Gonda - A Remark on 'Periphrastic' Constructions in Greek

8/12/2019 Gonda - A Remark on 'Periphrastic' Constructions in Greek

1/17

A Remark on 'Periphrastic' Constructions in Greek

Author(s): J. GondaSource: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 12, Fasc. 2 (1959), pp. 97-112Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4428220.

Accessed: 14/06/2014 15:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILLis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:15:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4428220?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4428220?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap


2/17

A REMARK ON 'PERIPHRASTIC CONSTRUCTIONSIN GREEK

J. GONDA

In a recent article *) Prof. H. B. Rosen of Jerusalem drewattention to the Greek constructions of the type ???? . . . ?st?,???? . . . ??, ???? . . . e??a? beside ??e?, ???e, ??e??. Basing himselfespecially on a complete research of the relevant passages in Hero-dotus he arrived at the conclusion that these periphrastic con-structions were, by this historian and other ancient Greek authors,used when the idea expressed by the verb is not, logically speaking,the predicate of the sentence, but the subject, and when at the sametime the 'logical' predicate is not the agent of the verb, but acomplement to the latter, the term complement being taken in alarge sense including inter alia, object, an adjunct, etc.

Rosen's argument, however interesting, could, in my opinion, beclarified if this conclusion were restated as follows2). A sentencesuch as Hdt. IX 15, 4 (16) ?? d? t? de?p??? p??e??e??? ?? T???s? doesnot exactly mean the meal took place at Thebes , but rather itwas at Thebes that the meal took place , and similarly I 146, 3ta?ta d? ?? ?????e?a ?? ????t?? it was at Milete that those thingscame to pass . That is to say, in translating these sentences intoEnglish (or French and other languages) a cleft sentence (phrasecoup?e) must as a rule be preferred if the sense is to be renderedas exactly as possible. Even K?hner-Gerth 3) who whilst giving amere enumeration of periphrastic structures did not notice thispoint, translated the former passages: der Ort, wo das Mahl ver-anstaltet wurde, war Theben . This means that it is the contents ofthe verb which is the thema of the sentence, not the subject properfrom the logical point of view. The idea contained in the verb is thethema i.e. starting-point of the speaker's or author's argument or

?) H. B. Ros?n, Mus. Helv. 1957, x33 ff?2) I limit my observations to the type of sentence discussed by Rosen.3) R. K?hner-B. Gerth, Ausf?hrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache*,I. 38, ?. 3.Mnemosyne, XII

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

98 A REMARK ON 'PERIPHRASTIC' CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEKcommunication. The adjuncts (or objects etc., in general 'thecomplements') are the propos, that is, that which the speaker orauthor wants to bring forward with regard to the thema, 'thepredication'. In the first sentence the taking place of the meal isthe thema, the fact that this event took place at Thebes is thepropos. The context had made it clear that a dinner would be held.The new fact which is brought to the reader's notice with, perhaps,some emphasis is that the place where it took place is Thebes. Thisfrequent construction is often found in sentences expressing an'antithesis' : II 134, 2 ?at? ??as?? ?as??e???ta ?? a??????sa'??d?p??, a??' ?? ?at? t??t??, in contradistinction to the merestatement of a historical fact in III 57, ? ta d? t?? S?f???? p????ata???a?e t??t?? t?? ??????. Not rarely ??? ... d? . . . are added tounderline the contrast: II 99,1 ; VII 3, 3; or the idea of oppositionis expressed by antithetic pronouns (e.g. I 112, 3) or ????? (e.g. II48,2).

In the same way, Soph. O.R. 968 ff. wrote e?? d' dd' ????de /??a?st?? e????? - e? t? ?? t???? p???? / ?at?f???' ? ??t? d' a? ?a???e?? '? ????, words rendered by Storr1) as follows: and here am Iwho ne'er unsheathed a sword ; unless the longing for his absent sonkilled him and so / slew him in a sense . It is the words ?? e???which are thrown into relief, also by the position of emphasis inwhich they appear. It is well known that in spite of the generalprinciple by which emphatic words tend to an initial, or at leastearly, position they are, in certain cases, also placed at the end ofa clause or sentence 2). K?hner-Gerth made the attempt to expressthis nuance by interpreting dann w?re er freilich ein von mirget?teter ( dann w?re ich sein M?rder ).

It is clear that the succinct treatment of these constructions bySchwyzer-Debrunner 3)?who say that they are eine expressiveUmschreibung des verbum finitum ?is not complete and exhaust-ive. K?hner and Gerth's statement4): Soll der Verbalbegriff

?) Sophocles, with an English translation by G. F. Storr (Loeb), London-Cambridge, Mass., 1956.2) For particulars see J. D. Denniston, Greek Prose Style (Oxford, 1952),45 ff-3) E. Schwyzer-A. Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik, I (M?nchen, 1939),812, sub a 4; II (M?nchen, 1950), 407 f.4) K?hner-Gerth, I.e.



