From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 17 1996 - 15:04:38 EST
At 2:37 AM 1/17/96, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>A further note on MPol 10:2
>I wrote earlier;
>>SU MEN KAN LOGOU HXIWSA should be rendered literally "I should have (KAN,
>>contrary to fact) considered you worthy of a word." LOGOS here probably
>>refers to a "discussion."<
>
>I would add that KAN is crasis for KAI AN. AN with an aorist indicative
>this indicates a contrary to fact statement. The fact is that he did not
>formerly consider him worthy.
One other question; since Ken's queries came in the mail this morning,
there's been no comment on the SU--is that reading correct?--nominative--or
shouldn't it be SE? While the Doric dialect form TU can be accusative (in
Theocritus), I've never seen a SU understood as such. Surely this was an
error in transcription?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:36 EDT