εστι(ν) with "dative of possessor"

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
Tugodum
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

εστι(ν) with "dative of possessor"

Post by Tugodum »

(My understanding, based on a recent discussion here, is that "dative of possessor" is a misnomer; hence quotation marks)
Dickey has two sentences:
a. τούτῳ ἔστι μείζων οἶκος ἢ ἐκείνῃ. (p. 138)
b. τούτῳ ἐστὶν γενναιότερος πατὴρ ἢ ταύτῃ (p. 239)
I have two questions.
1. Why is εστι(ν) accented differently in these two cases? Is one of these two versions more proper than the other? If so, which one and why?
2. Why is movable ν retained before the consonant γ in (b)? I failed to find a rule to this effect.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Last edited by Tugodum on Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: εστι(ν) in "dative of possessor"

Post by Paul Derouda »

a) seems to be wrong; according to LSJ ”with the dat., ἐστί μοι I have, freq. in Hom., etc.”

However:
Smyth 187b. ἐστί is written ἔστι at the beginning of a sentence; when it expresses existence or possibility; when it follows οὐκ, μή, εἰ, ὡς, καί, ἀλλά (or ἀλλ᾽), τοῦτο (or τοῦτ᾽); and in ἔστιν οἵ some, ἔστιν ὅτε sometimes. Thus, εἰ ἔστιν οὕτως if it is so, τοῦτο δ ἔστι that which exists.

A dative of possesion does, in a way, express existence, so I wonder if this distinction reflects actual practice or whether it’s just an academic convention. At any rate, Dickey’s mistake is understandable.

Post Reply