Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23

Post by Stephen Carlson »

In Gal 1:23, the first occurrence of the word ποτε is accented as if it were enclitic:
Gal 1:23 wrote:μόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἦσαν ὅτι Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε ἐπόρθει,
I'm not sure this should be the case, because (1) ποτε contrasts with νῦν (see Smyth § 187) and (2) ποτε is not in the usual position for clitics. In addition, a number of manuscripts accent it with a grave.

Personally, I'm tempted to punctuate and accent like this: Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτέ, νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ..., but this use of the comma would be rather unfamiliar to Western readers.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stephen Carlson wrote:Personally, I'm tempted to punctuate and accent like this: Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτέ, νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ...,
What you mean is that you think it is emphatic in this construction, right? And if it is emphatic it is orthotonic, i.e. it retains its accent.

FYI (and I suppose you already know): It is also orthotonic in both RP 2005 (oxytone with the comma) and the 1905 EP edition (barytone with no comma).

Did you find any other instances where νῦν (now, at this time) is counterposed with the emphatic (non-enclitic) ποτέ (or other places that it was emphatic (non-enclitic) for other reasons in the contemporary literature)?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Thanks for your comments, Stephen.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Personally, I'm tempted to punctuate and accent like this: Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτέ, νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ...,
What you mean is that you think it is emphatic in this construction, right? And if it is emphatic it is orthotonic, i.e. it retains its accent.
I don't think I said "emphatic," and I'm not sure what you mean by that, but reasons (1) and (2) I gave above in the OP, viz. contrastive with νῦν and position, indicate to me that it is not enclitic.
Stephen Hughes wrote:FYI (and I suppose you already know): It is also orthotonic in both RP 2005 (oxytone with the comma) and the 1905 EP edition (barytone with no comma).
Actually, I didn't know, and I appreciate your pointing them out to me. I agree with either (not being so wedded to the comma).
Stephen Hughes wrote:Did you find any other instances where νῦν (now, at this time) is counterposed with the emphatic (non-enclitic) ποτέ (or other places that it was emphatic (non-enclitic) for other reasons in the contemporary literature)?
No, but I haven't really looked.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stephen Carlson wrote:I don't think I said "emphatic," and I'm not sure what you mean by that, but reasons (1) and (2) I gave above in the OP, viz. contrastive with νῦν and position, indicate to me that it is not enclitic.
Emphatic (here by contrast) seemed to be the only on of the reasons for it being orthotonic from among those given by Smyth, (specifically his point 187 a). Emphatic was putting what you said and what your reference said.

I don't really understand what you are getting at by "position". Smyth suggests that enclitcs in inital position are othotonic, but here ποτέ is an enclitic position. Are you breaking this up in another way - using the thing that we were discussing that even one word can be a unit - so that the last word in a phrase follows the rules for the first because there is only one word?

