21st Century Classical Greek -- an Anatolian remnant?

Book I sections 47-49.These sections have some vocabulary you’ll need for the rest of the work.  In these sections the war between the Korinthians and the allied Kerkyraeans and Athinaians starts.

προσπλέοντας from πλέω, which you should learn since there are lots of sea battles ahead.

ἐστρατοπεδεύσαντο from στρατοπεδεύω, make camp

πεζὸς foot soldiers

ὁπλῖται, ὁπλίτης, heavy troopers. “Hoplites”

βεβοηθηκότες and παραβεβοηθηκότες from βοηθέω, assist, help

ναυμαχία is a sea battle

ἀντιπαρετάσσοντο from τάσσω which conjugates like prasso. Source of words like tactics, taxonomy.

δεξιὸν “right side”

κέρας literally horn (“rhinoceros”, nose horn), but wing as a part of a military formation

μέσον “middle”, in military terms, “center”

εὐώνυμος literally “of a good name”, euphemism for left side

σημεία, identifying flag. Apparently nobody knew which side other ships fought on until these were raised.

κατάστρωμα deck of a ship

τοξότης archer

ἀκοντιστής javelin thrower

In section 47.1, we have this phrase:

…ὧν ἦρχε Μικιάδης καὶ Αἰσιμίδης καὶ Εὐρύβατος,…

There are three people leading the force, but irkhe is singular and it is executive voice, not passive or ergative. This may be a parallel to Biblical Hebrew. If you know BH, then you know that from Exodus on, a number of verses start with a singular verb and then mosheh v’aharon, Mosheh and Aharon. These are verbal sentences; they always start with a singular verb, even when they have a compound subject. The same thing happens in Arabic. This might be an Anatolian thing but so far I can’t find anything on line that says Hurrian worked this way.

In section 49.1 we have this phrase:

… τῷ παλαιῷ τρόπῳ…

It’s the -ois case. This phrase is an adverb of manner, “the ancient manner” specifically, which Thucydides says is more like a land battle fought on the decks of a ship, with the ship moving the soldiers into place. This argues against the trireme as a “guided missile” which has its greatest effect as a ram against other ships. That tactic may have developed later in the war, we’ll know when we get to it.

Section 49.3 has epistemics.  Identify them and remember what they mean: though I have defined conjugated verbs as definite, it is not possible to use a gerundive in the epistemic. You can’t be less than definite in the epistemic (or oblique), the modality itself backs off of making a direct statement. In this case, Thucydides is refusing to say that any specific ship charged another; the story he got back says that the mass of ships prevented easy maneuvering. The same is true of diekploi.

Section 49.7 reads:

οἱ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι ὁρῶντες τοὺς Κερκυραίους πιεζομένους μᾶλλον ἤδη ἀπροφασίστως ἐπεκούρουν, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἀπεχόμενοι ὥστε μὴ ἐμβάλλειν τινί: ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἡ τροπὴ ἐγίγνετο λαμπρῶς καὶ ἐνέκειντο οἱ Κορίνθιοι, τότε δὴ ἔργου πᾶς εἴχετο ἤδη καὶ διεκέκριτο οὐδὲν ἔτι, ἀλλὰ ξυνέπεσεν ἐς τοῦτο ἀνάγκης ὥστε ἐπιχειρῆσαι ἀλλήλοις τοὺς Κορινθίους καὶ Ἀθηναίους.

This is a perfective eventive, negated (in base voice). So far, the Athinaians have held aloof but they acted to end that when things started going bad for the Kerkyraeans. Jowett’s translation of this subsection is as bad as anything he did.

Knitting -- the Double Knit three times

In old books I saw references to double-knitting but no explanation of how to do it. After some research, it turns out there are three versions of the double knit. 

