New Approaches to Greek Particles: Proceedings of the Colloquium Held in Amsterdam, January 4-6, 1996, to Honor C. J. Ruigh on the Occasion of His ... Studies in Greek Philology Series, 7) 9050630979, 9789050630979

Citation preview

NEW APPROACHES TO GREEK PARTICLES

AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY EDITORS

ALBERT RIJKSBARON IRENE J.P. DE JONG

HARM PINKSTER

VOLUME SEVEN

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED

1. A. Rijksbaron, Grammatical Observations on Euripides' Bacchae. 1991. 2. R. Risselada, Imperatives and other Directive Expressions in Latin. A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. 1993.

3. G. Wakker, Conditions and Conditionals. An Investigation of Ancient Greek.

1994. C. Kroon, Discourse Particles in Latin. A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. 1995. 5. H. Dik, Word Order in Ancient Greek. A Pragmatic Account of Word Order Variation in Herodotus. 1995. 6. J.E. v.d. Veen. The Significant and the Insignificant. Five Studies in Herodotus' View of History. 1996. 4.

NEW APPROACHES TO GREEK PARTICLES PROCEEDINGS OF THE COLLOQUIUM HELD IN AMSTERDAM, JANUARY 4-6, 1996, TO HONOUR C.J. RUIJGH ON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT

EDITED BY

ALBERT RIJKSBARON

J.C. GIEBEN. PUBLISHER AMSTERDAM 1997

No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in The Netherlands / ISBN 90 5063 097 9

PREFACE

On December 1, 1995 Kees Ruijgh retired from the University of Amsterdam, after a long and fruitful career devoted to the study of Greek, first as a junior researcher and teacher, and from 1969 as professor of Greek linguistics. During his career, a great variety of subjects attracted his scholarly attention, for which the reader may be referred to the 'Avant-propos' of Ruijgh's Scripta Minora I, and to the 'Bibliographie complete' printed in Scripta Minora II. Among these subjects, the Greek particles take a place of honour. We need only mention here his monumental Autour de re epique of 1971, which, besides many other things, is an in-depth study of -re and related particles. So when the Department of Classical Philology started organizing a colloquium in his honour and was looking for a general theme for this meeting, it seemed to us that the particles were a particularly suitable subject, the more so because they have been rather neglected since the publication of Denniston's The Greek Particles, a verdict which does not apply to, say, verbal aspect, to name only one other suitable subject. The colloquium took place in Amsterdam on January, 4-6 1996, and brought together some fourteen speakers, representing five different European countries and several academic generations. Two lectures presented at the colloquium are absent from the present book, since-much to their regret-Fran~oise Letoublon (Grenoble) and Michael Meier-Brugger (Hamburg/Berlin), due to other obligations, were not able to send in a worked-out version of their lecture. It is our pleasure to thank a number of institutions and persons for their support. Financially, the colloquium was made possible by grants from the Faculty of Arts and the Institute of Mediterranean Studies of the University of Amsterdam, the Amsterdam University Association, the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Publisher, J.C. Gieben. Organizing the colloquium would have been far more difficult without the untiring efforts of Ruijgh's former student, Hotze Mulder. The Introduction has much benefited from the criticism by Irene de Jong and Rodie Risselada. It will be generally agreed that Kees Ruijgh, to use one of his own favourite phrases, 'a bien merite de la linguistique grecque'. We hope that the collection of articles assembled in the present book will be up to his merits. Amsterdam, November 1997

Albert Rijksbaron

CONTENTS

Preface ......................................................................................................................... v ALBERT RIJKSBARON

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 YVESDUHOUX

Gree ecrit et grec parle. Une etude contrastive des particules aux Ve-IVe siecles ....... 15 ANNA MORPURGO DAVIES

Particles in Greek Epigraphical Texts. The Case of Arcadian ................................... 49 LOUIS BASSET

