Re: Can adverbs modify multiple verbs in multiple clauses?

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 31 1997 - 15:49:43 EDT


At 7:08 AM -0400 7/31/97, Clayton Bartholomew wrote:
>At 9:16 AM -0400 7/30/97, Clayton Bartholomew wrote:
>>This is a syntax question. Can a single adverb in Attic or Koine
>>Greek modify more than one verb in more than one clause? The
>>text that raised this question is from Oedipus Rex line 364 (Oxford
>>text):
>>
>>EIPW TI DHTA KALL, hIN ORGIZHi PLEON;
>>
>>Shall I say more to tempt your anger more? (David Grene).
>>
>>David Grene's translation started me thinking that PLEON was being
>>applied to both ORGIZHi and EIPW. I don't find anything in my NT
>>grammars or in Smyth or in Jebb, describing such a phenomena. I am
>>currently assuming that this is really just a translation quirk and
>>that PLEON only applies to the local verb. This question has been
>>teasing me for a week or two.
>
>to which Carl Conrad replied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>I wouldn't rule out the possibility at all, but it is certainly unnecessary
>to assume it in this instance, where we have both crasis (fusion of final +
>initial vowels) and elision (omission of final vowel before an initial
>vowel). Spelled out fully this would be:
>
> EIPW TI DHTA K(AI) ALL(O), hIN(A) ORGIZHi PLEON?
>
>Here I'd say that the first "more" in Grene's translation represents TI
>ALLO in the first clause ("something else"), while "more" in the second
>clause definitely does represent the Greek PLEON.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Carl pointed out where my error occurred. I unpacked the string KALL as
>KAI ALLA, reading KAI as an adverb. I had not even considered KAI ALLO.
>This leads to a new question. I spent quite a while in Smyth #62-75
>pouring over the rules for Crasis and Elision before I posted this
>question. Is this process of unpacking a string like KALL strictly a
>matter of phonetics and orthography or is it a matter of looking at the
>context and seeing what makes sense? The rules in Smyth seemed to
>narrow down the possibilities some what but not enough to decided
>between KAI ALLA and KAI ALLO. Am I missing something obvious?
>(Wouldn't be the first time.)

I would not say it is at all obvious, but I would say that one simply
becomes used to certain combinations in the course of doing a lot of
reading--and all of us come to such combinations of elision and crasis
altogether green the first fifty-or-so times. In this particular instance,
the particle DHTA gives a pretty sharp edge to the interrogative TI, and
then the KAI pretty much as to be adverbial to qualify an adjective or
adverb; ALLA meaning "but" would be meaningless here, and ALLA as neuter
plural wouldn't fit with TI, wherefore ALLO becomes the probable candidate.

I don't know that there's any general rule here, but as a good nominalist,
Clay, you know what Hume calls the general rule: "custom and habit of
confident expectation."

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:24 EDT