4/17

A REMARK ON 'PERIPHRASTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEK 99

selbst?ndiger und nachdr?cklicher hervorgehoben werden, so trittan die Stelle des einfachen Pr?dikatsverbums eine Umschreibungdurch das Partizip Pr?sentis, Perfekti oder Aoristi (letzteres fastnur dichterisch) mit der Kopula e??a? is highly inaccurate, if notincorrect : it is not the idea expressed by the verb which is throwninto relief but the complements added to it. In Soph. O.R. 90there is a slight antithesis between the preceding sentence est?? d?p???? t??p?? which may imply uncertainty or even?notwithstand-ing the reassuring words of Creon in 87 f.-?apprehension, and thelast part of 89 and 90 ??te ??? ??as?? ??t' ?d? p??de?sa? e??? t?? ?e??? ????? thus far thy words give me no ground for confidence orfear . In Hdt. II 10, 3 it is not the 'Verbalbegriff' ?p?de???e???that is emphasized: e?s? d? ?a? ????? p?ta???, ?? ?at? t?? ?e???????te? ?e???ea, ??t??e? ???a ?p?de???e??? ?e???a e?s?. Anotherattempt to formulate the difference between the synthetic and theanalytic construction was made by Rehdantz and other commen-tators: die Umschreibung des Verb, finit, durch e??a? mit demPartizip ist eine Abl?sung der Kopula von dem Pr?dikatsbegriff,durch welche beides selbst?ndig hingestellt und der Ausdruckgewichtiger wird x). This definition would for instance apply toXen. Anab. II 2, 13; III 3, 2; IV 3, 5; IV 5, 15. In Anab. IV 1, 3the words ?a? est?? ??t?? ???? are according to the same authorities

st?rker als ??t?? ??e? . The question may however arise why thisgewichtiger Ausdruck should have been preferred and what it

was intended to express.What, however, seems to be essential is that the author prefersa semi-nominal construction to a verbal sentence. Whereas from

prehistoric times verbal sentences were mainly used in narrativesand accounts of successions of facts, drawing attention to the everchanging events and occurrences described, nominal or semi-nominal sentences were largely preferred in descriptions, statements,elucidations, explications, characterizations, exclamations, in-dications of time or circumstances, transitional formulas etc. 2)

?) Thus C. Rehdantz and O. Carnuth, Xenophons Anabasis, II6 (Berlin,1905), 17.2) See e.g. A. Meillet, La phrase nominale en indo-europ?en, M?m. Soc.Ling. 14, iff.; B. Delbr?ck, Vergleichende Syntax, III (Strasburg, 1900),III, ii7ff. ;H. Hirt, Indogermanische Grammatik, VII (Heidelberg, 1937), 19 ff.



5/17

100 A REMARK ON PERIPHRASTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEKin which the attention of the hearer is drawn to the static nominalpredicate. Whereas the predicate of a verbal sentence focussesthe hearer's thoughts on what happens, the predicate of a nominalsentence directs his attention to what is. This is especially evidentin combinations of participial groups and adjectives: ? 6? ?e??a????t ?s??es?a ?a? ?? deda???te? ????? ( knowing nothing of, nichtsverstehend von ) 1). Es wird durch den nominalen Stil der Vor-gang, das Ereignis des Geschehens aus der zeitlichen Atmosph?rein die r?umliche verschoben 2). For instance in ? 488 where asemi-nominal participial construction is preferred : ????a? d' ?? t???f??? pef??????? e??e?a? a?d???, it is the situation or state of affairswhich is thrown into relief rather than an event or occurrence.Being more graphic in character and distracting the attention ofthe audience from an individual point of time at which somethingnarrated happens, the semi-nominal expression is apt, on the onehand, to create the impression of being more forceful?compare inEnglish : who was she to be refusing what might prove to be, perhaps,the last request of her dying husband??and on the other hand, tobring out the object or adjuncts amplifying the predicate. Thetransition from the 'narrative verbal style' to the 'descriptive semi-nominal style' may be illustrated by Xen. Anab. IV 5, 15 d?a ta?t??a?ta? ?d? ?????a? ?pe?e?p??t? t??e? t?? st?at??t?? ?a? ?d??te????a? t? ??????, d?a t? ???e???p??a? a?t??? t?? ????a, ??a??? tet????a???a? ?tet??e? d?a ?????? t??? ? p??s??? ?? ?t?????sa ?? ??p??. ??ta??'??t?ap??e??? ??????t? . . . and IV 3> 5 a^ d? ???a? a?ta?, ef' ??pa?ateta?????? ??t?? ?sa? t??a ? t?tta?a p????a ?p? t?? p?ta????pe???? ?d?? d? ??a ??????? ?? ????sa ??? ?spe? ?e???p???t???ta?t? ? ?pe????t? d?a?a??e?? ?? '?????e?. With regard to ? 269 ??d??a? ??d' ??? f??? ?e?as????? ?'??e?a? a???? for I deem that I tooam not forgetful of valour Ameis-Hentze observed that dieUmschreibung die Charactereigenschaft bezeichnet . It wouldperhaps be somewhat more to the point to say that a static idea ofbeing forgetful of valour is, in this verse, negated rather than a

?) See G. Bj?rck, ?? ????S?O?. Die periphrastischen Konstruktionenim Griechischen, Skr. Vet. Samf. 32, 2 (Uppsala, 1940), 17 ff.; 32.2) M. Deutschbein, Neuenglische Stilistik (Leipzig, 1932), 140.