'AU' El;,6A.Ota0' m'.mp 1Coa~. Reexamen des emplois de aUci a la lumiere de l'enonciation dans les Grenouilles d'Aristophane .................................................... 75 S.R. SLINGS

Adversative Relators Between PUSH and POP ....................................................... 101 BERNARD JACQUINOD

Sur le role pragmatique de Kai-tot ........................................................................... 131 A. MARIA VAN ERP TAALMAN KIP ii yap in Questions .................................................................................................. 151 C.M.J. SICKING

Particles in Questions in Plato ................................................................................ 157 IRENE J.F. DE JONG

rap Introducing Embedded Narratives ................................................................... 175 ALBERT RIJKSBARON

Adverb or Connector? The Case of Kat ...

oe......................................................... 187

GERRY W AKKER

Emphasis and Affirmation. Some Aspects of µTJv in Tragedy ................................ 209 INEKE SLUITER

Parapleromatic Lucubrations .................................................................................. 233 PAUL WATHELET

Les particules Ke(v) et av dans les formules de l'epopee homerique ..................... 247 F.M.J W AANDERS

Particulars of Some Proto-Indo-European Particles ............................................... 269 Indices .................................................................................................................... 275

INTRODUCTION ALBERT RIJKSBARON Universiteit van Amsterdam

'articles, particles, prepositions, auxiliaries ... act as policemen and direct each of the other words to its proper place in the brain of the hearer so as to facilitate orderly understanding• -Otto Jespersen

In the early 19th century, the city of London was the first city to have public gaslighting. As a result, one school of historians claims, it took a considerable time before it got electric light. This process is regarded as a prime example of the workings of the so-called 'Law of the Retarding Lead'. In 1934 Denniston's epoch-making The Greek Particles appeared.I It was especially after the publication of the second edition, in 1954, which contained an invaluable index locorum (due to his wife), that 'Denniston' became one of the indispensable tools of the Greek scholar. I submit that most, nay all, Greek scholars, if they were allowed to take just ten professional books to the proverbial deserted island, would include Denniston, together with Kiihner-Gerth and Liddell-ScottJones. The book was so good, in fact, and so much ahead of what was done for other languages, that it acquired the position of London's gas-lighting: in Greek linguistics Denniston's monograph simply became the standard reference book, and for a long time there must have been a widespread feeling that improving upon his treatment was not feasible and a waste of time. At least, this can be gathered from the omnipresence of his name in commentaries, often in the form of simple references, and from the surprisingly small number of detailed particle studies published after 1934 up to the seventies.2 The excellence of The Greek Particles resides mainly in the choice and the discussion of the examples. In fact, on encountering a particle which arrests our atten1 Incidentally, it is worth noticing that in 1950 a book by C.D. Anderson appeared, entitled 'The Elementary Particles of Physics'. Some twenty years earlier the outlines of this new branch of physics had become visible, but in 1950 apparently both 'elementary' and 'physics' still had to be added to make clear what kind of particles the book was about. I shall resist the temptation of ascribing this fact to the publication, also in the thirties, of Denniston's Particles, but there can be no doubt that in the thirties and forties the word 'particle' primarily still had a linguistic sense. Nowadays 'particle' simply stands for 'elementary particle'. as appears e.g. from a publication like Megascience: Particle Physics, published in 1995. (Not that the presence of 'Megascience' would have induced us to believe that the particles of language were concerned.) 2 Ruijgh's Autour de TE epique, published in 1971, was the first major monograph on Greek particles since 'Denniston•.

