1,721,034 research outputs found
Damiao de Gois and his Latin texts
No full textThe presentation gave an overview of Damiao's writings, his stay in Flanders and his trial and conviction during the Inquisition. A thorough textual analysis of the Latin was not included but will be done at a later date
The use of the modal particle in epic Greek
Full text linkIn my presentation I intend to analyze the use and absence of the modal particle (MP) in Epic Greek. I will first provide a brief overview of existing literature on the subject. Secondly, I will determine my corpus, addressing some morphological problems (such as determining whether a form is a subjunctive aorist or future indicative) and textually disputed instances. Afterwards I will provide facts and figures for the Iliad and Odyssey per type of sentence and per tense and mood
Studies in Greek epic diction, metre and language : the augment use in The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite (HH 5)
No full textThis article analyses the use and absence of the augment in The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite (HH 5). This is done in two steps: I start by establishing my corpus and then perform the actual analysis. In order to obtain a corpus of reliable forms, I first check if the transmitted forms are supported by the metre: in doing so, I use metrical bridges, caesurae and (possible or forbidden) elisions and word ends. Then I proceed to the forms that are not guaranteed by the metre or where several variants have been transmitted. I determine their value by an “internal comparison and reconstruction”, i.e. comparing the metrically insecure verb forms to the secure forms of the same paradigm and by comparing the forms of the words preceding the insecure forms to other contexts. Once I have thus obtained a corpus of reliable forms, I start the analysis. This is done in two steps: first, a corpus of forms with a metrically secure presence or absence of the augment is established by using metrical bridges and caesurae; second, after determining that corpus of forms, I proceed to analyse the use and absence of the augment, based on previous scholarship. The article intends to show that the function of the augment is determined by an interaction of different metrical, morphological, syntactic and semantic factors, and confirms the augment as focus marker or emphasising tool for recent and new information. It then applies the findings to the passage in which Aphrodite walks through the mountains and meets Ankhises. At the end, it discusses the prooimion and argue that there is no need to catalogue Aphrodite’s aorists in that passage as Hymnic or omnitemporal
An Analysis of the Modal Particle in Iliad 24, Part 1: Etymology and Formal Analysis
Full text linkIn this article, I discuss the use and absence of the modal particle (MP) ἄν and κεν in Iliad 24. In part 1 I first discuss the etymology of the two modal particles in Greek, give an overview of the previous explanations for their use and absence and discuss these theories critically, and then determine the corpus of forms where the particles did and did not occur
Are Latin pons and pontifex and the Indo-European cognates evidence for an i stem?
No full textSanskrit panthāh, Avestan pantǡ, Old Persian paθim, Latin pons (and its compound pontifex), Greek patos and pontos, Armenian hun (genitive hni), Old Church Slavic pǫntƅ, Old Prussian pintis cannot easily be reconciled into one single paradigm and, consequently, the exact reconstruction is debated. It has been argued that the Indo-Iranian, Latin, Armenian and Balto-Slavic forms are evidence for an i stem, either original (Schmidt, Bezzenberger, Hirt e.a.) or of secondary and laryngeal origin (Beekes, Schrijver). Starting from the two different "i reconstructions" this article re-examines the Latin, Greek and Indo-Iranian cognates, and tries to account for the evolutions in the different languages. We agree with Beekes, Schrijver and De Vaan in that the Latin nominative is problematic and the Armenian form corresponds perfectly to a reconstruction *pontH. In addition, we believe that also the compound pontifex and the Scythian name Pantikapes fit into this schema. However, we have our doubts as to the paradigm with a nominative *Hs and an accusative *eHm, find the independent innovation in Sanskrit and Avestan less likely, and consider the Old Persian form pθim not conclusive, because it is a back-formation on the nominative and especially in light of the Scythian name Pantikapes, which raises some questions as to the exact Iranian treatment of the Proto-Indo-Iranian cluster *nth. We therefore believe that the original reconstruction *ponteh1s (made by Pedersen in 1926) still has preference, despite the problems that it poses for Lati
Are Latin pons and pontifex and the Indo-European cognates evidence for an i stem?
