21st Century Classical Greek -- Summary 11, adverbial equative

I dealt with the “cognate accusative” in one of the lessons but it’s worthwhile repeating the information in case you want to save this stuff off somewhere and have it fairly complete when you drive your Greek professor crazy.

All the Greek grammars I looked at (White, Goodwin, Gildersleeve, Smyth) have different definitions of this subject. Gildersleeve copied his from his Latin grammar, and it differs from the definition in Allen & Greenough’s Latin grammar. When there’s no objective definition, there’s no there there.

There is something in Arabic and Hebrew that is called the cognate accusative. It is two words in close association from the same root. One is a conjugated verb; the other is a substantive derivative. The structure is an adverb of manner.

Since there is no accusative morphology in Hebrew, it’s obvious that “cognate accusative” is another misleading label. What I’m going to call it is adverbial equative, like the Hurrian case. I don’t have examples of the Hurrian adverbial equative; Wegener doesn’t give any. If you know of some, ante up.

Then it turns out that Aeschylus and Demosthenes (poetry and rhetoric respectively) have a similar structure, although Thucydides hasn’t used it in Books I-III.

See Demosthenes’ Against Aristocrates, καλήν γ᾽ ὕβριν ἦμεν ἂν ὑβρισμένοι.

And Aristophanes’ Plutus, 1044: τάλαιν᾽ ἐγὼ τῆς ὕβρεος ἧς ὑβρίζομαι.

You don’t use a structure in a political argument or in a sacred drama unless it is meaningful to your audience. I made this same argument in one of my first posts on this thread. So the structure I am now calling an adverbial equative was well known to educated people in Attica at the very least.

And in addition, I have found this structure in Book IV of the Mahabharata, chapter 66, verse 22. Since Mahabharata is in Sanskrit, an ancient Indo-Iranian language, it reinforces the possibility of an ancestral language family spread from eastern Anatolia halfway to the Himalayas. There are a couple of similar narratives, too, although the Indics in the east have extremely sketchy versions of them. (Axel Olrik would say that they decayed during long-term oral transmission as the culture migrated away from its homeland and changed.)

This is not to say that the idea of a Nostratic family is correct, any more than it is correct to say that the resemblances between Greek and Hebrew are Hebraisms. They are not.  They probably go back before domestication of wheat, about the time that NE Anatolian peoples headed out, winding up in Greece, the Basque region, and the British Isles. They carried ergative languages, and their British descendants built Stonehenge before the Celts arrived.

Hurrian, like Basque and Sumerian, was an ergative language. Claiming that Hurria did not exist until the time of its surviving writings is a fallacy called a false argument from silence, since we manifestly do not have a complete dataset from anywhere that people have lived, and since cultura non facit saltus.

More work needs to be done to standardize the definition of adverbial equative, and to search for similar structures in Sumerian and the archives of Ebla.

But for now, “cognate accusative” is my latest victim in murdering concepts in the old grammars.

21st Century Classical Greek -- Summary 10, nouns

The morphology of Greek nouns is complicated, not just because they have multiple cases, but also because of the many variations in declensions. Students have to learn the noun, not rely on categorization, the same as they have to learn the verb, not its categorization.

The entire discussion of cases in grammars has serious problems:

1.                  The impression that cases of like names operate in like fashion.

2.                  The incorrect association of verb categories with specific cases.

3.                  The invalid concept of oblique absolutes as using morphology to identify timing.

No two languages use cases in the same way.

1.                  Some, like English and Hebrew, require free-standing or agglutinated prepositions to produce the meanings of morphology in languages like Greek or Russian.

2.                  This led grammars to ignore that Greek uses two different forms of instrumental, one for inanimate objects and the other for agents in non-transitive structures.

3.                  It is more useful to characterize cases by their morphology than by a label that gives the false impression of showing function, so: -oi for “nomnative”; -on for “genitive”; -ois for “dative”; and -ous for “accusative”.

Grammars and lexicons support a faulty view of how verbs and oblique predicates work.

1.                  The grammars contain sections declaring that certain categories of verb meaning require specific cases. In fact it’s the reverse; lexicons show that which oblique case is used for the object of a verb changes the meaning of the verb.

2.                  The categories focus on one meaning of a verb while the lexicon may present several; the categorization prevents students from appreciating the wide number of contexts in which a verb may appear and causes translation problems.

3.                  Lexicons that focus on invalid grammatical descriptions cause problems of understanding instead of helping the scholar.