2

ALBERT RIJKSBARON

tion, we all tend, I think, to look up in the index whether Denniston discusses that particular instance, and feel satisfied when he does, the more so because he usually provides us with a sensible and sensitive remark. And fortunately he discusses an incredible number of instances; as he himself puts it: 'The reader should be enabled to bathe in examples' (Preface to the first edition, p. vi; italics Denniston). While the 'fast food' use of Denniston undoubtedly accelerates our reading-pace, things are less simple when it comes to finding the precise meaning and the syntactic function of a given particle, especially in particle combinations. On this count, The Greek Particles is all too often disappointing and inadequate. A typical illustration of this inadequacy is a statement like the following: 'On the other hand, Bliumlein, Kiihner, and others deny that yap in yap is ever causal, and interpret it everywhere as "adverbial".' (p. 100). Apparently for Denniston 'causal' and 'adverbial' exclude each other. Strange though this opinion may seem, it is in line with Denniston's use of 'adverbial' in his Introduction; on p. xxxix he tells us that he uses 'adverbial' notably for 'particles of emphasis and nuance, since they are in most cases naturally translated by adverbs .. .' And because, for him, yap is not a particle of 'emphasis and nuance', it cannot be an adverb in the combination a'),.).,a yap. In the last resort, it remains unclear what is the status of yap in this combination. Similar problems concerning the syntactic status of particles are involved in a number of other combinations, e.g. Kat. (... ) yap and Kai ( ... ) 6£. This, in turn, is presumably connected with the fact that Denniston discusses such combinations in an in itself consistent, but nevertheless rather peculiar way; thus, all combinations of Kai are discussed under the other particle involved (Kat (... ) yap under yap, Kal ( ... ) 6e under 6e, etc.). Probably as a result, Denniston never investigates systematically the function of Kai (and thus that of the other particle) in these combinations. That Denniston sometimes must have felt quite helpless, when confronted with syntactic problems, is apparent from a note on page xliii: 'The line between connectives and non-connectives cannot be rigidly drawn. Thus ouv in Homer, although it has not yet developed a connective function, shows in µev ouv a tendency to develop one. ye, and in a more marked degree µev ye, mitigate to some extent the harshness of an asyndeton : while youv in the 'part-proof usage is almost a full connective. µev, again, occasionally appears to have a quasi-connective force.' (Italics A.R.). One hopes there is some room for greater exactness, here. On the syntactic side, then, much remains to be done. Needless to say, syntactic refinements are inseparable from refinements on the semantic and, I should add, on the pragmatic side. As to the latter branch of linguistics, over the past twenty years much work has been done concerning other languages than Greek, and chances are that this work may shed some new, 'electric', light on the Greek particles. At least, that is the assumption underlying six of the articles collected in this volume (those by Basset, Slings, Jacquinod, Sicking, Rijksbaron and Wakker). 3 The 'New Approaches' mentioned in the title of this book are, then, for a large part pragmatically oriented

au.a

3 Needless to say, the degree to which these authors subscribe to the approaches mentioned below

may vary.