6/17

A REMARK ON PERIPHRASTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEK IOI

dynamic process of forgetting valour1). Hence also the suddentransition from a finite form in a relation of a succession of eventsin a 'narrative' passage to a periphrasis in a reference to a state ofaffairs: Hdt. V 77, 3 t?? d? p?da? a?t?? . . . ??e????asa? ?? t??????p???? a? pe? et? ?a? ?? ??? ?sa? pe??e??sa?.

The difference between periphrasis and the finite verb is especiallyobvious when both constructions occur in the same context: inHdt. II 95, I the words p??? d? t??? ????pa? . . . t?de sf? ?st? ?e-???a?????a are purely 'descriptive' stating that the Egyptianshave definite contrivances against the gnats, but the sentencet??s? d? pe?? ta e?ea ??????s? t?de . . . ?e??????ta? means, in a'narrative' style of expression, that some people had contrivedsome defence. Compare also VI 65, 2. It may be of some interestto make a comparison between Hdt. Ill 133, 2 . . . de?ses?a? d???de??? t?? dsa ?? a?s????? ?st? f????ta and ? ??, 2 . . . ?a? ??d?a?f???a? ?????? ?? a?s????? ?e????? f??e?. A transition from a narra-tive of 'doing' to a statement of 'having' involves a change of con-struction in Hdt. II 37, 4 ??te t? ?a? t?? ??????? t?????s? ??te dapa-???ta?, ???a ?a? s?t?a sf? ?st? ??? pess??e?a ... ... they havebread viz. baked grain grown on the sacred domains . It mighteasily be imagined that the words ?. p. are a stereotyped ampli-fication or 'epexegesis'. References to a state of affairs, to a per-manency, or a static representation of the process expressed bythe verb occur e.g. also Hdt. IX 27, 5 ???? d? e? ??d?? ???? ?st??p?dede?????? . . ., a??? ?a? ?p? t?? ?? ?a?a???? ????? ????? e??e?.Compare e.g. also Soph. Tr. 446. The similarity to semi-nominaladjective constructions and the semi-nominal character of theperiphrasis is also clear in instances such as Hdt. I 45, ? ????? t?? tep??t???? ???t?? s??f????, ?a? ?? ?p' ??e???? t?? ?a???a?ta ?p????e???e??, ??d? ?? e?? ???s????. Participles may indeed more or less in-cidentally fulfil the function of adjectives: Hdt. Ill 39, 3 . . . t?????????te?? t? p????ata a??et? ?a? ?? ?e?????a ??? te t?? ??????. . ., where ?. is pe?????ta celebrated .

The retardative force of the periphrastic form is also clear in the?) The Homeric instances seem to have escaped the attention of P.Chantraine, Grammaire hom?rique, II (Paris, 1953), 201, who mentionsonly ? 257.



7/17

102 A REMARK ON PERIPHRASTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEKsentence type Hdt. I 112, 3 ?a? ??t? ??te s? ???sea? ?d????? . . .??te ???? ?a??? ?e????e????a esta?? d te ??? te??e?? ?as??????taf??????se? ?a? ? pe??e?? ??? ?p???e? t?? ?????, the clause ??te ?. ?. ?. e.being explained by the next sentence. In IV 128, 2 t? ?e????e????ais equivalent to t? ????e??ata. Another case of periphrasis by meansof a participle which is not only in frequent use, but also employedas a substantive occurs II 170, 2 ????? te ?st? ??????? .... ; cf. e.g.I 134 ?? ????e??? the neighbouring people . Iri a similar waybeside Hdt. VII in, 2 ??t?? t? ?a?t???? e?s? ?e?t?????? we find ??e?t?????? the owner . The same retardative force of the con-struction under discussion is also obvious in cases such as Hdt.II i55> 3 where a description o? a sanctuary is interrupted by thewords t? d? ??? t?? fa?e??? ?? ????a ????st?? pa?e???e??? f??s?.

It seems worth noticing that translators whilst resorting to acleft sentence to render the meaning of the original Greek asexactly as possible preferred also a nominal equivalent of the Greekparticiple to a French or English verb: Hdt. I 86, 3 t?? d? ????-s?? . . . ?se??e?? . . . t? t?? S??????, ?? ?? e?? s?? ?e?? e????????,t? ... . : that there was a divine warning in the words . . .(Rawlinson) ; qu'il y avait une inspiration divine dans ce mot queS. lui avait dit (Legrand).

