« PreviousContinue »
interrogative: for as the relative answers to the definitive sentence, so does the indirect to the direct question. Thus τίς ἐστίν; would be answered by οὐκ οἶδα ὅστις ἐστίν. And from the intimate connexion between the interrogative and the negative sentence, we find ὅστις after the negative οὐδείς, as in οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅστις οὐ, which may assume the case of the correlative throughout, the verb eoTĺ being omitted; thus,
and so on.
Ν. οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐκ ἂν ποιήσειε ταῦτα
for οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅστις οὐ κ.τ.λ. G. οὐδενὸς ὅτου οὐ κατεγέλασε for οὐδεὶς ἦν ὅτου οὐ κ.τ.λ.
Compare this with interrogative sentences, such as τίνα οἴεσθε ὅντινα οὐκ ἀποστήσεσθαι; (Thucyd. III. 34) for τίς ἐστίν, ὅντινα οὐκ οἴεσθε ἀποστήσεσθαι ;
Obs. 1 When this coalition of clauses takes place in comparative sentences, there is still greater harshness in the construction. Thus we have in Herodotus, VII. 145 : τὰ δὲ Γέλωνος πρήγματα μεγάλα ἐλέγετο εἶναι, οὐδαμῶν Ἑλληνικῶν τῶν οὐ πολλὸν μέζω, “ the power of Gelo was said to be great, much greater than that of any Greek state” (οὐδαμὰ ἦν Ἑλλη νικά, ὧν οὐ πολλὸν ἦν μείζω). And there is a still more remarkable passage in Sophocles, Ajax, 1416 : τῷδ ̓ ἀνδρὶ πονῶν τῷ πάντ ̓ ἀγαθῷ κοὐδενί πώ ποτε λῴονι θνητῶν Αἴαντος, ὅτ ̓ ἦν τότε φωνῶ, where Hermann reads γ ᾧ τινι for πώποτε, and supposes that Sophocles meant καὶ οὗ οὐδεὶς λῴων ἦν θνητῶν, but having written by attraction ᾧ τινι, he was obliged to substitute Αἴαντος for οὗ. If this is the true reading and explanation, the attraction is carried to its utmost limit. Dindorf omits the line Αἴαντος ὅτ ̓ ἦν τότε φωνῶ, and reads in the preceding line, κοὐδενί πω λῴονι θνητών, comparing Trach. 811, πάντων ἄριστον ἄνδρα τῶν ἐπὶ χθονὶ κτείνασ', ὁποῖον ἄλλον οὐκ ὄψει ποτέ. But the ὅτ ̓ ἦν τότε φωνῶ seems to be supported by the Homeric phrase εἴ ποτ ̓ ἔην or εἴ ποτ ̓ ἔην γε (Il. III. 180, xi. 762; Od. xv. 268, xix. 315), which obviously means "when I (he) formerly existed," implying that this is no longer the case in the same sense or to the same extent.
Obs. 2 The student must learn from the first to distinguish between those usages according to which the relative or adjectival sentence is attracted into or absorbed by the antecedent, and the converse practice according to which the antecedent loses its power, and the relative passes over into a primary predicate, and even into a secondary predicate, or adverbial phrase. Thus, we have seen above, that the qualitative relative ofos may become by attraction a mere epithet (403, Obs. 2), and οδός ἐστι may be omitted between its antecedent τοιοῦτος and another relative (403, Obs. 4). But conversely, by an idiom which has passed from the Tonic into the Attic dialect, οδός τε, with an omission of its antecedent
τοῖός τε, becomes a mere predicate, equivalent to δυνατός ; for οἷός τε εἰμί = δυνατός εἰμι = δύναμαι. Or, if τοιοῦτος, τοσοῦτος remains as the predicate, wore is substituted for olós re with either the finite verb or the infinitive, so that the relative becomes a mere adverbial adjunct, or secondary predicate. The apparent contradiction in these cases arises from the fact, that the pronouns TOLOÛTOS, TOOOÛTOS, &c., however apparently definite, are, as expressing a kind or class, and not individuals, really indefinite antecedents. So that, in fact, the participle without the article may express this sort of consecutive or illative sentence. For ἔχων = τοιοῦτος WOTE xe may be expressed in Latin by qui habeat or talis ut habeat, and we shall see that the prolepsis, or tertiary predicate in the oblique case, may approximate to this. And here the English language is liable to a confusion; for "who has" is used indifferently for qui habet and qui habeat but this will not justify the teacher who allows his pupils to suppose that Greek syntax permits the same laxity.
