Re: Lexicography

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Sat Jun 19 1999 - 17:50:16 EDT

<x-rich>At 2:22 PM +0100 6/19/99, Maurice A. O'Sullivan wrote:

>When consulting the Perseus LSJ, I found the following in the entry



> , Hom. Il. 17.652, Thgn.1095, and Ion.,

> Hdt. 3.37, al., Hp.Prog.2, Herod.7.92; but Att.

> (before Arist.) hardly ever have the pres. and

> ske/ptomai, e)skepto/mhn (exc. Plat. Lach. 185b,

> ti=Plat. Alc. 2.140a; in Thuc. 8.66, Bauer
restored plpf.

> prou)/skepto ), but use skopw= or skopou=mai as

> pres., and take the other tenses from ske/ptomai ,

> ske/yomai


>Could anyone on the list tell me what was going on when "Bauer

>....etc "?

Here's the text of Thucydides in question:

<color><param>0000,7777,0000</param>[8.66.1] n de touto euprepes pros
tous pleious, epei hexein ge tn polin hoiper kai methistasan emellon.
dmos mentoi homs eti kai boul h apo tou kuamou xunelegeto:
ebouleuon de ouden hoti m tois xunestsi dokoi, alla kai hoi legontes
ek toutn san kai ta rhthsomena proteron autois prouskepto

</color>I don't have Thuc with an apparatus criticus with me, but my
guess is that the form in the MSS may have been either eskepteto or
prouskepteto and that Bauer recognized that a pluperfect would be
appropriate in this text; this would be a proper form of the pluperfect
and this perfect MP does take a passive sense as it must taken in this
instance. So I assume that what Bauer was doing was based upon an
assumption that Thucydides would NOT have used an imperfect form of
PROSKEPTOMAI. One other factor: the AUTOIS (dative of agent)
immediately preceding PROUSKEPTO in Bauer's restored text is much more
likely with a perfect or a pluperfect; with an imperfect one would
expect hUPO with genitive to express agent in a passive construction.

This is guesswork, of course. What else?

Carl W. Conrad

Department of Classics, Washington University

Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:30 EDT