The old one is perfect for working in the round: I found it on page 8 in The Art of Knitting from 1892, published by Butterick which is now better-known for sewing patterns. You can see that it looks as if it is knitted on both sides. 

https://archive.org/details/artofknitting00butt/page/n11/mode/2up

You bring the yarn to the front, SS purlwise, take the yarn to the back, knit the next stitch. On the next round or row, you knit the slipped stitch and slip the knitted stitch. 

The new one, Johnnie Vasquez shows on his website. You work it back and forth instead of in the round. Notice that it looks as if it is garter stitch on the back but knitted on the front.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDRDvGDO8LY

Cast on an odd number of stitches. I recommend multiples of three if possible.

K1, slip purlwise (yarn in back), K1

K1, P1, K1

These are not the same as brioche. Brioche uses a genuine yarn-over; the old double knit wraps the slipped stitch. Johnnie's double knit does neither. But the Butterick book does have something it calls "the patent stitch" which sounds like a description I've heard of brioche: “This method is frequently used in knitting children's underwear. It is worked as follows: * Throw the wool forward [this would be a yo in our terminology], slip one, knit two together, and repeat from * across or around the work. In knitting on two needles, work back in the same way.”

The third version is a two-color technique which is reversible, has two layers, and works the same design on each side but in reversed colors. Joanne shows you how to cast on and how to start a design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JroP84tUmJA

And here is the example. The reverse has green around the yin/yang. There are mistakes on this; you may be able to see them. I finished it in the wee hours so I could go back to another project and I was pretty tired. You've been there, I know you have.

Some guidelines.

1.         When you cast on, don’t worry about getting the stitch colors in line. You will fix that when you do the first row.

2.         You need to have both strands of yarn in one hand or you will forget to move both of them at the same time. Use English knitting, not Continental.

3.         How do you follow a pattern? I had to start my first pattern over again 4 times. Follow the pattern from one side to the other, then in the reverse direction, just as if you were doing cross stitch.

4.         BUT when you reverse direction, you reverse colors. If you had a row knitted in color A with purls for color B, in the next row you knit color B and purl color A.

5.         Whichever color is supposed to show up on the side you are looking at in the current row you are working, that color gets knitted. The other color gets purled.

6.         Whichever side of the pattern you are on, if the next stitch is supposed to show color A on that side, knit it, even if you are knitting into a stitch of color B. This causes two adjacent stitches of the same color when you change from A to B in a given row. Finding these double stitches will help you find where you are in the pattern.

7.         MOST IMPORTANT, work the pattern bottom to top. That way most of us will get less confused about what row we’re on or what stitch to do next.

This technique has limited applications, most of the things being square or rectangular. 

You can make great hotpads or pot holders. 

Make six blocks, each in a different color with a different design, join them three at a time, and add lace above and below, and you have sturdy kitchen curtains. 

Make a bunch of squares in different colors with different designs or some repeated designs, and sew them together into a patchwork quilt. You can use the obverse and reverse of repeated designs in different places of the quilt and have both sides look the same.

Make a tote. Plan how big a tote  you want and what the pattern will be. Choose a sturdy yarn -- Dishie for a large weave, Lindy Chain for a small weave. Work from bottom to top, as I said. When you finish the pattern, knit the end stitch and the one after it in whichever of the two colors you want the welt at the top to be. Move the next stitch onto a holder, knit, move, and on around to the other end. Knit the last stitch as usual. Use the circular needle you worked the tote with, to knit all the stitches off the holder. Now knit 5 to 10 rounds, depending on the weight of your yarn. Do seed stitch at the top and bind off. Insert a lining if you want; you can put pockets in this, just make sure they are on the inside of the tote and not between the lining and the fabric of the tote. You can glue the lining to cardboard for extra stiffening. Attach a strap and some kind of closure. You may think that this won't work, but when I unraveled a few rows to fix a mistake about the middle of my first pattern, I could see that there was indeed an inside that went down to the initial cast-on.