The “oblique absolute” concept that expresses timing is obsolete.

1.                  The timing of a context may be contained in the wording or in external knowledge, but not in morphology.

2.                  The oblique absolutes are poorly described, and the morphology has been confused with the interpretation of the passages based on timing clues in the wording or external knowledge.

3.                  Descriptions of cases using concepts like “up to” (“accusative”), “at” (“dative”) or “after” (“genitive”) do not match contexts in which the nouns are used. We need studies, author by author, to see how they use prepositions, with distinctions between set idioms and more flexible contexts.

Prepositions, like verbs, change meaning depending on the case of the object of the preposition.

1.                  There are a very few prepositions that use only one case; en is an example, using the -ois case.

2.                  As with verbs, it is necessary to study the preposition to know which meaning goes with which case.

3.                  Lexicon entries for prepositions suffer the same problem of verb categorization that noun cases do. Pros is an example.

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- raqia redux

So I have done the homework on this subject after remembering something and looking it up. The question was why doesn't LSJ have any words about hammering, other than metalworking for weapons and body armor.

https://pajheil.blogspot.com/2017/08/21st-century-bible-hebrew-raqia.html

It's like they didn't know about the malleability or ductility of copper, silver and gold. But in the Trojan period about 1200 BCE, they had to to make masks of thin gold that Heinrich Schliemann found, the so-called Agamemnon mask and others.

https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/now-at-the-met/features/2011/mask-of-agamemnon#:~:text=The%20%22Mask%20of%20Agamemnon%22%20is,graves%20of%20a%20royal%20cemetery.

And the consensus is that if these are genuine, the gold was pressed or even hammered onto a wooden form, then dressed up and put in the grave. 

Later studies suggest that this mask dates to the 1500s BCE, and since radiocarbon dating in the region shows that conventional dates for that period tend to lag the actual date by 150 years, we can suppose the mask to come from -- class? -- the time of the Thera explosion. 

https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/courses/greekpast/4917.html

The maker produced thin gold leaf, used hammering to make it coagulate, and also raised some bas relief work for realism.

This being the same time period as the Exodus and the making of the tabernacle, it shows us that hammered gold work was known around the Mediterranean when Thera blew up. 

Fine metalwork could also have been produced by lost-wax casting, known in the region from nearly 5000 BCE. However, it turns out that early Hellenes turned out masses of bronze statues by hammerwork. The verb for this is σφυρηλατέω, and specifically refers to statues according to LSJ, although there's a lesser reference to wrought iron. Originally used for small votive statues, it turned into large statues with an iron armature.

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/grbr/hd_grbr.htm

The article shows that later the Hellenes adopted the hammered bronze technique from Syria in the 800s BCE, and later went to lost-wax casting. That leaves a big gap after the Agamemnon mask. 

https://assets.cambridge.org/97805217/72679/excerpt/9780521772679_excerpt.htm

Greek gold jewelry is rare, according to this site, and the earrings shown date to the 200s BCE.

https://artmuseum.princeton.edu/story/recent-acquisition-pair-earrings-bull%E2%80%99s-heads

While Hellenic Greece didn't use hammered gold until the 200s BCE, they did have the verb ἐλαύνω, which LSJ says basically means drive. It refers to the lyrics of Mimnermus of the 600s BCE in part of the entry for elauno:

Ἡφαίστου χερσὶν ἐληλαμένη χρυσοῦ

This part of the entry for elauno says it means to strike or to beat into plates (compare to "laminate"). No wonder I didn't find it when I was searching for "hammer". Showing you can't give up just because one keyword fails you.

The question is still, why did Septuagint use stereoma for raqia and really, this is why asking "why" is a non-starter in linguistics. Knowing that Septuagint is a bad translation in just about every way possible, there's no getting inside the heads of the translators. 

But there was at least one word they could have used, and they didn't, and we have been living with the results ever since.

21st Century Classical Greek -- Summary 9, the particle an

The grammars and lexicons want you to always treat an as if it is part of the apodosis to a conditional. This is not true, but it is what the authorities said and nobody ever challenged the authorities by doing good research.

An is a pivot. In conditionals with an indicative verb in the protasis, it pivots away from asserting that the protasis is true. That is, it appears in “conditionals contrary to fact.” In conditionals with an epistemic verb in the protasis, it pivots away from any assertion that the protasis is more likely than not to be true. 

