back home with my books, so I can be a little clearer about my point. Per Allen, there are two sounds that became the monophthong ει in Attic. One was τειχος (always written so), and the other was the sound in ειναι or νεισθε, which was written as εναι and νεσθε before 6th century BC. ειπειν has both (was ειπεν). Words like τειχος at one point had a real diphthong, while the other class was the result of lengthening or contraction. I thought that mwh might be referring to this second class.

In Attic, of course, everything spelled ει was a monophthong. Here is Kaegi and Smyth on the contraction in the infinitive:

Kaegi 81 note (trans. Kleist):
As the ending of the inf. act. ειν arises from a contraction of ε-εν, and consequently does not contain an original ι, the contracted inf. is τιμᾶν (not τιμᾷν) and δουλοῦν, (not δουλοῖν).
Smyth 469a:
-εν: In present and 2 aorist active of ω-verbs, all futures active. Thus, λύειν, τιμᾶν, λιπεῖν, λύσειν, φανεῖν from λύε-εν, τιμάε-εν, λιπέ-εν, λύσε-εν, φανέε-εν.
Also, the contraction τίμάει -> τιμᾷ, etc., shows that ει normally behaves like any other diphthong in contraction.

EDIT:

Smyth 54 seems to have the direct answer:
Spurious ει and ου are treated like ε and ο: τιμάειν=τιμᾶν, δηλόειν=δηλοῦν, τιμάουσι=τιμῶσι (but τιμάει=τιμᾷ and δηλόει=δηλοῖ, since ει is here genuine; 6).
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by Timothée »

To word it slightly differently, when the diphthong ει [ei] monophthongised in pronunciation to [eː] in Attic, all cases of [eː] were thereafter written with ει. I'm sure all collocutors in this thread already knew this, but maybe some casual readers didn't. Inversely, in reconstructed Attic pronunciation one is never to pronounce ει as diphthong, but always as long [eː].

(Parallel evolution, mutatis mutandis, occurred with ου, though there we have further development [oː] > [uː].) The monophthongisation seems clear but can, however, be questioned, as everything (i.e. including unechte [Kurz]diphthonge) may have, theoretically, become pronounced analogically as diphthong [ei]!

Latin may help (or make things more complicated): we have Adrastēa < Ἀδράστεια (Woodhouse has Ἀδραστεία, but maybe this is a typo?), Aenēas < Αἰνείας, hypotēnusa < ὑποτείνουσα. Alas, we also have Academīa < Ἀκαδήμεια and Antiochīa < Ἀντιόχεια, but these could be later borrowings in Latin. In other words: ει could have been written ei in Latin if needed. As it was not, it surely tells us something.

Especially native English speakers tend to find it difficult, some nigh on impossible, to distinguish between [ei] and [eː], long [eː] automatically becoming [ei] in their pronunciation without their noticing it at all.


Infinitive -ειν: I shall have to say, though, that I find this point complex and not at all certain that e.g. τιμᾶν < τιμάειν < τιμάεεν. It may instead indeed well be τιμᾶν < τιμάεν. True enough, that we find in Herodotus and Homer e.g. ποιέειν and φιλέειν, but these may be analogical forms. If you have any remonstrances or further evidence to either direction, I'm eager to know of them, as this is not a clear point (well, to me at least).

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by mwh »

Joel, -αεεν -> αεν rather than –αεεν > -αειν is wrong. But now Timothée is suggesting –αεεν > -αειν may not come into the picture at all. That’s new to me.

Timothée, is there anything at all to be said in favor of –εν rather than –ειν(<-εεν) in any Ionic-Attic –ω verb infinitives? I’m not aware of any evidence supporting it. That’s not to say there isn’t any, so my question is, is there anything that tells against the orthodox view? I’m guessing (perhaps wrongly) you’d adduce the occasionally distinctive morphological behavior of verbs in –άω –έω –όω in Homeric Greek, but why shouldn’t we take –εεν>-ειν as underlying their infinitive forms just as with regular –ω verbs (regardless of assimilation and diectasis and suchlike)? Simply because in principle there can be no absolute proof that it’s right, since the evidence of ποιέειν etc can be dismissed as “analogical”?? (By which you mean *-εν became –ειν by analogy with regular –ω verb infins.? But how could we know, and why should we think so? And even if it did, we’re still dealing with -εῖν<έειν, not -εῖν<*έεν.) I ask out of ignorance, you understand. I hope you won’t adduce Doric –εν.

Not that I really care, for it makes no difference to the historical outcome, but you have me wondering.

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by Timothée »

I think we have to ask ourselves: what is it that makes us to want to reconstruct -ειν in uerba contracta? On what grounds do we start our deductions on this point? I claim no higher knowledge, but find that if there isn't much more than a scholarly habit behind it, then it can be questioned. Did u. contraca behave in the same manner as u. pura non contracta or u. impura (traditional terms which I know have no place diachronically)? Did u. contracta need the thematic ε before εν? Or was it indeed used, possibly analogically? Do all u. contracta (ε/α/ο) behave in the same manner, or can they be distinguished?

These are just humble questions. Schwyzer notes that most Homeric φιλέεινs can actually be φιλέενs (however twice not as before a vowel, in I 614 and o 201). Herodotean forms will obviously remain despite. But do we have any examples of τιμάεινs or ἀγαπάεινs etc.? Thus Schwyzer says curtly that ”Lesb. -ην -ᾱν ion. att. -εῖν -ᾶν (ohne ι) der Kontrakta, gewöhnlich für *-έēν *-άēν (aus *-εεεν *-αεεν) nimmt, können auch nur -εεν -αεν darstellen”. I don’t think we can disregard (or alternatively: get out of this swamp without) the dialects.