SV. The Noun as Subject.
406 The substantive, which forms the subject of a proposition, is often used (a) with an extension of its meaning even in the singular, (B) with a limitation of its meaning in the plural, (y) with a change of application in either number, (8) in the genitive as part of a periphrasis.
(a) Singular for Plural.
(a) This is effected in regard to the names of animals by prefixing the feminine article; thus πos signifies "cavalry," Herod. 1. 80; similarly káμnλos is "a troop of camels;" and ʼn Boûs, “a herd of oxen" (above, 166, (5)).
(b) Without any change of gender names of materials may denote in the singular a collection of objects made from them; as ἄργυρος, χρυσός, χαλκός, “ silver-, gold-, copper-utensils;” κέραμος, "earthenware;" xápas, "palisades," &c. Similarly ons, "garments;" σтpoμvn, "bedding;" äμπeλos, "vines," &c.
(c) Ethnic names sometimes denote collective plurality; as ó IIépons, ó Makedov, "the Persian or Macedonian army." Similarly ὁ πολέμιος, ὁ πέλας, " our enemies, our neighbours.”
(d) The singular name of an implement may denote a collection of persons using it; as dópu, "an army;" domis, "a body of heavy-armed men;" wπη, "a crew of rowers."
(e) In poetry inanimate objects often express plurality though the form is singular; thus kuua means "the sea;" Sápu, "tears;" arris, "the sun's light," &c.
(3) Plural for Singular.
Conversely, the plural is used where a single object is intended:
(a) When something plural is implied; thus yáμoɩ means "a marriage-feast," i. e. the festivities of a marriage prolonged through several days; Tapai, "a funeral;" púπo, "filth," i. e. a collection of filthy objects; TλOÛто, "wealth," i. e. collected treasures; vÚKтes, "night," i. e. the midnight hours. Hence names of feasts, as τὰ Διονύσια, τὰ Ἐλευσίνια, are in the plural.
(7) In the poets the plural is used to denote a single object; as γονεῖς καὶ τοκεῖς, of a father and mother; τὰ παιδεύματα, of a single child; rà piλτaτα, of a single relative; oi píñoɩ, of a single friend.
(c) In the first person the poets use or imply nueîs when ¿yw is intended; as Eurip. Herc. F. 858: ἥλιον μαρτυρόμεσθα δρῶσ ̓ ἃ δρᾶν οὐ βούλομαι ; Id. Andr. 142: δεσποτῶν ἐμῶν φόβῳ ἡσυχίαν ἄγομεν ; Id. Τroad. 904: ὡς οὐ δικαίως, ἣν θάνω, θανούμεθα.
(d) Even proper names may be used in the plural to express persons of a particular class; thus, Topyíaı тe kaì Þíλππо, "persons like Gorgias or Philippus" (Aristoph. Av. 1701); ópŵv av Þaídpovs, ̓Αγάθωνας, Ερυξιμάχους, Παυσανίας, ̓Αριστοδήμους τε καὶ ̓ΑρισTоpávas, "when I see here a Phædrus, an Agathon, &c." (Plat. Sympos. p. 218 A).
(7) Change of application.
Either in the singular or plural the name of an object may denote the place where it is sold; thus ix@ûs and ofov mean "the fish-marke;" Máxava, "the vegetable-market;" σionpos, "the iron-monger's shops;" exatov, "the oil-market;" μúpov, "the perfume-market." In Homer kos signifies "an assembly," and Kóжρоs, or, as some write it in this case, koπpós, "a farm-yard.”
(8) Periphrasis of the Subject.
Single objects, especially persons, are designated by the Greek poets and sometimes by the prose writers in a periphrasis with the genitive.
(a) The epic poets make the governing word fill the place of an epithet appropriated to the person; as μévos "Apnos, "the impetuous Ares;” ἱερὸν μένος ̓Αλκινόοιο, “ the divinely impetuous Alcinous;" iepnis Teλeμáxoio, "the divinely vigorous Telemachus;" σθένος Εκτορος, “ the strong Hector;” Πατροκλῆος λάσιον κῆρ, "the manly-hearted Patroclus."