INTRODUCTION

3

approaches. Within these approaches two main directions can be discerned, that are connected with the names of the discourse analysts E. Roulet, who initiated the socalled 'Geneva model', and 0. Ducrot.4 By a happy coincidence, their work and that of their followers has recently been summarized and integrated in the thesis of Caroline Kroon on Latin discourse particles; she has added, moreover, a number of insights of her own. I shall therefore briefly describe those elements of Roulet's, Kroon's, and Ducrot's work that have been used to a greater or lesser degree by the authors mentioned above, and that to my mind are of special interest for a satisfactory study of the pragmatics of particles. These are: Kroon's 'descriptive model of discourse' (mainly to be found in Chapter 4 of her thesis. In the present collection of articles this model is used most extensively by Wakker), and Ducrot's argumentation theory, which is represented notably by Basset. Following Roulet, Kroon assumes that every discourse is not just a series of linearly ordered speech acts, but consists of hierarchically ordered units. To ensure a successful communicative act, these units in some way or other must cohere. Particles are an important means to signal coherence. A further assumption is that coherence is established at three different discourse levels: the representational, the presentational, and the interactional level. The first relates to the world as it is represented through language. While particles as such, unlike e.g. nouns and verbs, do not refer to this world (have no referential meaning), they may function as devices to connect the various entities and events that make up the represented world, indicating that they semantically belong together. Some Greek examples are aUa and Kai (in their connective use). The presentational level concerns the ways in which a speaker organizes, or 'stages', to use Kroon's term, the information he wants to communicate to the hearer. Particles operating at this level divide the discourse into central and peripheral units, mark explanatory and digressive units, help the hearer keep track in the discourse, briefly, guide the hearer through the discourse. 5 Greek examples are ouv and 6£. Finally, the interactional level concerns the ways in which the, cognitive and emotional, relationship between a hearer and a speaker in a particular communicative situation is shaped. Particles at this level involve notably the attitudinal (also called modal) particles, i.e. particles that specify the attitude of the speaker with regard to the information he is proffering, e.g. his commitment to its truth, or his belief that this information is of special interest for the hearer. Greek examples are 1tou 'perhaps', and 'tOt 'I assure you that, you take it from me that'. Following, and slightly modifying, Ducrot, Basset distinguishes four constitutive elements in any speech act: a) elements that are presupposed, b) the discourse theme, which must have been agreed upon by both speaker and hearer, c) elements that are posited ('le pose'), also called rhematic elements (new information), and d) elements 4 For bibliographical details I refer to the the articles by Basset, Slings and Wakker. 5 To avoid a possible misunderstanding, I should add that units that in some way are relaled at the presentational level, will normally, of course, also be relaled at the representational level. Thus, while Greek 6t marks a new discourse unit, this unit is related qua content with the previous unit(s).

4

ALBERT RIJKSBARON

that are not overtly present in the 'posited' elements but are understood or hinted at ('le sous-entendu'). Ducrot and his collaborators have used this speech act model with considerable success in analysing e.g. French mais, and Basset, and to a lesser extent Jacquinod, follow their lead in their analyses of all.a and Kai-cot. The 'newness' of the approaches brought together in this book is by no means confined, however, to pragmatics. This is amply demonstrated by the articles of Duhoux and Morpurgo Davies that open the book. In 'Gree ecrit et grec parle', Yves DUH0UX has undertaken the rather formidable task of investigating in great detail, and supported by a full statistical apparatus, the distribution of the most frequent particles across the various genres and authors and, more importantly, across the various types of discourse, with the emphasis on dialogic as against non-dialogic discourse. His point of departure is the wide-spread belief, which for some is rather a near-certainty, that in everyday speech particles were far more common than in the written language, and that this situation is reflected in the dialogic parts of Greek literature. As Denniston puts it (p. lxxii): 'It cannot be doubted that Greek conversation was full of particles: at moments of excitement and emotional tension the dialogue of tragedy and comedy fairly bristles with them.' Note that Denniston here, in a rather amazing move, simply equates 'conversation' with 'the dialogue of tragedy and comedy', the-implicit-assumption being that the dialogue of drama contains more particles than the rest of our texts. Some pages further down (p. lxxv) he restates this opinion ('I have observed that Greek drama reproduces, as far as one can tell, the free use of particles in everyday speech') and adds: 'Particles are on the whole, I think, more often employed in comedy than in tragedy.' One of the important findings of Duhoux, based upon a thorough comparison of a corpus consisting of Plato's Meno, Apology of Socrates and Protagoras, Xenophon's Symposium, Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae and Sophocles' Oedipus at Co/onus, is that, on the contrary, particles, taken as a whole, are less frequent in the spoken parts of his corpus. In his own words (p. 39): ' ... ii est sans doute inexact de penser que les particules etaient specialement frequentes dans la langue parlee. C'est !'inverse qui est probablement vrai: !es particules etaient davantage utilisees l'ecrit.' He sees a confirmation of this conclusion in the fact that the dialogic parts of Xenophon's Symposium contain less particles than the non-dialogic parts. Duhoux has also found that a number of particles are always more frequent in non-dramatic texts, among them the coordinating conjunctions Tl, Kai and µtv. This, in tum, suggests that in drama asyndeton is more frequent than in the other text-types; as a consequence the language of everyday speech, if it is, indeed, reflected in that of drama, must also have used asyndeton on a large scale. As to the belief that particles are more frequent in comedy than in tragedy, this, too, proves to be incorrect: there is no significant difference, neither in the dialogic nor in the non-dialogic parts, between the Thesmophoriazusae and the Oedipus at

a

Co/onus.