No full textSanskrit panthāh, Avestan pantǡ, Old Persian paθim, Latin pons (and its compound pontifex), Greek patos and pontos, Armenian hun (genitive hni), Old Church Slavic pǫntƅ, Old Prussian pintis cannot easily be reconciled into one single paradigm and, consequently, the exact reconstruction is debated. It has been argued that the Indo-Iranian, Latin, Armenian and Balto-Slavic forms are evidence for an i stem, either original (Schmidt, Bezzenberger, Hirt e.a.) or of secondary and laryngeal origin (Beekes, Schrijver). Starting from the two different "i reconstructions" this article re-examines the Latin, Greek and Indo-Iranian cognates, and tries to account for the evolutions in the different languages. We agree with Beekes, Schrijver and De Vaan in that the Latin nominative is problematic and the Armenian form corresponds perfectly to a reconstruction *pontH. In addition, we believe that also the compound pontifex and the Scythian name Pantikapes fit into this schema. However, we have our doubts as to the paradigm with a nominative *Hs and an accusative *eHm, find the independent innovation in Sanskrit and Avestan less likely, and consider the Old Persian form pθim not conclusive, because it is a back-formation on the nominative and especially in light of the Scythian name Pantikapes, which raises some questions as to the exact Iranian treatment of the Proto-Indo-Iranian cluster *nth. We therefore believe that the original reconstruction *ponteh1s (made by Pedersen in 1926) still has preference, despite the problems that it poses for Lati
Damiao de Gois and his Latin texts
No full textThe presentation gave an overview of Damiao's writings, his stay in Flanders and his trial and conviction during the Inquisition. A thorough textual analysis of the Latin was not included but will be done at a later date
The Difference Between the Optative and the “Modal” Indicative in Homeric Greek: Four Case Studies – Part 2: The Indicative and the εἰ Μή-Clauses
Full text linkIn epic Greek both the optative and the indicative (the so-called “modal indicative”) can be used in contexts where the degree of realization is uncertain or even impossible, while in Attic Greek only the indicative is used. In these two articles I discuss whether there is a difference between the optative and the modal indicative in these contexts and/or if it can be determined which was the original mood. As there are about 1500 optatives and 250 modal indicatives in Homer, it is not possible to discuss them all and, therefore, I focus on the passages in which aorist forms of γιγνώσκω, βάλλω and of ἴδον appear, and those conditional constructions in the Odyssey in which the postposed conditional clause is introduced by εἰ μή with either a “modal” indicative or optative. The corpus comprises 100 forms (80 optatives and 20 indicatives), but in each example I also address the other modal indicatives and optatives in the passages, which adds another 50 forms to the corpus. In this part (part 2) I address the modal indicatives, and discuss the postposed conditional clauses introduced by εἰ μή in the Odyssey, both in the indicative and the optative. Subsequently I analyze several instances in which the interpretation depends on the viewpoint of the hearer and the speakers, as what is possible for a speaker might be impossible for the hearer and vice versa. When comparing the data relating to the optative and the indicative, and especially that of the postposed conditional clauses introduced by εἰ μή, it can be noted that the indicative has more frequently an exclusively past reference and that it is more often genuinely unreal than 302 FILIP DE DECKER the optative, which often combines the notion of the possible, remotely possible and unreal. In my opinion this clearly indicates that the indicative eventually prevailed and replaced the optative because of the past reference
The use and absence of the augment in the forms ἔδωκ(ε)(ν) and δῶκ(ε)(ν) in the Iliad, compared and contrasted with the overall data of Iliad and Odyssey.
Full text linkIn this article, I discuss the use and absence of the augment in the 3rd singular forms ἔδωκ(ε)(ν) and δῶκ(ε)(ν) in the Iliad. This article is a continuation of earlier research into the augment in other epic works (Odyssey, Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and the Epic Cycle) and other verbal roots (such as ἔθηκε / θῆκε and ἔειπε / εἶπε), but as all these works and verbs have their own semantics, I decided to perform individual investigations, the data of which are then compared and contrasted with the data of the entire Homeric works
- …