This is not a good technique for a jumper. I need 1430 yards of worsted yarn for a jumper and most skeins of worsted yarn are far smaller. You would have to work in wool and do the invisible joins; knots in linen, cotton or silk would have to be tucked into the inside of the piece and might be irritating. The double fabric is very warm so you would want to work in lace or fingering weight yarn. The best recommendation I can make is a patchwork in multiple colors with different designs on different blocks.

While googling for videos, I found another site with Men Who Knit, Arne and Carlos. I'll talk about them next time.

21st Century Classical Greek -- me fussing at Jowett again

Book I section 46. 

αἱ μὲν δὴ νῆες ἀφικνοῦνται ἐς τὴν Κέρκυραν, οἱ δὲ Κορίνθιοι, ἐπειδὴ αὐτοῖς παρεσκεύαστο, ἔπλεον ἐπὶ τὴν Κέρκυραν ναυσὶ πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατόν. ἦσαν δὲ Ἠλείων μὲν δέκα, Μεγαρέων δὲ δώδεκα καὶ Λευκαδίων δέκα, Ἀμπρακιωτῶν δὲ ἑπτὰ καὶ εἴκοσι καὶ Ἀνακτορίων μία, αὐτῶν δὲ Κορινθίων ἐνενήκοντα:

[2] στρατηγοὶ δὲ τούτων ἦσαν μὲν καὶ κατὰ πόλεις ἑκάστων, Κορινθίων δὲ Ξενοκλείδης ὁ Εὐθυκλέους πέμπτος αὐτός.

[3] ἐπειδὴ δὲ προσέμειξαν τῇ κατὰ Κέρκυραν ἠπείρῳ ἀπὸ Λευκάδος πλέοντες, ὁρμίζονται ἐς Χειμέριον τῆς Θεσπρωτίδος γῆς.

[4] ἔστι δὲ λιμήν, καὶ πόλις ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ κεῖται ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἐν τῇ Ἐλαιάτιδι τῆς Θεσπρωτίδος Ἐφύρη. ἐξίησι δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτὴν Ἀχερουσία λίμνη ἐς θάλασσαν: διὰ δὲ τῆς Θεσπρωτίδος Ἀχέρων ποταμὸς ῥέων ἐσβάλλει ἐς αὐτήν, ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν ἔχει. ῥεῖ δὲ καὶ Θύαμις ποταμός, ὁρίζων τὴν Θεσπρωτίδα καὶ Κεστρίνην, ὧν ἐντὸς ἡ ἄκρα ἀνέχει τὸ Χειμέριον.

[5] οἱ μὲν οὖν Κορίνθιοι τῆς ἠπείρου ἐνταῦθα ὁρμίζονταί τε καὶ στρατόπεδον ἐποιήσαντο..

Jowett ignores the first phrase in subsection 1, ending in kerkyran, which is about the Athinaians sending to Kerkyra the ships referred to in section 45. This is Thucydides either being fussy, or reading his work to an audience who remind him that he never said the ships were actually sent, just that they were prepared, staffed, and put under orders to not violate the treaty.

Thucydides starts subsection three with “after reaching the Kerkyraean mainland, having sailed from Leukados”. Jowett reverses this. The important issue to Thucydides is reaching Kerkyraea; he follows that up by orientation as to how long that might have taken, by identifying the port from which the fleet sailed. Leukados is about 170 km southeast of Kerkyraea, and about 270 km northwest of Korinth. Thesprotia is on the main peninsula right across a narrow channel from Kerkyraea.

The Kerkyraeans were right: Korinth contemplated more attacks. And the stupid Korinthians did exactly what the Athinaians had promised to defend the Kerkyraeans from.

21st Century Classical Greek -- section 45, a little vocabulary

Book I section 45.

τοιαύτῃ μὲν γνώμῃ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τοὺς Κερκυραίους προσεδέξαντο, καὶ τῶν Κορινθίων ἀπελθόντων οὐ πολὺ ὕστερον δέκα ναῦς αὐτοῖς ἀπέστειλαν βοηθούς:

[2] ἐστρατήγει δὲ αὐτῶν Λακεδαιμόνιός τε ὁ Κίμωνος καὶ Διότιμος ὁ Στρομβίχου καὶ Πρωτέας ὁ Ἐπικλέους.