That the sudden transition to a state of rest, the arrest of thecourse of events narrated is, however, a suitable means of bringingother elements of the sentence to the fore may appear from Xen.Anab. Ill, 3, 2 ???st?p????????? d? a?t?? ?'??eta? M. . . . ?a? . . .???e? ?de* ??? . . . ?a? ????? p?st?? ?? . . . ?a? ??? ???? e?????? ?a?????de d' e??? s?? p????? f???? d?????. An instructive comparisonmay be made between E 383 ff. and E 873. In E 383 a statementis made about a fact, the hearer's attention is focussed on a pro-cess: p????? ??? d? t???e? . . . / ?? a?d???. In substantiation of thisstatement examples are adduced and the form t???the aoristemphasizing the mere verbal idea?is three times in successionanaphorically repeated: 385 t?? ??? ???? ?te ... so suffered Ares,who... , 392, and 395 t?? d' ??d??.. . ???? ??st??, drawing specialattention to the processes. In E 873, on the other hand, the peri-phrastic construction describes a situation or state of affairs extantat the moment of speaking? fasst alle einzelnen F?lle bis zur



8/17

A REMARK ON PERIPHRASTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEK IO3

Gegenwart zusammen x)?, but in so doing it does not divert theattention from the words amplifying the verbal phrase, that is tosay from the object ????sta which comes already to the fore by itsvery position and the opposition in which it is to ????? in 874.

It is of course true that a 18 ??d' ???a pef??????? ?e? ?????? / ?a??et? ??s? f????s? a situation is described, and the course of succes-sive events referred to by the preceding verbs f????, ?sa?, e???e,???e is arrested, but it is the idea expressed by ??d' ???a reinforcedby its initial position and by the anaphorically added explanationwhich is thrown into relief. In ? 455 the pith of the matter is fromthe psychological point of view the idea expressed by ?? p?, notthat of escaping or being in safety, whatever other motives therewere for preferring a static expression to a dynamic verbal sentence :?dt??, d? ?? p? f??? pef??????? e??a? ??e????.

Some other examples may be subjoined here: Soph. At. 1324????se? a?s???? d??? ?a? ?? t??a?ta ?e I had reviled him; for vilewere his deeds toward me 2) ; Plato Soph. 217C ?? t?????, ? ???e,???? t?? ?e p??t?? a?t?s??t?? ????? apa????e?? ?????, t?s??de d' ????f???e veuille donc, ?tranger, ? la premi?re faveur que nous tedemandons, ne point opposer de refus. Mais plut?t, dis-nous (Di?s).

There remains, however, another remark to be made. As is wellknown, it is in translating Latin or Sanskrit participles sometimesnecessary to substitute infinitives or nouns of action: Plaut. Epid.144 ante solem occasum; Bhagavadg?t? 3, 35 ?reyan svadharmovigunah / paradharm?t svanusthit?t it is better (to perform) one'sown duty (norm) imperfectly than to perform the duty

of anotherperfectly ; Pa?catantra, Intr. 3 kanyd. . . janit? the birth of adaughter 3). That means that the nucleus or central element of theword group is contained in the participle. Passages such as theabove Hdt. IX 15, 4 which retard the progress of the narrative andin which the initial e??a? may be taken to have meant, or to havedeveloped from, there is, it happens , admit of the same inter-

?) ?. F. Ameis-C. Hentze, Homers Iliass (Leipzig tBerlin, 1927), 100.2) Cf. R. C. Jebb, Sophocles, VII (Cambridge, 1907), 197.3) For other examples see J. S. Speyer, Sanskrit Syntax (Leyden, 1886),2Q2 f. ; the same, Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax (Strassburg, 1896), 97.Latin syntax has exerted its influence upon, for instance, Modern German;see O. Behaghel, Deutsche Syntax, II (Heidelberg, 1924), 408 f.



9/17

104 A REMARK ON PERIPHRASTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEK

pretation1). Thus Xen. Anab. II 2, 13 ?? d? a?t? ? st?at???a ??d?????? d??a???? ? ?p?d???a? ? ?p?f??e?? may be translated by: thesignification of that piece of strategy was nothing else but runningaway . . . ( es bedeutete diese Heeresf?hrung . . . 2)). Comparealso instances such as Hdt. I 57, 1 f. ??t??a d? ???ssa? ?esa? (narra-tive style, event, process) ?? ?e?as???, ??? ??? ?t?e???? e?pa? . . .(but if we may judge by some data we possess) ?sa? ?? ?e?as???????a??? ???ssa? ???te? ... then it was a foreign language thatthe P. spoke , or . . . then the language of the P. was a foreignone 3) ; Thuc. I 99, 2 4).

Now the question arises whether Rosen's view of these con-structions is in harmony with the line of thought developed inconnection with periphrasis in Greek by Bj?rck 5). In a publicationwhich in spite of its title is chiefly concerned with the syntax of theNew Testament and other texts of the later period, and which doesnot appear to have been noticed by Rosen, the Swedish scholarwhile sharply distinguishing between improper periphrasis ?inwhich the participle is no predicate, or e??a? no copula?, adjectivalperiphrasis?in which the participle has the character of an ad-jective?, and real periphrasis?which is the subject of his book-makes an attempt to show that the type e??a? + present participlemay be fairly considered the Greek counterpart of the well-knownEnglish progressive tenses 6). Thus NT. Ev. Luc. 19, 47 ?a? ??d?d?s??? t? ?a?' ????a? ?? t?? ?e???? ?? d? a???e?e?? ?a? ?? ??a??ate?????t??? a?t?? ?p???sa? ... is the syntactic counterpart of theEnglish: and he was teaching daily in the temple. But the chiefpriests and the scribes . . . sought to destroy him in that ??d?d?s??? as well as he was teaching characterises the process(action or state) as being conceived as a temporal frame encom-