I noticed that - as far as I could find in the index - this was not a verse that you covered in your dissertation. Do you feel now that this emendation to the orthography (if that is how we term accentuation too) is an improvement of the way that we understand Greek (by touching up or normalising what the Apostle had written) or a restoration to the way that was probably what was intended by the Apostle? Which way are you feeling you are moving things with this emmendation?
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Did you find any other instances where νῦν (now, at this time) is counterposed with the emphatic (non-enclitic) ποτέ (or other places that it was emphatic (non-enclitic) for other reasons in the contemporary literature)?
No, but I haven't really looked.
My reason for asking about contemporary literature was because I was wondering whether the Byzantine (scholasticly - using that in the bad sense) may have brought these accents into line with classical parallels and I was wondering whether there are useages from the Koine period. If there are contemporary useages, I could more easily accept that ποτέ was known as emphatic and so it would be possible that the those listening to the epistle might have heard it. (Not that my accepting or not accepting anything has any meaning beyond for myself).
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:FYI (and I suppose you already know): It is also orthotonic in both RP 2005 (oxytone with the comma) and the 1905 EP edition (barytone with no comma).
Actually, I didn't know, and I appreciate your pointing them out to me. I agree with either (not being so wedded to the comma).
Ἐκπλήκτως, TR which is purportedly from that same tradition has both the ποτε's in that verse as ποτε.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:I don't think I said "emphatic," and I'm not sure what you mean by that, but reasons (1) and (2) I gave above in the OP, viz. contrastive with νῦν and position, indicate to me that it is not enclitic.
Emphatic (here by contrast) seemed to be the only on of the reasons for it being orthotonic from among those given by Smyth, (specifically his point 187 a). Emphatic was putting what you said and what your reference said.
Smyth's terminology of "emphatic" is a little outdated in that there are different kinds of emphases, depending what is being asserted. An especially emphatic position is at the beginning of the colon, and we don't have there here.
Stephen Hughes wrote:I don't really understand what you are getting at by "position". Smyth suggests that enclitcs in inital position are othotonic, but here ποτέ is an enclitic position. Are you breaking this up in another way - using the thing that we were discussing that even one word can be a unit - so that the last word in a phrase follows the rules for the first because there is only one word?
Clitics tend to gather behind the most prominent element in the colon, which is (usually) the first, hence, the so-called 'second position" of Wackernagel's Law. But here ποτε is third/last. A better placement for a clitic as a clitic would be like this: Ὁ διώκων ποτὲ ἡμᾶς.
Stephen Hughes wrote:I noticed that - as far as I could find in the index - this was not a verse that you covered in your dissertation. Do you feel now that this emendation to the orthography (if that is how we term accentuation too) is an improvement of the way that we understand Greek (by touching up or normalising what the Apostle had written) or a restoration to the way that was probably what was intended by the Apostle? Which way are you feeling you are moving things with this emmendation?
It's not an emendation in the sense that I'm not proposing a change to the text. Rather, it is a question of editorial judgment, like orthography, punctuation, etc., where we don't rely on the manuscript practice (which is generally inconsistent, if at all, in the earliest period). You can call it normalization if you want (or normalisation). I think that the "accidentals" (punctuation, orthography, paragraphing, accentuation, etc.) ought to approximate what we discern to be the meaning "intended by the Apostle," to put it your way.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Did you find any other instances where νῦν (now, at this time) is counterposed with the emphatic (non-enclitic) ποτέ (or other places that it was emphatic (non-enclitic) for other reasons in the contemporary literature)?
No, but I haven't really looked.
My reason for asking about contemporary literature was because I was wondering whether the Byzantine (scholasticly - using that in the bad sense) may have brought these accents into line with classical parallels and I was wondering whether there are useages from the Koine period. If there are contemporary useages, I could more easily accept that ποτέ was known as emphatic and so it would be possible that the those listening to the epistle might have heard it. (Not that my accepting or not accepting anything has any meaning beyond for myself).
Well, modern editorial practice on punctuation really doesn't follow the manuscript practice, which in the first couple centuries is very little. So I don't contemporary literature in the manuscripts will be all that illuminating for modern editorial practice. Smyth is, however, and I think that the use in Gal 1:23 probably suggests that an orthotonic ποτέ is appropriate.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:FYI (and I suppose you already know): It is also orthotonic in both RP 2005 (oxytone with the comma) and the 1905 EP edition (barytone with no comma).
Actually, I didn't know, and I appreciate your pointing them out to me. I agree with either (not being so wedded to the comma).
Ἐκπλήκτως, TR which is purportedly from that same tradition has both the ποτε's in that verse as ποτε.
I haven't really studied the accidentals of the earliest editions, so I'm not in a position to say much of worth. Perhaps they should be studied.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23

Post by Stephen Hughes »