(b) The tragic poets use a periphrasis with déuas, "body;" Kápa, "head or face;" oμμa, "eye;" to express characteristics or to strengthen endearments; thus, 'Ayaμéμvovos déμas, "the stately Agamemnon;” ὦ κοινὸν αὐτάδελφον Ισμήνης κάρα, “Ο my own dear sweet sister Ismene;” ὦ φίλτατ ̓ Αἴας, ὦ ξύναιμον ὄμμ ̓ ἐμοί, "O dearest Ajax, O sweet brother.”
(c) Both in the poets and the prose writers the word xpñμa is used periphrastically to denote conspicuous magnitude; as σvòs péya Xpĥμa (Herod. I. 36), "a great monster of a boar;" KλÉπтOV Tò Xpĥμa τávdpós (Aristoph. Vesp. 933), "the monster of a man is a thief."
(d) The poets combine two nearly synonymous words in a periphrase; thus, εὐνῆς λέκτρον, “the bed's lair;” νηὸς σκάφος, "the ship's hull;" ápμáтwv oxoi, “the chariot's carriage;" μáxns ayov, "the fight's struggle," meaning really the object mentioned in the genitive.
(e) In speaking of persons we have sometimes a periphrase with the genitive; as vies 'Axauv, "sons of the Achæans;” waîdes Ἑλλήνων, “ children of the Hellenes;” or the word ἄνδρες used with the apposition or adjective; as ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, “ men of Athens;" avopes Sixaoraí, "gentlemen of the jury."
§ VI. Apposition to the Subject.
407 It is a general rule of grammar that nouns which belong to the same regimen are placed side by side (apponuntur) in the same case. This apposition, as it is called, is found equally in the subjects and in the predicates of sentences; and as it need only be discussed once for all, it may find its proper place here, especially as it more generally agrees in its nature with the epithet as distinguished from the predicate.
(a) There can be little doubt that the use of the article, which is the instrument of Greek syntax as distinguishing the subject from the predicate, may be traced back to an apposition of the name of the thing to the pronoun of reference. This, as we have seen (above, 389), appears clearly from such a passage as the following (Hom. Π. Ι. 11): οἵνεκα τὸν Χρύσην ἠτίμησ ̓ ἀρητῆρα, "because Atreides dishonoured him, the well-known person, namely, Chryses, being a priest;" where the position of ȧρητñρa, without another article, makes it impossible to regard that word as the defining circumstance. The case is, in fact, the same as when we say in Attic Greek (Xen. Hier. VII. 3): TOÚTO diapépei ȧvýp тŵv ἄλλων ζῴων, τῷ τιμῆς ὀρέγεσθαι, “ man differs from other animals in this, namely, in aiming at honour."
(B) In ordinary Greek the words in apposition may always be regarded as containing some explanatory addition, and it often happens that the parallel terms may be transposed without affecting the meaning. Thus in the phrase Κροῖσος, Λυδῶν βασιλεύς, ἀπέβαλε τὴν ἀρχήν, it is a matter of indifference whether we render it, "the king of the Lydians, namely, Croesus," or "Croesus, being king of the Lydians."
(7) The intimate connexion between the apposition and the epithet is shown by the cases in which the former is inserted between the noun and its article, so as to become, in effect, an epithet (above, 400, (8)). Thus in Plat. Symp. p. 196 c, à âv ékáv τις ἑκόντι ὁμολογήσῃ, φασὶν οἱ πόλεως βασιλῆς νόμοι δίκαια εἶναι, we might write, vóμoi, Tóλews Baoiλns, "the laws, being the state's sovereigns," or construe it as it is, "the state's sovereigns, namely, the laws."
(8) Some difficulty is occasioned when this form of inserted apposition exhibits (a) an adjective, or (b) participle at the end. Thus,
(a) We have in Pind. Nem. VII. 53:
κόρον δ ̓ ἔχει
καὶ μέλι καὶ τὰ τέρπν ̓ ἄνθέ ̓ ἀφροδίσια.
Here it is clear that appodioia is not, like тeρπvά, an epithet of avea, and the omission of the article before μé shows that Tà тeρπvà äv¤ea constitute a parenthetical apposition to the last word: