[B-Greek] word order in Aesop

Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Sun Jun 26 16:25:59 EDT 2005


(Sorry for a belated response. I have been travelling.)

EGRAYEN Buth:

> A dying farmer gives sly advice to his sons:
> TEKNIA, EN MIA MOU TWN AMPELWN QHSAUROS APOKEITAI
> Τεκνία, ἐν µιᾷ µου τῶν ἀµπέλων θησαυρὸς ἀπόκειται. 
> CHILREN, IN ONE OF MY VINES A TREASURE LIES

Or in a freer rendering with a different word order:  Children, there is a treasure in one of my vines
(English often has emphasis in last position - contrary to Greek - assisted by stress patterns).

The word "one" is inherently emphatic. Merely by mentioning "one", a contrast to the others has been set up. That is why a fronted position for "one" is pragmatically unmarked (it is expected to be in that position).
 
> The sentence is pretty much all ‘new’ information, since it 
> begins the farmer’s discourse. Of course, the sons know that 
> their father is a farmer with a vineyard and they might have 
> hoped for an inheritance. 

If that is so, the pertinent question is how to get the inheritance, and that is probably why "one of my vines" is fronted.
 
> However, a couple of items stand out:
> 
> 1. the subject QHSAUROS may be considered the most salient part 
> of the sentence. It is the lust for treasure and wealth that will 
> drive the sons to plow the whole vineyard and thus learn the art 
> of farming. The QHSAUROS must be considered new or surprising for 
> the sons or else they would not have been tricked into digging up 
> the field.

I am afraid I cannot follow the reasoning for assuming the treasure itself to be surprising rather than its identification and placement. They would continue to dig the field, because they have been told that the expected reward is found in ONE of the father's vines.
Word order discussions easily become subjective, and there are several competing theories about it.
It is easier and in my opinion more realistic to start with an objective and simple principle of word order. If that is the starting point,
we can say that "one of my vines" is relatively more pertinent than "treasure" which again is relatively more important and less predictable than "is placed".

>From this, I assume that the original listeners were expecting that the father before he died had thought about preparing an inheritance or treasure in some way. The interesting point would be what it was and where to find it. So, the father tells them not what it is, but that it is to be found in "one of my vines".  There is relative focus on "my" since it is placed before the noun it modifies. This points to the fact that the sons are to find it in the father's vines, not in any other place or other people's vines.

> 2. If point number one is true, then the fronting of ‘one of my 
> vines’ is not Focus or the ‘most emphatic’ part of the sentence. 
> It would serve as a marked Contextualization (a ‘Topic’ in common 
> linguistic terms though not the topic/subject of the sentence).

The "Topic" and "Comment" theory of linguistics is popular in many circles, although fairly new (Halliday and others). I have personally never felt that it is a satisfactory or realistic description of language use. In my opinion, it is too simple by assuming a dichotomistic view of communication, i.e. dividing a clause into only two parts: topic and comment. But it is also too complicated, because the theorists build a complex system of rules on top of the basic dichotomy.

> Some have questioned a “nuanced reading of Greek word order with 
> multiple functions” and they have preferred or quoted a simple 
> ‘whatever is first [or last] is “emphasized”’ that is found in 
> many printed sources. I would argue that continual reading in 
> Greek leads to a different conclusion. I think the ‘whatever is 
> first is emphasized’-comment that is often heard is misleading 
> for beginning students. It is easy to quote but not a true 
> reflection of reality. 

I would say the opposite, that the topicalization theories are questionable theories because of their complexity. If a simpler, yet nuanced, theory can account for the facts, it is more likely to be a true reflection of reality than a complicated one with many rules and lots of subjectivity.

> PS-I am not claiming that the above is the only possible order of 
> pragmatic functions in Greek, just that it is a short example for 
> discussion and one that has a Focus neither at the beginning nor the end.

I hesitate to disagree with my former teachers of Greek discourse (Levinsohn and Buth) on the pragmatics of word order, but it may still be worthwhile to suggest a different approach and viewpoint.

Iver Larsen





More information about the B-Greek mailing list