[3] προεῖπον δὲ αὐτοῖς μὴ ναυμαχεῖν Κορινθίοις, ἢν μὴ ἐπὶ Κέρκυραν πλέωσι καὶ μέλλωσιν ἀποβαίνειν ἢ ἐς τῶν ἐκείνων τι χωρίων: οὕτω δὲ κωλύειν κατὰ δύναμιν. προεῖπον δὲ ταῦτα τοῦ μὴ λύειν ἕνεκα τὰς σπονδάς.

Jowett turns the bolded phrase in subsection 1 into “now”, instead of “not much later”. He moves it into subsection 2 from where it is in subsection 1, breaking the sentence after apelthonton. This is a bad break. Thucydides records the action in subsection 1; in 2 he tells who commanded this force. Then in subsection 3 he moves back to the action.

Look up στρατηγέω and ναυμαχέω in Wiktionary. You’ll see them often from here on out. Notice that in subsection 2 we have estratigei in progressive eventive: like a treaty, this is a situation being set in place.

Auton in subsection 2 is “of them”, of the Korinthians.

In subsection 3 we have koluein kata dunamin, resist as much as they could. It’s a version of dunamei plus the impersonal gerundive.

21st Century Classical Greek -- conditional 8

I have this as conditional 9 in my file but it's only the 8th time conditionals are listed on the index. Anyway.

Book I section 44.

 

τοιαῦτα δὲ καὶ οἱ Κορίνθιοι εἶπον. Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἀμφοτέρων, γενομένης καὶ δὶς ἐκκλησίας, τῇ μὲν προτέρᾳ οὐχ ἧσσον τῶν Κορινθίων ἀπεδέξαντο τοὺς λόγους, ἐν δὲ τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ μετέγνωσαν Κερκυραίοις ξυμμαχίαν μὲν μὴ ποιήσασθαι ὥστε τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ φίλους νομίζειν (εἰ γὰρ ἐπὶ Κόρινθον ἐκέλευον σφίσιν οἱ Κερκυραῖοι ξυμπλεῖν, ἐλύοντ᾽ ἂν αὐτοῖς αἱ πρὸς Πελοποννησίους σπονδαί), ἐπιμαχίαν δ᾽ ἐποιήσαντο τῇ ἀλλήλων βοηθεῖν, ἐάν τις ἐπὶ Κέρκυραν ἴῃ ἢ Ἀθήνας ἢ τοὺς τούτων ξυμμάχους.

[2] ἐδόκει γὰρ ὁ πρὸς Πελοποννησίους πόλεμος καὶ ὣς ἔσεσθαι αὐτοῖς, καὶ τὴν Κέρκυραν ἐβούλοντο μὴ προέσθαι τοῖς Κορινθίοις ναυτικὸν ἔχουσαν τοσοῦτον, ξυγκρούειν δὲ ὅτι μάλιστα αὐτοὺς ἀλλήλοις, ἵνα ἀσθενεστέροις οὖσιν, ἤν τι δέῃ, Κορινθίοις τε καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ναυτικὸν ἔχουσιν ἐς πόλεμον καθιστῶνται.

[3] ἅμα δὲ τῆς τε Ἰταλίας καὶ Σικελίας καλῶς ἐφαίνετο αὐτοῖς ἡ νῆσος ἐν παράπλῳ κεῖσθαι..

In subsection 1, notice how Thucydides hedges his statement: the first assembly of the Athinaians considered the Korinthian speech “no worse” than the Kerkyraean. Jowett misstates this.

