[b-greek] Re: PW~S in Epictetus

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sun Aug 20 2000 - 20:11:27 EDT

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
 --></style><title>Re: [b-greek] PW~S in
<div>At 1:44 PM -0700 8/20/00, clayton stirling bartholomew
<div>&gt;Encountered a use of PWS in reading *Levinskaya which I have
not encountered<br>
&gt;before in a citation from Epictetus**<br>
&gt;This citation is perfectly simple to understand but it did raise
&gt;questions about how PW~S might be used. I was not able to find
&gt;enlightenment from the standard sources on this (LSJ, Smyth, BDF,
BAGD). I<br>
&gt;don't think this is a NT or LXX pattern of usage. Searched for
multiple PW~S<br>
&gt;strings and found only one in Jer. 31:39 which was not similar
since each<br>
&gt;PW~S introduced a new clause. I toyed with the idea that each
PW~S in this<br>
&gt;Epictetus** citation was introducing a new clause but that
reading seemed to<br>
&gt;be improbable since hEKASTOS seems to indicate a distribution
across all<br>
&gt;three groups. However if we read LEGETAI as an equative verb
&gt;like EIMI then it is feasible that LEGETAI could be
&quot;elided&quot; so to speak<br>
&gt;after the second and third PW~S. But this still leaves some loose
ends to be</div>
<div>&gt;tied up.</div>
<div>I hope I'm not misunderstanding your question, Clay.</div>
<div>I assume that the third word in the citation should be
<div>Perseus LSJ has for PW~S:</div>
<div><font color="#000000">IV. p. in indirect questions</font><font
color="#FF00FF"> for hopôs</font><font color="#000000">
,</font><font color="#0000FF"> Aesch. Eum. 677</font><font
color="#000000">,</font><font color="#0000FF"> Soph. Trach.
991</font><font color="#000000"> (anap.),</font><font
color="#0000FF"> Aristoph. Kn. 614</font><font
color="#000000">,</font><font color="#0000FF"> Xen. Mem.
1.2.36</font><font color="#000000">, etc.; ethaumazon an p . . .
edeisan IG12(3).174.28 (Cnidus, Epist.Aug.); zętęthęsetai p.
hoti kai touto alęthes esti S.E. M.8.16.</font></div>
<div>and that's what I'd assume we have in this instance--a
succession of three clauses of indirect question following upon the
introductory OUC hORAiS; I would understand elliptical carry-over of
hEKASTOS LEGETAI (EINAI) in the second and third PWS clauses:
&quot;Why do you play the role of a Jew when you are Greek? Don't you
see how one is said as an individual to be Jewish, how (one is said
as an individual to be) Syrian, how (one is said as an individual to
be) Egyptian?&quot;</div>
<div>Normally the interrogatives in indirect discourse take a hO-
(which I take to be in origin a neuter relative pronoun): PWS --&gt;
hOPWS, POU --&gt; hOPOU, TI/ --&gt; hO/TI (usually spelled as two
words: hO/ TI), but it's permissible to use the direct interrogative
word in place of the indirect when one chooses.</div>
<div>P.S. Thanks also, Clay, for the Denniston on particles which I
found waiting for me when I got back to my office in St. Louis. I
deem it one of the more valuable additions to my reference

<div>-- <br>
Carl W. Conrad<br>
Department of Classics/Washington University<br>
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018<br>
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649<br>
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu <br>
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:34 EDT