Schwyzer says that ”-εν war ursprünglich athematisch und lediglich parallele Bildung zu -μεν, wurde aber im Zusammenhang mit Entwicklung der thematischen Konjugation thematisch empfunden”. When this took place is the question. If very early then maybe indeed -άειν etc., although even then u. contracta can have behaved differently. I really don’t know, but have so far seen little evidence for what appears to be the consension, either.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by mwh »

Many thanks for your reply Timothée, most instructive and a salutory reminder against unquestioning acceptance of dogma. (A once popular bumper sticker with unconscious irony gave the authoritarian instruction “Question authority.”) Of course you’re right that if our quest is the holy grail of the “original” form we have to look at the other dialects. But by the time we get to Homer in the Ionic-Attic line it still seems to me that –ειν is already entrenched across the board to the exclusion of –εν.

I hesitate to disagree with Schwyzer, especially when I’m such an ignoramus in prehistoric philology, but I think he’s on very dodgy ground when (in your words) “he notes that most Homeric φιλέεινs can actually be φιλέενs (however twice not as before a vowel, in I 614 and o 201).” That’s tendentious, and rather shamefully so it seems to me. There’s no inhibition at all against present-tense –εειν before a vowel: not just φιλέειν, but φρονέειν, φοβέειν, κρατέειν, προρέειν, and more besides. (Not to mention e.g. strong aorists, βαλέειν, ἰδέειν etc.) No trace of –εν anywhere—as there surely would be if it were still current in the antecedent tradition. It would have had great metrical convenience (as it did for the Doric poets).
As for –άω, Homeric infin. is routinely –άαν isn’t it? That’s why I mentioned assimilation and diectasis, phonetic and metrical phenomena that interfere with the morphology. In light of -έειν and the total absence of evidence for the short-form infinitive it seems to me likelier that that points to *-άειν than to *-άεν.

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by Timothée »

I really hope I haven’t misrepresented Schwyzer in my paraphrasis; he doesn’t deserve that. Unfortunately Schwyzer is quite compact in his words, and I should have liked him to discuss e.g. this question more. Though I realise that my wish may be quite unfair as fulfilling it may have lengthened his grammar twice or thrice if he hadn’t written concisely.

Schwyzer doesn’t, for instance, mention Herodotus who is definitely beyond the confines of metre, and of course those couple of Homeric φιλέεινs in front of a vowel will remain as, like you mention, the other -έεινs. I think these words are (unless I’m missing some vital information) the best evidence for reconstructible -ειν in uerba contracta. I cannot explain them away nor is that my mission—I only ever aim to find the truth, whatever that may be. I cannot, however, avoid noticing that the -έειν verbs you list are all very fitting for the thesis of dactyl and the arsis of the next foot. Thus diectasis metri causa you mention could verily be to blame. Again: Herodotus will be unaffected by this.

As for the aorist infinitives in -εῖν (in standard Attic) and their counterparts in -έειν, ἰδέειν and its pals are surely a blend of ἰδέεν and ἰδεῖν. Here’s Schwyzer again (I, p. 807): ”Homer hat im Präsens festes -ειν (z. B. φέρειν; statt *φέρεεν steht φέρεμεν), im thematischen Aorist neben ἑλεῖν u. ä. ziemlich oft ἰδέειν u. ä., wofür vielfach ἰδέεν usw. metrisch möglich ist (— — ἰδέειν kontaminiert aus ἰδέεν + ἰδεῖν).” Here he is a few lines later with words which took you slightly aback, now verbatim: ”— — hom. φιλέειν (kann meist -λέεν sein — —) χραισμεῖν, βοᾶν, ἀντιάαν — —.” I cannot tell if he has ulterior motivation in what he says in brackets, or why he mentions it, but as you see it’s very kurz and could be a reminiscense of what he said a few lines earlier and what I also just cited.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by mwh »

Schwyzer’s saying that “vielfach ἰδέεν usw. metrisch möglich ist” has exactly the same implication as his saying that φιλέειν etc. “kann meist -λέεν sein,” and no more force. It’s true that in many cases —but far from all— –εν would scan as well –ειν, but so what? It’s an empty argument, giving no ground for thinking that –ειν has displaced –εν in those cases in which –εν would be metrical. There seems to me to be no worthwhile evidence that –εν has left any more trace in Homer than it has in Herodotus. There’s absolutely nowhere that –εν needs to be postulated.
As for attributing φιλεειν etc. to diectasis, I understand diectasis as coming into play only when contraction results in a long vowel (so e.g. Dag Haug in the Homer Encyclopedia s.v., where also “never found in contraction of two short vowels.") Then your diectasis hypothesis would entail φιλέειν < φιλεῖν < φιλέειν, which seems pretty absurd. But perhaps you want to extend the range of the phenomenon.

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by Timothée »

I really don't — I perhaps didn't understand the meaning of "diectasis" properly, thinking it's simply excessive syllables added metri gratia. It's just interesting to ponder how the meter effects the choice of forms in Homer. And conversely—deducing in Baskervillian style (why didn't the dog bark?)—which words we would expect but just don't fit. I'm sure this has been broadly studied.

I still have to try to make sense of all the infinitives for my own benefit. But I have to agree, it adds little or nothing to say they could be read as -ενs in Homer (besides we have also -μεν as Schwyzer notes). Even more so as Schwyzer is sitting firmly on fence about this question *-εν or *-ειν in uerba contracta.

For the time being, it may be safest to stick to *-άειν, -έειν, *-όειν—but stay on the alert should something new transpire.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Republic 330 B

Post by mwh »

Then we're agreed. Thanks for the discussion, which kept me alert!
Michael

Post Reply