An also appears in a number of contexts where there is no hint of a conditional. In Book II 93.3, we have three uses of an that let us explore what it means. The last example is definitely the apodosis of a conditional. Tell me what it means based on the modality of the verbs.

οὔτε γὰρ ναυτικὸν ἦν προφυλάσσον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐδὲν οὔτε προσδοκία οὐδεμία μὴ ἄν ποτε οἱ πολέμιοι ἐξαπιναίως οὕτως ἐπιπλεύσειαν, ἐπεὶ οὐδ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ προφανοῦς τολμῆσαι ἂν καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν, οὐδ᾽ εἰ διενοοῦντο, μὴ οὐκ ἂν προαισθέσθαι.

There is no hint of a conditional in the cause leading up to the first use of an. It’s a straight statement, “not at any time the enemies might have unexpectedly sailed up.”  What is an pivoting away from? The rest of the context is about what the Lakedaimonians are doing about the Athinaians and the an pivots away from the enemy to what the Athinaians are doing or thinking.

The most extreme example of an as a pivot keeps the reader, once again, from thinking that the wrong party is under consideration. In Book III 28.1:

..,ὥστε Ἀθηναίοις μὲν ἐξεῖναι βουλεῦσαι περὶ Μυτιληναίων ὁποῖον ἄν τι βούλωνται καὶ τὴν στρατιὰν ἐς τὴν πόλιν δέχεσθαι αὐτούς,

…such that for the Athinaians it was [due and owing] possible to consider anent the Mutilinaians what sort [of treatment] they wished* and they would [be obliged to] accept the army into their city….

* “Wished” is an oblique; they might decide on no action at all against the Mutilinaians, but it’s more likely that they would. However, the closest substantive is the Mutilinaians, and it’s clear that this cannot be the subject of boulontai. The next closest substantive is the Athinaians, and that’s where an pivots to.

However, the dekhesthai after that is in the straight line of the subsection, and at the start there is the phrase oi en tois pragmasin. There are two factions in Mutiline, rebels and the political leaders they are rebelling against. Chapter 28 starts out referring to the leaders. These are the ones who dekhesthai the army, to protect themselves from the rebels.

So now go back to your favorite author and find all the times he used an, and decide which of the three possibilities you have:

1.         A conditional with no ei in the protasis;

2.         A “might have”;

3.         A clue that whoever is carrying out the verb, it is not the closest substantive but further back in the subsection – and not the actual agent in the whole affair.

21st Century Classical Greek -- Summary 8, syntax particles

I know this is way early but I was up fixing a piece of knitting and I decided to post this now and sleep in later.

I originally had these summaries in a different order but after doing conditionals I think it’s important to do the syntax particles.

The main syntax particles are men and de. They mark point and counterpoint, where you should think of counterpoint the way it works in music: a different idea which fills out the main idea. So, in Thucydides I 1.3:

[3] τὰ γὰρ πρὸ αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ἔτι παλαίτερα σαφῶς μὲν εὑρεῖν διὰ χρόνου πλῆθος ἀδύνατα ἦν, ἐκ δὲ τεκμηρίων ὧν ἐπὶ μακρότατον σκοποῦντί μοι πιστεῦσαι ξυμβαίνει οὐ μεγάλα νομίζω γενέσθαι οὔτε κατὰ τοὺς πολέμους οὔτε ἐς τὰ ἄλλα.

Both are what is called enclitic, they are never the first word in the clause where they appear. When two options are on offer, they can be used with ei as in I 53.4:

εἰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοσέ ποι βούλεσθε πλεῖν, οὐ κωλύομεν:

εἰ δὲ ἐπὶ Κέρκυραν πλευσεῖσθε ἢ ἐς τῶν ἐκείνων τι χωρίων, οὐ περιοψόμεθα κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν.’

In this case we actually have ei…ei, “either/whether…or”, not really “if”.

It will take work to see if this next statement holds up against Greek authors, but in this sample both verbs are indicative. Remember in conditionals, when an is not there and the verb is indicative, we are looking at a statement without any implication about the result. I have found ei men with the indicative in Plato’s Theaetetus and one of Demosthenes’ Phillipics, as well as elsewhere in Peloponnesian War, giving this same nuance. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to see if ei men…ei de… shows up with oblique or epistemic.