?) See J. Gonda, Remarques sur la place du verbe . . . (Utrecht, 1952),67 ff.2) C. Rehdantz-O. Carnuth, Xenophons Anabasis I7 (Berlin, 1912), 133.3) D. Barbelenet, De la phrase ? verbe ?tre dans Vionien d?H?rodote (ThesisParis, 1913), 92, has missed the point in limiting himself to the remark thatthe sentence contains a commentary.4) These cases should be distinguished from the constructions discussedby Bj?rck, o.e., 14 (Arist. Eq. 225 etc.).5) G. Bj?rck, ?? ????S?O?.6) See especially Bj?rck, o.e., 41 ff.



10/17

A REMARK ON 'PERIPHRASTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEK I05

passing something else which is often expressed in the context, butmay also be understood from the whole contextx). The purport ofthese forms is, according to Bj?rck, not to express duration in it-self, but relative duration, compared with the shorter time occupiedby some other process.

There is, however, room for the observation that Bj?rck has, onthe one hand, too onesidedly focussed his attention on this functionof the English construction which, however important, is not theonly one, and on the other hand has laid too much emphasis onthe above character of the type ?? d?d?s???, while drawing, some-what inconsiderately, conclusions as to the classical period from anexamination of the later facts. Whereas Rosen has paid no attentionwhatever to the function and the particulars observed by Bj?rck,the latter has, like many other scholars, entirely missed the con-siderable element of correctness in the argument of the former.

There are indeed ancient examples, even in Herodotus, of thephenomenon discussed by Bj?rck. Hdt. VIII 137, 4 ???a?ta ??as??e?? t?? ??s??? p??? ????sa? ? ?? ?a? ?at? t?? ?ap??d???? ?? t??????? ?s???? ? ????? ? e?pe . . . ??s??? de ???? ??? ????? ????? t??de?p?d?d???, de??a? t?? ?????: . . . now it happened that the sun wasshining down the chimney into the room (Rawlinson). Bj?rck 2)is no doubt right in stating that die progressive Form ausge-zeichnet f?r die parenthetisch eingef?hrte 'Rahmenhandlung'passt . Cf. also I 152,1; VI 103,4 (t????a?ta); Soph. Tr. 578 f.t??t' ?????sas', ? f??a?, ? d????? ?a? ?? / . . . ???e???????? ?a???,?

/ ??t??a t??d' ??a?a. That this phenomenon is not foreign toother authors either may appear from Thuc. VII 50, 4 ?a? ? ????a? ??? ??? t? ?a? ??a? ?eas??? te ?a? t?? t????t?? p??s?e??e??? ? ??d'a? d?a????e?sas?a? et? ef?, p??? . . ., where Marchant observes that

the tense of e??? must precede the participle in this periphrasis,as it is emphatic, representing a state of things existing at thetime referred to 3).

There is on the other hand no denying that in cases such as Hdt.? ) See especially O. Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar, IV (Heidel-berg, 1931), 164 ff., and especially, 180; the same, The Philosophy of Gram-

mar (London, 1935), 277 ^?2) Bj?rck, o.e., 71.3) E. C. Marchant, Thucydides, VII (London, 1952), 171.



11/17

??6 A REMARK ON 'PERIPHRASTIC' CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEKVIII 137, 4; I 152, I the adjuncts (?? t?? ?????; ?at? . . . t????) areto receive some special attention. Cases are however not wantingin which the clause or sentence containing the construction underconsideration does not, properly speaking, constitute a parenthesis:Thuc. I 47, 3 . . . ?a? a? ?tt??a? d??a pa??sa? . . . ?sa? de ?a? . . .p????? t?? ?a?????? pa?a?e???????te? ; I gg, 2; II 12, 2.

There are however exceptions to the rule that the periphrasticconstruction represents a process as a temporal frame encompassinganother event : Hdt. ??3?,2?d? ??t?? a?t? ? t?? ??f?p???? ... ap?-?a?e t?? ?e??a?, ?a? ??? t?? e????a? a?t??? e??a? pep?????a? t? pe? a???a? ?pa???. Whereas in the above sentence the periphrastic phraserefers to a present state of affairs, it is elsewhere used to indicatecontinuance in the (relative) past: I 103, 1 . . . p??t?? te ?????se?at? t??ea t??? ?? t?? ?s??? ?a? p??t?? d??ta?e ????? e??st??? e??a?. . . ? p?? t?? d? ??a??? ?? p??ta ?????? ??apef?????a.