The parenthetical expression is a full-up conditional. The protasis uses a conjugated indicative verb in executive voice but we have a problem. This protasis can only happen if there’s a full-up treaty. But Thucydides just said that’s not what the Athinaians agreed to. So this should be a supposition contrary to fact. Goodwin wants the protasis to use a past tense, for no reason that anybody can see. The verb we have is “imperfect”, which should mean something that has been interrupted, except that Goodwin explains that this past tense is being used for a present circumstance….

Now that we are aspectual, that explanation goes away. We are talking about a situation – the treaty – that didn’t exist. And as a situation, progressive is correct instead of imperfective.

When the grammars define a term and then have to undermine it with a lot of exceptions such as the “conditional contrary to fact” using past tense for something that didn’t happen, they are repeating centuries of tradition: “That’s the way it has always been taught” was fine in pre-Galileo times. This is the 21^st century.

Now. Goodwin tells you that the apodosis needs an, which we do have. But the an in this case is our change-of-focus: the Korinthians would have given the orders, but eluont’ is the Athinaians violating the treaty – that didn’t exist. So this is not an for something that happened – because the protasis didn’t happen. It couldn’t, since there was no treaty.

Notice that this is how you use the certainty indicative in a situation that definitely doesn’t exist.

Since accepting the orders of the Kerkyraeans would have been an open breach of the treaty, Athins concludes a defensive pact only. So the Korinthians didn’t get their way, but the Kerkyraeans didn’t get everything they wanted. They just got assurances if the Korinthians repeat their attack.

In subsection 2 Jowett negates the wrong thing. He essentially negates the progressive eventive eboulonto but Thucydides negates the impersonal gerundive proesthai; the Athinaians planned for Kerkyraea not to be conquered by the Korinthians. What they did plan (in Thucydides’ original parallelism) is to set the Korinthians against the others so as to weaken both prospective opponents as much as possible before the war broke out. Jowett hides this purpose by putting it at the end of the sentence, another example of a transposition that interferes with what Thucydides says.

21st Century Classical Greek -- the last imperative

We have now seen imperatives in two aspects, one imperfective eventive and the other progressive conceptual, dekhesthe from last week.

Oddly enough, in perfective White’s grammar lists no imperative for the executive voice, but only for the base voice. How could you issue an imperative to bring about a result, without having it produced deliberately?

Well, are there any examples? I used my search engine and did find an example, and the result is sort of weird. This is Demosthenes’ 25^th oration, section  21:

τί γὰρ ἂν τοῦτον αὐτὸν οἴεσθε ποιεῖν λυθέντων τῶν νόμων, ὃς ὄντων κυρίων τοιοῦτός ἐστιν; ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν οἱ νόμοι μετὰ τοὺς θεοὺς ὁμολογοῦνται σῴζειν τὴν πόλιν, δεῖ πάντας ὑμᾶς τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καθῆσθ᾽ ἐράνου πληρωταί, τὸν μὲν πειθόμενον τούτοις ὡς φέροντα τὴν τῆς σωτηρίας φορὰν πλήρη τῇ πατρίδι τιμᾶν καὶ ἐπαινεῖν, τὸν δ᾽ ἀπειθοῦντα κολάζειν.

The problem I had to work out is, how can you have a passive voice imperative?

Well, Demosthenes is saying that Aristogiton is an enemy of the state, which operates by certain laws. His behavior being such in the current conditions, says Demosthenes, get the laws repealed! That result being achieved, you will see him behave worse.

This is the only example on Perseus of luo in perfective imperative. I would appreciate it if you could send me citations to actual examples of perfective imperatives in executive voice for any verb; remember, send me the citation, not just a copy of the text. I intend to keep looking for them.

But with this wildly limited dataset, it looks as if imperatives work according to aspect, like personal gerundives, which is not much of a surprise since their functions complement each other, imperative being for immediate action just because I say so, and i.g.s being for action  that is due and owing based on prior developments.