INTRODUCTION

5

The lesson to be learned from Duhoux' investigation is that one should not treat the Greek particles as a monolithic block: general statements like 'particles occur more frequently in the spoken parts of Greek texts' should be avoided, and be replaced by statements like 'the particles x, y and z are more frequent ... ' etc. Also, the idea that drama is especially suited to give us an insight into the language of everyday speech lacks a solid foundation. I am even inclined to believe-but Duhoux would perhaps not share my view-that the very idea that spoken language can be extrapolated from Greek in its written form, has to be abandoned. In her article 'Particles in Greek Epigraphical Texts', Anna MORPURGO DAVIES takes issue with another common belief, of an equally generalizing nature, namely that 'Greek is unbelievably rich in particles.' Denniston, for instance, writes that '[d]ifferences in dialect play a certain part, but ... perhaps a rather smaller part than we should have expected' (p. lxx). Having observed that Denniston here only has literary dialects in mind, Morpurgo Davies breaks new ground by focusing on the use, and indeed the very existence, of particles in inscriptions in general and in Arcadian inscriptions in particular. She notes at the outset that 'outside literature most particles are not attested or are badly attested.' Thus, in a corpus of 500 verse-inscriptions written before 400 BC 'only Kai, OE and 'T£ or 'T£ ... Kai occur reasonably frequently' (p. 51). Arcadian presents a similar picture; here, only Ka9'Kai and OE occur with some frequency. After a discussion of Ka9'Kai she arrives at the conclusion that the form Kai is probably a borrowing from other dialects. This is an important conclusion, since it invalidates another common belief, viz. that particles are a closed class, which can only change, if at all, under internal, not under external influence. The bulk of her paper is devoted to the function(s) of OE in the Arcadian inscriptions. Making use of the pragmatic notions developed by E. Bakker, she observes that OE gradually turned from a 'seriously' adversative particle, as she puts it, into a 'transitive' or 'continuative' particle that serves to establish cohesion in a text, while at the same time marking thematic and other shifts, a function well-known from other texts. Now the earlier exclusively adversative value is something of an oddity, especially in view of the fact that in Mycenaean the 'transitive' use is already well-established. She proposes an explanation by arguing that in early Arcadian OE contrasted systematically with asyndeton: because asyndeton marked the transition to another topic in a neutral way, oe could acquire a 'clearly polarized adversative value' (p. 67). She further argues that the change to the 'continuative' function was, again, largely due to external influence. In her conclusion she defends her emphasizing the role of interdialectal borrowings by pointing to recent studies of living languages, that show that such a procedure definitely has to be reckoned with. The paper by Louis BASSET is the first of a trio that deals with adversative relations. Taking the seminal work of Oswald Ducrot on French mais as his starting point, he investigates all uses of o.Ua (with the exception, though, of adverbial o.Ua and combinations like ou µriv alla) in Aristophanes' Frogs, his ultimate goal being to