Another passage to which the explication proposed by Bj?rckdoes not apply is Hdt. II 134, 2 (see above) ; II 99, ? ????? ?e?t??t?? ???? te ??? ?a? ????? ?a? ?st???? ta?ta ?????sa ?st?, t? d? ap?t??de ????pt???? ?????a? ?????? ????? thus far I have spoken ofEgypt from my own observation . . . (Rawlinson), or thus farit is my own observation on which the story is based . . . . Otherpassages might indeed be adduced by both scholars in favour oftheir theories. Thus Hdt. VII 190 ???' ? ??? t???a ??? e?t?????e????as? ???a p???s??? ????et?? ?? ??? t?? ?a? t??t?? ??a??? s??f?????pe?sa pa?d?f???? *). Here also, the present author would howeverpoint out the nominal

? and hence 'static5 ? character of thesecond part of the communication from which the phenomenondetected by Rosen as well as the character of the sentence describedby Bj?rck seem to be easily explainable. See also Hdt. IV 78, 3 ?S????? d?a?t?? ??? ??da??? ???s?et? S?????? ?, ???a p????? p??? ta???????? ?????? tet?a?????? ?? . . . ?p??e? te t????t?, and in addi-tion: I 102, 2; I 146, 3; I 175, 1; V 47, 7; IX 49, 3. In a descriptionof the valuable products of the far-off countries Herodotus III 107, 1after three times ?st?, f??e?, ?????ta? and another ?st? wrote: ?? d?

?) Denn kein Mensch geniesst eines ungetr?bten Gl?ckes (H. Stein,Herodotus IV, Berlin, 1861, 177); der hervorgehobene Satzteil mit ?a?eingeleitet5* (Rosen, o.e., 144).



12/17

A REMARK ON PERIPHRASTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEK IO7

ta?t?? ???a??t?? t? ?st? ?????? ?????? pas??? f???????? ?a? s??????a? ?as?? . . ., continuing: ta?ta p??ta p??? t?? s?????? d?spet????t???ta? ?? %???????. The retardative force of the 'descriptive* semi-nominal construction indicating that the process continues at themoment of writing helps to throw ?????? into relief (Rosen) as wellas to denote the larger compass of time within which the process?t???ta? takes place (Bj?rck).

Besides being one-sided Rosen's explication has, if I am notmistaken, sometimes overreached itself. Too often he has given theimpression of one who is too subtle in attempting to show that theconstruction was chosen in order to emphasize one of the elementsof the sentence other than subject and predicate. A type worthmentioning in this connection is Hdt. V 1, 3 ??? a? e?? ? ???s????p?te?e? ????? ????, ??? ???te??? t? ?'????. I must confess that there issomething to be said for Stein's comment: ?p. im Begriffe sichzu erf?llen appears to be more convincing than the view that theconstruction chosen is due to the emphasis laid on the pronoun.It is for instance difficult to believe that in Hdt. VII 65 it is ??t??which conditions the occurrence of a periphrasis: the sentence?sta?????? ??? d? ?sa? ??t?? ??d?? is a transitional formula whichbrings a descriptive passage to an end; the following finite verbp??setet??at? resumes the course of the events which are thesubject of the narrative. Rosen's explication of VI 65, 2 *) is rightas far as it goes, but the motive inducing the author to prefer theperiphrastic construction was not the necessity to emphasize thewords d?a p????a t????de, but the 'parenthetical' character of thesentence which whilst interrupting the course of the narrativeinforms the reader of a past event explaining a state of affairs.Among the examples quoted by Rosen is also Hdt. Ill 28, ? e'??e??t?? ?e??????? ?p??????? e?? ????pt???s? si c'?tait un dieu traitablequi ?tait venu aux Egyptiens which exhibits a verbal form whichhe elsewhere excluded from the 'second tenses', 2) because it doesnot occur beside a synthetic form. This passage however shows thatthe phenomenon vindicated by him is not limited to 'secondtenses'.

i) Rosen, o.e., 145.2) Rosen, 147; 137.



13/17

??8 A REMARK ON 'PERIPHRASTIC' CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEKAs neither author has dealt with the 'origin' of this construction

some further observations bearing upon this point may perhaps finda place here. Passages such as Hdt. Ill 105, 2 are of special interestbecause they may perhaps throw some light on the history of thisconstruction. After having told the famous story of the gold-digging ants, Herodotus observes: t?? ??? d? p??? t?? ???s?? ??t??? '??d?? ?t???ta?, ?? ???sa? fas?? ????? d? spa???te??? ?st? ?? t??????? ???ss??e???. There is?it is true?an antithesis and, hence,some 'emphasis' laid on the adjunct. Legrand *) is however no doubtright in suggesting ?st? to have been a complete verb and ???ss?-?e??? an appositive participle?or rather: in suggesting that thistype of sentence may have developed from ?st? il y a etc. ? : ilsen ont d'autre, en moindre quantit?, qu'ils extraient des mines .Hdt. VII 179 while exemplifying the tendency discussed by Bj?rckmay be considered to represent, or to go back to, an appositionaltype of expression: ? d? ?a?t???? ????e? st?at?? . . . pa???a?e ???s?t??s? ???sta p?e??s??s? d??a ??? S??????, ???a ?sa? p??f???ss??sa???e? t?e?? ??????de? . . . There can be hardly any objection to atranslation: ... where were, being on guard, three Greek vessels. . . ; compare also Legrand's rendering: l? se trouvaient de gardeen avant-poste trois vaisseaux grecs . It is on the other hand truethat, ???a being the starting-point of the clause introduced by thatword, ??e? t. ?. are the propos which is thrown into some relief;and that there is also room for the contention that the processexpressed in this clause was continuing at the time when the acti-vity denoted by pa???a?e occurred.Although Rosen is, from his point of view, right in regardingHdt. VII 2, 2 ?sa? ?a? ?a?e??? ?a? p??te??? ? ?as??e?sa? ?e????te?t?e?? pa?de? ?? t?? p??te??? ???a???? ... as an instance of a 'Gegen-satzkonstruktion' it is possible to take this passage as an exactcounterpart of the Dutch er waren D., al voordat hij koning werd,drie zoons geboren uit zijn eerste vrouw : if ?e?. ?? t. p. ?. is con-sidered an apposition?cf. e.g. Thuc. II 67, ? ?? ?? st??te??a t??'????a??? p????????? ? ?sa? is the initial il y avait . It mustin this connection be borne in mind that in a considerable numberof the instances quoted by Rosen the form of e??a? occupies the