Mendel Beilis -- the scene of the crime

Again, my mind works slowly or I would have posted this in 2013, when I translated the transcript, or even in 2019 when I posted about the missing dvornik. But I woke up this morning wondering why there's no report on the scene of the crime in the transcript. It turns out that the government suggested multiple scenes for the crime, but only examined the scene that they then had to cover up because it identified the one person they were trying to protect from suspicion.

Part of the problem is the Whiffle Ball Theory. It became obvious during closing arguments that the government made up its claims to suit its theory, instead of letting evidence drive the case. That's why Beilis was tried at all. 

Because the government was trying to cover up for Vera Cheberyak, they created confusion about the scene of the crime. Oh, sure, at first when the police thought that Andrey's family had killed him, they searched the room that the Prikhodkos lived in. But they identified four places on the Zaitsev factory grounds as possible scenes of the crime:

-- Beilis' home, the two rooms where he, his wife, and his four surviving children lived.

-- the "upper" kiln, the one at the highest point of the factory grounds.

-- the stables.

-- the pomeshchenie, some rooms where Beilis' wife moved in after the arrest, that is, July 1911.

The transcript has no police information about any of these locations. They had from July to October to examine the stables. In October the stables burned down and were no longer available for tours (like the one on day 6). Nobody forged a police report saying anything was found there before October. The government brought them up to confuse the case.

The upper kiln was empty from March, when the murder happened, to April 10 or so when brick making started up again. During this period the police still thought the family killed Andrey so no report was done.

Beilis' house was full of the family and nobody suggested that Beilis let his wife and kids stay in the house while Andrey was murdered.

That leaves the pomeshchenie, where there is another problem which I outline in Accounting for the Grebenki Workers. In the interests of cutting their coat to fit the cloth, the government had to assume a morning murder. If it was in the afternoon of March 11, the Grebenki brick haulers were already living in these rooms. It had to be in the morning for the pomeshchenie to qualify. At that time the rooms would have been empty. Mrs. Beilis and the children lived there -- but not until after the arrest in July. After that she got Zaitsev to white-wash the walls. Notice that the police still had from March to July to examine this place -- if the government theory fingered Beilis as the murderer before July. 

But the signs are that the "Beilis and his two sons" story was invented by the government after Beilis' July arrest, and the lack of police reports about any of the locations on the Zaitsev grounds agrees with this.

What place did the police examine in detail? Vera's apartment and its contents -- the carpet, and the walls. This produced the report of using chemical tests that found semen on the walls. 

Why make the tests? When Zinaida Malitskaya went to Fenenko in the summer, her tale was vague and Fenenko didn't believe her. Nobody took her seriously until November when her husband made her go back. The police made her report identify a morning murder, although in the summer she said the incident she reported happened at night. 

But the tests failed to turn up blood spots. Examination of Vera's carpet also failed to turn up blood spots. Examination of the shred of bloody pillowcase suggested one that belonged to Vera, but Ksenya Dyakonova, who sewed the pillowcase for Vera, never saw this shred, see Day 15, statements 2515-2520. And again, the police examined this shred, found in the pocket of Andrey's jacket, as Vera's property, not Beilis'.

Here's the scenario. Beilis is in jail. From September to October, Vygranov and Vera entertain Brazul Brushkovsky with Vera's fairy tales. Then things quiet down. At the end of November, however, Malitsky brings his wife Zinaida to Fenenko where they get information out of her that points at Vera. They convince her to agree that the incident she heard happened in the morning, although Zinaida was suspicious of nighttime goings-on. They bring Vera in and she tells them the story she told Brazul: it was the family. Brazul is the only one who believes this.

I think Vera's old apartment, still empty, was examined at this time -- just to show there was no evidence of the murder there. In November the Kozachenko letter was forged. And the "Beilis and his two sons" story was invented. The government tried to teach it to Vasily Cheberyak; they failed as his deposition shows.

The only place the government had a detailed police report on, that might be the scene of the crime, is the last place the crime could have happened, if Beilis was the murderer. The direct evidence points at Vera; the evidence against Beilis was faked. QED.