to which Carl Conrad replied:
>>>>>>>>>
I wouldn't rule out the possibility at all, but it is certainly unnecessary
to assume it in this instance, where we have both crasis (fusion of final +
initial vowels) and elision (omission of final vowel before an initial
vowel). Spelled out fully this would be:
EIPW TI DHTA K(AI) ALL(O), hIN(A) ORGIZHi PLEON?
Here I'd say that the first "more" in Grene's translation represents TI
ALLO in the first clause ("something else"), while "more" in the second
clause definitely does represent the Greek PLEON.
>>>>>>>>>>
Carl pointed out where my error occurred. I unpacked the string KALL as
KAI ALLA, reading KAI as an adverb. I had not even considered KAI ALLO.
This leads to a new question. I spent quite a while in Smyth #62-75
pouring over the rules for Crasis and Elision before I posted this
question. Is this process of unpacking a string like KALL strictly a
matter of phonetics and orthography or is it a matter of looking at the
context and seeing what makes sense? The rules in Smyth seemed to
narrow down the possibilities some what but not enough to decided
between KAI ALLA and KAI ALLO. Am I missing something obvious?
(Wouldn't be the first time.)
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point