From: Edgar M. Krentz (emkrentz@mcs.com)
Date: Sun Apr 28 1996 - 20:23:55 EDT
Carl Conrad, as usual, gave some interesting and useful notes. I am led
only to make a couple of footnote additions to Carl's words and Dale's
reactions.
>>
>>I'm wondering about the history of adverbial endings, and I have no
>>reference works at hand. Everyone knows that you form adverbs from
>>adjectives by adding -WS to adjective stem; hence: KALWS, TAXEWS from
>>KAL- and TAXEf-. And indeed, the older form of the adverb of EUQUS, at
>>least in Attic, is EUQEWS, although it seems to me (back of my memory) that
>>EUQUS and perhaps EUQU may be used adverbially in Homer and Hesiod, i.e.,
>>in Epic dialect, which is to say, probably, in the Ionic dialectal form.
In Homer, Yes. Not in Hesiod. See below.
>>Now we know that there are variants such as hOUTWS and hOUTW that mean the
>>same thing; I think in reality PWS and PW (the enclitic adverb meaning
>>"somehow" are really identical. This makes me SUSPECT that the form in -W
>>(hOUTW, PW) or -U (EUQU) is older, the one perhaps being an old
>>instrumental ending, the other the neuter accusative singular of the
>>adjective, and that the -S is, in fact, a movable sigma added where
>>appropriate for euphonic reasons, and then becoming regular for most
>>adverbs.
>>
>>There's no knowing whether this is right or not, but it seems plausible.
>>Makes me wonder whether BDF arrived at it by the same logic?
Carefully worded, Carl, and correct, I think, in identifying adverbial
endings as often survivals of older case endings, e.g. as in XAMAI and POI.
Dale wrote:
>I would guess that BDF followed the same line of thinking (though I doubt
>they were able to do it off the top of their collective heads as you were,
>as evidence by the fact that Bauer and his entourage of researchers couldn't)
>since in par 21 they discuss the movable sigma with OUTW/OUTOS (as well
>as with AXRI/AXRIS, MEXRI/MEXRIS; though they don't mention the PW/PWS
>thing.) and point out that it gradually became standard for the word. BDF
>seemed to me to have the most plausible case as well, esp., since it is
>normal to build the adverb off of the neut. acc. form and that form, EUQU,
>does occur side by side with EUQUS.
I agree that Carl points to some interesting data in diachronic linguistics
of the Greek language. But please, Dale, do not put down either BAGD or BDF
as you do in the words above. Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner were
both master grammarians. Kuehner-Gerth-Blass (4 vols) and
Schwyzer-DeBrunner (2 large vols in the HAW) are still in many respects the
standard major grammars of classical Greek--though not the only ones. I
suspect that both could match Carl's comments off the top of their heads
[no disrespect to Carl's abilities to say that!]. Debrunner also wrote one
of the standard histories of ancient Greek.
Some respected authorities agree with BAGD! L. R. Palmer, *The Greek
Language* (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1980) p.283, comments that
"Most of the noun cases are, fram a syntactical point of view, "adverbial",
and a number of Greek adverbs are case forms which preserve inflections no
longer in declensional use, and sometime also stems which have otherwise
vanished from the inherited stock." He points out that the nominative
appears in both IQUS (unerring, leading to thke goal) and EUQUS. See also
W. W. Goodwin and C. B. Gulick, *Greek Grammar* (Boston: Ginn and Co.,
1930) 90-93, par 412-428.
Nor is it completely true that it is "normal to build the adverb off of the
neuter accusative form." That is true, at best, only in some instances. And
then, is it an adverbial accusative, i.e. a use of the extensive sense of
the accusative? Bauer's use of the term "movable sigma" in hOUTWS was
unfortunate, since the suffix *-WS is a standard adverbial suffix. One
might argue that hOUTW and hOUTWS are two separate formations.
Carl's memory about Homer and Hesiod is partially correct. They use both
IQU and IQUS (Ionic forms). Hesiod never uses the term as an adverb, only
the adjective. Homer uses the term both as an adjective and an adverb. See
R.J. Cunliffe, *A Lexikon of the Homeric Dialect* (Glasgow: Blackie & Sons,
1924) 197 and LSJ s.v. IQUS. LSJ slaim that EUQUS is properly used of time,
EUQU of space! D.B. Munro's old *Grammar of the Homeric Dialect* (Oxford U
Press,,1891) par 110 claims that IQYS as adverb tends to drop the sigma
before a noun beginning with a consonant.
You raised an interesting question, and Carl's equally fascinating response
sent me off on an enjoyable hunt through the shelf of grammatical works
here at home. And you would be amazed what good stuff one can find also in
those older works of philology.
Yours with an appeal for more appreciation of the last generation's giants
;-), Peace.
Edgar M. Krentz Tel: 312-256-0752
Professor of New Testament FAX: 312-256-0782
1100 East 55th Street Home:312-947-8105
Chicago, IL 60615 emkrentz@mcs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:41 EDT