From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Wed Jan 14 1998 - 07:48:45 EST
Carl William Conrad wrote:
> > > citation from Homer (Il 3:211).
>
> He cited the Homeric passage, very interesting, beginnng
> with AMFW hEZOMENW in the dual number, a form that is presumably
> nominative, although it could also be accusative. It's explained otherwise
> than as a nominative absolute my most Homeric commentators, but they may
> be wrong. This really does look like a very arguable case.
I took a look at the Homer citation and the only source I have on Homer
(Benner) shows the dual second declension ending (-W, omega) serving for all
the cases in the singular. Benner (p. 263) says that the phrase AMFW D'
hEZOMENW is "in apposition to the following nominatives, of which the first
only, ODUSSEUS is expressed; the second, MENELAOS, is implied. It is as if the
poet had continued, MENELAOS D' hHTTON GERAROS." So it appears that Benner
takes AMFW as a nominative. This information being derived from the context,
not from morphology.
Now for my question. Does Benner think that AMFW hEZOMENW is functioning as a
nominative absolute? If we use Carl's criteria I would conclude the negative.
Because being in apposition to a nominative does not in my mind make sense
with an adverbial function.
Please pardon my obvious confusion here. That is why I ask these questions on
the list.
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:55 EDT