?) H?rodote (coll. Bud?).



14/17

A REMARK ON PERIPHRASTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEK I09initial position; cf. e.g. IV 165, 2; VII 190. The sense of il y a;there is is still clearly perceptible in cases such as I 210 as well:?? e?? ???? ???s?? ?e?????, dst?? t?? ?p?????e?se?e ... that thereshould be a Persian living (Rawlinson). In accordance withLegrand's felicitous translation the words Hdt. I 160, 5 ?? d? ????????t?? ??? ?????? ?e???e???, dte . . . mean et il y eut un temps, untemps qui fut assez long ... : i.e. ?? is es war x).

We may indeed easily imagine that sentences of the type Hdt.Ill 60, 1 reflect an older construction with the verbum existentiae:??????a d? pe?? Sa???? ??????, dt? sf? t??a ?st? ????sta ap??t????????? ??e??as???a: Legrand's translation parce que c'est chezeux qu'ont ?t? ex?cut?s les trois ouvrages les plus grands might,then, be slightly modified. And why should I 51, 1 . . . ?? t?? ??s?????a?? ? d? ?st? ?p? t?? '?s?p?? . . . d??a stad???? ap????sa not haveoriginated in: and that (island) was (away) from 2) the ?., (lying)at a distance of ten s. ?

It may be remembered that to indicate a process which extendsover a period of time that began in the past and includes the pre-sent, and usually to indicate that the process referred to maycontinue in future the English language uses the present perfectprogressive tense: it has been raining since early morning. Thesentence he has been taking violin lessons this year implies that hecontinues to take these lessons. An example of a Greek constructionwith a perfect participle is Hdt. IV 22, 2 s??e??e? d? t??t??s? . . .?at????????? e?s? t??s? ?????a ?e?ta? ????a?: the implication is thatthe state described still continues.

In a considerable frequency of cases Herodotus combines a formof e??a? and a perfect participle, almost always to express a state orsituation?resulting from a previous process?continuing to occurat the moment when some event or other is being narrated to occur,and hence representing that situation as being, to a certain extent,in opposition to, or different from, other occurrences. Compare e.g.VI 44, 1... t?? pe??? ?a?ed??a? p??? t??s? ?p?????s? d?????? p??s-e?t?sa?t?? ta ??? e?t?? ?a?ed???? ?'??ea p??ta sf? ?d? ?? ?p??e???a

?) Cf. also Stein, o.e., I, 131.2) For ?p? compare e.g. ? 292; ? 53; Thuc. I 7; I 99, 3, and especially,Xen. H. G. II 4, 4.



15/17

HO A REMARK ON 'PERIPHRASTIC' CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEK

?e????ta . . . car en de?? de la M. tous les peuples ?taient d?j?rang?s sous leur domination (Legrand). Similarly VI 33, ?. Toindicate that a state was still continuing at a point or period of pasttime referred to in the context a perfect participle may be connectedwith a past finite form of e??a?: Hdt. VII 212, 2 . . . s????a????. o?d? '?????e? ?at? t???? te ?a? ?at? ?'??ea ?e??s??????? ?sa?, ?a? ?????e? ??ast?? ??????t?, a construction suitable to direct the hearer'sattention to the words ?at? . . . e??ea. There is therefore roomfor the assumption that the tendency to avoid the old form in -ata?,-at? etc. x) has not been the only factor in the process which led toa greater use of periphrastic forms 2).

Among the examples adduced by Rosen?who does not disting-uish between e??a? + pr?s. part, and e??a? + perf. part.?is alsothe passage Hdt. Ill 89, 3 which, however, may bear anotherinterpretation: ?p? ?a? ????? ?????t?? . . . ?? ?atest???? ??d??f???? p???, ???a d??a ????e??. As ?atest???? is not rarely elliptic-ally used to denote the idea of the existing laws or usages (Hdt.I 59; Plato Leg. 798 B; Isocr. 7, 56) the sentence may rather beconsidered an example of 'improper periphrasis'. However, ?? ?.constitutes the 'temporal frame', and the co-existence of combi-nations containing participles of various degrees of substantivationmay have stimulated speakers and authors to resort to a peri-phrasis. A parenthesis containing a perfect participle such as IX102, 3 '????a??? . . . (?dt?? ?a? ?sa? ?? ?pe??? teta??????) s??ep?sp?-?e??? s??es?p?pt?? ?? t? te???? does not essentially differ from theinserted clauses examined by Bj?rck. Other passages exhibitinga perfect participle with ?? which refers to a state of affairs existingat the moment at which the events narrated came to pass are e.g.Hdt. I 68, 6; II 168, 1. Without questioning the correctness ofLegrand's translation of IV 32 e?e??? ?a? ?? ?a? S???a? . . . ???'?s??d?? ??? est? pe?? ?pe??????? e??????a, est? d? ?a? ??????( c'est chez ?. qu'il est question des H., c'est aussi chez H. )there seems to be room for the observation that an interpretation

