And you’re right. I did the productive utilising.
I had planned a media studies day for Class 7 this morning, but finding that I had quite a lot of copies of yesterday’s worksheet, I thought I’d give them that to stare at in class while I busied myself with some Greek. In fact, quite a number of the little darlings were absent because of this interminable arts festival, although that should be finishing today. And it was because quite a number of the bratlings in Class 5 had been absent yesterday that I had enough copies of the worksheet for Class 7.
I was going through the chapter on time, place and space in Morwood when I wondered why the place is called αἱ Ἀθῆναι. Liddell and Scott supply an answer: it was plural because it consisted of several parts. My guess was that it might’ve meant “the people of Athena”, where the plural form of the goddesses name covered the whole people in much the same way that DJ use band names in the plural to mean a countable collective of the members within it. I suppose the principle is, in fact, similar.
It’s interesting to note the different adverbial forms of the name. Ἀθήναζε “to Athens” is from Ἀθήνας (acc pl) + –δε, but Ἀθήνησι “at Athens” and Ἀθήνηθεν “from Athens” are based on the singular stem. Thus people went to the collective, but seem only to have been in or from one particular part.
I was also curious about the relationship between ἐνταῦθα “here, there; to here, to there” and ἐντεῦθεν “from here, from there”, and why the vowel is different. For a start, ἐνταῦθα is from ἔνθα “there”, whereas ἐντεῦθεν is from ἔνθεν. Both words have been affected by Grassmann’s Law (the first of a pair of aspirates in sequential syllables becomes a plain stop). But, I ask myself, where do the υ’s come from? Were they originally u-stems?
If that is the case, then ἐντεῦθεν can’t be derived directly from ἔνθεν, but must rather come from ἐνθεῦ-. Similarly, ἐνταῦθα can’t really be from ἔνθα, but rather from ἐνθαῦ-. Besides, ἔνθα and ἔνθεν would appear to be underlying unaccented, whereas –θαῦ– and –θεῦ– are inherently accented – perhaps.
I got through quite a few more sections of Lysias’ oration On the murder of Eratosthenes (OME) yesterday and I’ve been gradually getting a translation of κατὰ Νεαίρας which, it turns out, was quite a long piece of work. I really need an edition of OME rather than just some marginal glosses (not that they’re handy). I read these things and find myself thinking that they all protested too much. Perhaps Athenian audiences were ready to buy into this. Never mind the facts, feel the emotion. I always feel sorry for Neaira, but know that a misogynistic Athenian audience wouldn’t have recognised that she was a victim of the society in which she lived. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the men of Athens were outraged by her behaviour, but hypocrites for being so.
1. But note ἐνθάδε “to here” and ἐνθένδε “from here”, where –δε appears to be a pre-accenting particle. I can’t explain Ἀθήναζε instead of *Ἀθηνάζε unless the leftmost of two lexical accents, provided it still falls within the window of stress at the right edge (i.e., doesn’t fall further from the final syllable than the antepenultimate), bears primary stress.
The stress on Ἀθῆναι is lexical because the nom pl morpheme –αι counts as light, which means that a phonologically assigned accent would fall on the initial syllable.
Things get even more complicated with doubly accented words such as Ὄλυμπόνδε “to Olympus”; Ἰθάκηνδε “to Ithaca”, which has a phonologically assigned accent; Φαληρόνδε “to Phalerum”, but note Φάληρον with the phonologically assigned accent on the antepenultimate syllable and the locative Φαληροῖ.
Perhaps some stems are inherently accented regardless of the source of the accent, while others aren’t.
Weir Smyth (1920:43, §186) says “Sometimes an enclitic unites with a preceding word to form a compound (cp. Lat. –que, –ve), which is accented as if the enclitic were still a separate word. Thus… the inseparable –δε in ὅδε, τούσδε, οἴκαδε”. Thus, Φαληρόνδε is an enclitic accent of the usual sort (which means that ἐνθάδε, ἐνθένδε, and Φάληρον, which has a recessive accent, are underlyingly unaccented; Ὄλυμπόνδε retains the antepenultimate accent, but I don’t know why this should be; Ἀθήναζε retains the original accent because the gap between the two accents isn’t bimoraic).
2. But –θεν behaves much like –δε with respect to accentuation, and –θα may behave in a similar fashion. –θαῦ– and –θεῦ– may not be inherently accented at all. On the other hand, I’m not aware of the enclitic accent producing a circumflex. As far as I’m aware, the resulting accent is always acute. Weir Smyth (1920:42, §183b) has φιλῶ σε and τιμῶν τινων, but these are the original accents with no possibility of the enclitic accent being assigned to the preceding syllable even before contraction because the distance between the two accents would be a single mora (e.g. φιλέω σε = é.oo.e; cf. ἄνθρωπός τις = á.oo.ó.i with a bimoraic span between the accents). In other words, it appears that –θαῦ– and –θεῦ– are inherently accented.