In Book I, 2.4 we have gar which sort of substitutes for men, in this case, in a topic order sentence:

διὰ γὰρ ἀρετὴν γῆς αἵ τε δυνάμεις τισὶ μείζους ἐγγιγνόμεναι στάσεις ἐνεποίουν ἐξ ὧν ἐφθείροντο, καὶ ἅμα ὑπὸ ἀλλοφύλων μᾶλλον ἐπεβουλεύοντο.

Gar will follow on from some other statement; the gar clause is stronger than de, introducing an explanation for something just said as opposed to a reinforcing idea. Gar can also argue against the truth of the preceding statement.

Kai is not just “and” any more than vav in Biblical Hebrew only means “and” (in fact vav more often is a grammatical marker than a conjunction).  Kai…kai of course is “both…and”. As an enclitic syntax particle, kai introduces an add-on, reinforcing idea.

Its weaker cousin te can appear both alone and with kai, and there is the still weaker ge which introduces a modifying but not necessarily supporting concept.

When you are trying to figure out what the Greek is saying, pay attention to the syntax particles and the verbs in the clauses or phrases that they set off. I haven’t yet studied how they relate to oblique or epistemic and, as I keep saying, your favorite author may use them differently than Thucydides. 

21st Century Classical Greek -- Summary 7, conditionals

Conditionals are statements with a protasis, the “if” clause, and apodosis, the “then” clause, describing the consequences of an action that may be contrary to fact or uncertain.

1.                  Many conditionals have the formula ei…an, “if…then”, but these are not the only particles used in conditionals.

2.                  The particle can be suppressed without eliminating that clause.

3.                  Either protasis or apodosis may be suppressed; what it would say can be deduced from the context.

4.                  The protasis is negated with mi, “if there is any situation in which X does not happen”, and the apodosis with ou “in every case fitting the protasis, Y does not happen.

There are three types.

1.         Indicative. The speaker makes a statement of certainty introduced with ei, “if”. When the speaker knows facts contrary to the truth of this statement, the apodosis begins with an. If the apodosis is not marked by an, the speaker implies nothing about fulfillment of the protasis, at least within the conditional ; this gives the conditional a sort of narrative tension that makes the audience interested in the context which may show whether it was carried out.

2.         Oblique. The speaker may use ean to introduce the protasis which expresses something probably true but for which there is no evidence. Because there is no evidence, an imperfective (default verb form) conceptual (action not known to have taken place) is used in the apodosis.

3.         Epistemic. The speaker uses ei with the epistemic in a protasis he does not want to imply is true because he has no evidence. The apodosis uses an plus the epistemic, naturally enough, because the speaker can’t sign up to any specific result if he can’t sign up to the truth of the “if” clause.

The old categories of conditionals were copied from Latin and don’t cover all the possibilities, as well as being confusing and the “rules” internally contradictory. The above condenses about 12 pages of Goodwin into 1 page.

In Book III 57.1 I found a conditional using the imperfective conceptual. I have repeatedly said that the IC is a promise. Does that work here?

εἰ δὲ περὶ ἡμῶν γνώσεσθε μὴ τὰ εἰκότα （…）, ὁρᾶτε ὅπως μὴ οὐκ ἀποδέξωνται ἀνδρῶν ἀγαθῶν ….

First note that there is no an in the apodosis, so there is no claim that the protasis will be carried out. The protasis is in base voice, so the decision (gnosesthe) would not be a deliberate act. It’s hard to conceive of promising to do something that is not going to be done deliberately. The point seems to be that in this context, the verb means “judge”, but it lets the judges off the hook as far as acting with prejudice.

The apodosis is progressive conceptual (orate, you’ll see…), the situation that will come about, that is, for good men like the Athinians it will [probably, an oblique] be unacceptable that the Plataeans be blotted out.

Mendel Beilis -- Gruzenberg's memoirs

If I really really want to read a specific book but I can't find it online the first time I think of it, every once in a while I go back out and search for it again. It has worked many times, and it worked again this weekend.

I have long wanted to read Gruzenberg's memoirs. There is an English translation but nobody has posted it yet. I did, at last, find the Russian version. 

I'm not too worried that the English version isn't available for free. You can understand why I'm not worried if you have read other parts of my blog, where I show that lots of urban legends about Jewish classics wouldn't exist if people read the primary documents instead of translations, commentaries, or interpretations.

The web has plenty of free Russian language learning material, and I also found my very first college Russian grammar available for purchase at various sites. (Ignore the one charging >$200, that's just stupid.) Once you learn it, much of the Beilis material is open to you. Let me know if you need links to the learning material.

Other links about the Beilis trial are here.