?) See P. Chantraine, Histoire du parfait grec (Paris, 1927), 247 f. ; Schwy-zer, Griech. Grammatik, I, 617; 812.2) Cf. also B. L. Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, I (New York,1900), 122 ff.



16/17

A REMARK ON PERIPHRASTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEK IIIof this sentence, or of its 'prototype' as nominal would not beillegitimate1). A similar remark applies to the 'durative' con-struction containing those forms of e??a? which were as a rulenot omitted : Soph. Tr. 941 f. ??a??? ?????e?' ?? d???? es???' ??a / . . .??fa??s????? ????. Periphrasis by means of a perfect participleseems to be equivalent to an adjective in cases such as Hdt. I199, 5 6sa? ??? ??? e?de?? te ?pa????a? e?s? ?a? ?e???e??, ta?? apa?-??ss??ta?, dsa? de ????f?? a?t??? e?s? . . . p??s?????s? ; Thuc. II4, 5? The sentence Hdt. I 103, ? p?? t?? d? ??a??? ?? p??ta ????????apef?????a?which was explained by Stein as: pa. ?. ?? ?. ??ap.?may at least partially go back to an Original' construction p?? t. d. ?.(predicate) ?? p., ?. ?. (apposition).

It is moreover a serious imperfection of both studies, that byRosen as well as the book of the Swedish author, that they havepractically disconnected their observations about the periphrasticforms from the history of the perfect. In ancient times the plus-quamperfect not only was a past tense beside the ancient perfect :?????e is glad : ?e???e? was glad ; t?????e is dead : ?te????e?

was dead , but it could also indicate that a state or situation hadcommenced in the past and continued to exist while other pro-cesses came to pass : ? 410 ???' ? ??? ?d? ???? da?e?? ??d?sde ?e???e?, /??st?? ad t?t' ?f??e Ge?????? ; t 539 0


17/17

112 A REMARK ON 'PERIPHRASTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN GREEK

????? e???e, ?a? ????? ??e?e???e?, ?a? ????e? t? ?????? *)?, it beganto lose its fitness to fulfil the function studied, as far as the peri-phrastic forms are concerned, by Bj?rck 2). In his desire to give avivid and graphical description of the historical events an authorsometimes tends to pass beyond the limits of the above case of theperfect participle with the past of e??a?. The type represented byHdt. IV 137, 3 '?st?a??? de ?????? ta?t?? ?p?de????????? a?t??ap??te? ?sa? tet?a?????? p??? ta?t?? t?? ??????, p??te??? t?? ???t??-de? a??e??e??? may be considered to have originated not only in thetrend to replace the 'difficult' 3) forms in -ata? or -at?, but also inthe tendency to substitute, in a vivid narrative and under theinfluence of the anticipative activity of phantasy, a resultativeor static verbal category for a narrative historical past 4).

It should, moreover, be borne in mind that a periphrastic con-struction was a necessity in those frequent cases in which theauthor wanted to express a modification of the idea expressed bythe copula e??a??e.g. ''prove to be, turn out ?, for instance Soph.Tr. 386 ?? ??? ?????? /t??? ??? pa???s?? ??pep??????? ????; 399>413 ? These combinations have no doubt promoted the spread ofperiphrases with e??a?, the more so as ???e?? etc., like e??a?, occursalso without a participial complement.Utrecht, van Hogendorpstraat 13.

?) Die lebendigste, durch das Polysyndeton der kurzen S?tze nochgesteigerte Form der das Resultat vorweggreifenden Erz?hlung; denn dasPlqpf. bezeichnet T?tigkeiten oder Zust?nde, welche vor anderen derVergangenheit angeh?rigen schon vollendet und eingetreten und bis aufden Zeitpunkt dieser ihre Wirkung erstreckt hatten (Rehdantz-Carnuth,o.e., 71 f.).2) For particulars concerning the history of the Greek perfect see J.Wackernagel, Studien zum griechischen Perfektum (G?ttingen, 1904); Chan-traine, Histoire du parfait grec (see above).3) Rosen, o.e., 136, n. g.4) Cf. Havers, I.e. ; for the Latin periphrasis with habeo see (M. Leumann-)J. B. Hofmann, Lateinische Grammatik (M?nchen, 1928), 561. E. Schwyzer,Griechische Grammatik, I, does not mention this aspect of the development.

Gonda - A Remark on 'Periphrastic' Constructions in Greek

Documents

Transcript of Gonda - A Remark on 'Periphrastic' Constructions in Greek