I need to take this one step at a time.
Stephen Carlson wrote:(2) ποτε is not in the usual position for clitics.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I don't really understand what you are getting at by "position". Smyth suggests that enclitcs in inital position are othotonic, but here ποτέ is an enclitic position. Are you breaking this up in another way - using the thing that we were discussing that even one word can be a unit - so that the last word in a phrase follows the rules for the first because there is only one word?
Clitics tend to gather behind the most prominent element in the colon, which is (usually) the first, hence, the so-called 'second position" of Wackernagel's Law. But here ποτε is third/last. A better placement for a clitic as a clitic would be like this: Ὁ διώκων ποτὲ ἡμᾶς.
Wackernagel's Law ([url=http://books.google.com.au/books?id=4JdI9_Jl_AsC&pg=PT605&lpg=PT605&dq=Rule+of+Indo-European+syntax,+identified+by+J.+Wackernagel+in+the+1890s,+by+which+a+series+of+particles+and+other+clitic&source=bl&ots=GiQDDs_od4&sig=m2PfhglIoMYX1vnBYZhctVghpxc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rl-2Ur_3EYqtiAeOtoDYCg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Rule%20of%20Indo-European%20syntax%2C%20identified%20by%20J.%20Wackernagel%20in%20the%201890s%2C%20by%20which%20a%20series%20of%20particles%20and%20other%20clitic&f=false]The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, Peter Hugoe Matthews[/url]) wrote:Rule of Indo-European syntax, identified by J. Wackernagel in the 1890s, by which a series of particles and other clitic elements occupied a position in the clause after the first accented element. Cf. in Ancient Greek, the position of one word for 'but' in e.g. νῦν δὲ πῶς λέγεις; (Plato, Theaetetus (Θεαίτητος), section 191e) 'But how do you say now?' (lit. 'now but how you-say?').

Since claimed to be an instance of a wider principle; hence the second position in a clause or sentence is called the 'Wackernagel position'.
[Greek characters and reference added. SGH]
So, I take you to mean that because the clitic ποτέ is not in the Wackernagel position, what you are suggesting by your "not in the usual position (Ὁ διώκων ποτὲ ἡμᾶς)", you are feel there could be a posibility that it is orthotonic.

Are there other instances of this that you could cite at present, or are we just sharing the first flash of inspiration with you when you brought Wackernagel and Galatians 1:23 together?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23

Post by Stephen Hughes »

It is not really a question of punctuation as it is a question of sense. Punctuation is a symptom of sense.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Did you find any other instances where νῦν (now, at this time) is counterposed with the emphatic (non-enclitic) ποτέ (or other places that it was emphatic (non-enclitic) for other reasons in the contemporary literature)?
No, but I haven't really looked.
The same situation that you have described seems to hold true for these verses too;
1 Peter 2:10 RP wrote:οἱ ποτὲ οὐ λαός, νῦν δὲ λαὸς θεοῦ· οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες.
[quote="1 Peter 2:10" SBL/1905EP"]οἵ ποτε οὐ λαὸς νῦν δὲ λαὸς θεοῦ, οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες.[/quote]
Ephesians 5:8 RP wrote:ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν κυρίῳ· ὡς τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε
Ephesians 5:8 SBL/1905EP wrote:ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν κυρίῳ· ὡς τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε
Only Tischendorf has it the way you would be suggesting;
Ephesians 5:8 Tisch 8th Ed wrote:εἰμί γάρ ποτέ σκότος νῦν δέ φῶς ἐν κύριος (sic) ὡς τέκνον φῶς περιπατέω (sic)
What do you think of these examples in the light of Wackernagel's rule and their contrast with νῦν?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23

Post by Stephen Hughes »

I'm sorry, this should have been included with the last post;

Perhaps there would have been an avoidance of the form ποτέ in the 1905-EP edition because in Modern Greek ποτέ means "never" cf. Koine οὐδέποτε.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23

Post by Stephen Hughes »

As a side point, on the evidence that νῦν might have regularly been used paired with something else - and so people might be used to listening for a contrastive pair with it - it can be found be paired with μέλλειν, as in
Matthew 12:32 RP wrote:οὔτε ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι.
, in
Romans 8:18 wrote:Λογίζομαι γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ ἄξια τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς.
or in
1 Timothy 4:18 wrote:ἐπαγγελίαν ἔχουσα ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καὶ τῆς μελλούσης.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Stephen Hughes wrote:So, I take you to mean that because the clitic ποτέ is not in the Wackernagel position, what you are suggesting by your "not in the usual position (Ὁ διώκων ποτὲ ἡμᾶς)", you are feel there could be a posibility that it is orthotonic.
Yeah, basically. The examples of 1 Pet 2:10 and Eph 5:8, however, are in the expected position for an enclitic.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Are there other instances of this that you could cite at present, or are we just sharing the first flash of inspiration with you when you brought Wackernagel and Galatians 1:23 together?
Basically, the latter. I appreciate your responses, Stephen.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”