6

ALBERT RIJKSBARON

au.a

show that is semantically uniform, and that the differences result from the variety of the elements preceding cv..M. As noted above, Basset distinguishes four constitutive elements in any speech act; for convenience' sake I repeat them here. There are: a) elements that are presupposed, b) the discourse theme, which must have been agreed upon by both speaker and hearer, c) elements that are posited ('le pose'), also called rhematic elements (new information), and d) elements that are not overtly present in the 'posited' elements but are understood or hinted at ('le sous-entendu'). Making use of the familiar P and Q symbols, Basset argues that in many cases of 'P OA.MX Q', OA.MX marks a break in the discourse, by correcting one of the four elements mentioned above, in as much as this is present in P, and substituting Q for P. Q corrects, then, either a discourse theme, or a presupposed element, or a posited element, or, finally, a sous-entendu. By way of illustration I present here one of his examples illustrating the correction of a presupposed element: (Ran. 1130) Dion. 'As-tu un reproche a faire aces vers?' Eur. 'Plus de douze!' Dion. 'AU" oooe 1tavta mu'ta y· ecrt' i\ 'tpia. Here, Dionysus points out that having more than twelve points of criticism clashes with the presupposition that there are only three lines involved. In other words, Euripides is invited to revise the presupposition underlying his utterance In the remainder of his paper Basset discusses various constructions of aUa that do not involve a 'discursive break', notably the frequent use after a negation, as in OU 1Ca't' e1to; ye CJOU ICVtCJ(I) 'tO p11µ' ... , CV..MJ. ... am'> A.TIICU8iou ... 'tou; 1tpowyo~ aia~pro (1200). He also comes back in some detail on the, rather elusive, corrections of a sous-entendu (as in 'He is small but strong', the sous-entendu being 'He is weak'). 6 On the basis of his analyses he concludes that aA.MX should be considered a corrective, rather than an adversative, conjunction.

au·

Basset's article is followed by that of S.R. SLINGS, who investigates adversative particles in stretches of continuous discourse, rather than in dialogue, as in Basset's paper. Taking Herodotus' Histories as his corpus, he seeks to show, firstly, that in such stretches, where the main story is often interrupted by embedded stories (or sequences), these embedded sequences can be identified by means of the particles concerned (aA.MX, 1Cai'tot and µtv'tot), and, secondly, that these particles each have an identifying function of their own. For his analysis he makes use of the hierarchical discourse model of the Geneva school of Roulet (see above), which is supplemented with the PUSH and POP concepts that have been developed by Polanyi and Scha. PUSH Markers typically signal the creation of a new embedded discourse constituent, while POP Markers signal a return to an embedding constituent. A third, and more traditional, distinction used by Slings is that of relationships de re and de dicto. Compare e.g. the adversative relationship in 'The dress is not red but green' (de re) 6 I should add here that this semantic phenomenon is also discussed in the papers by Slings and Rijksbaron; unfortunately the terminology-as often-differs, Slings' term for 'sous-entendu' being 'expectation' (cf. p. 106), and that of Rijksbaron 'implication' (p. 189). Much as harmonization seems desirable, a discussion of the pro's and con's of these terms would fall outside the scope of this introduction.

INTRODUCTION

7

and 'You look awful, but we're not here to talk about your health. How's your work?' (de dicto ). In Greek, aUa is found in the same functions as but here, both within the sentence and at the level of larger stretches of discourse. To illustrate Slings' approach I present here one of his examples, Hdt. 4.32, a de re relation with an embedded sequence marked by PUSHes: T7tEpJ\optmv 6e 1tEpt ... Om£ n I:icu0at Atyo001. ... O'U'tE 'ttVE~ ciU.Ot 't'OOV 'tai'.m.1 oiic11µtvcov, PUSH ei µ11 cipa 'la nd d> nd

LA

24

YVESDUHOUX

'VE

54

38

vouv 6t

2 176

3

NC

42 5

251

non

35

oui

d > nd

611 6im:ou 6-frta

ii

n

2

0

85

85

oui

2

NC

d >nd

8

oui

d < nd

oui oui

d nd

11.:ai

371

655

1

2

n~v

66 14

5

1m6e llTIV IITl't£

d>nd

NC NC

2

lCO\.t'Ot 11 ;,V'tOt

oui

1

5 0

132 5 0 7

NC

NC NC NC

vuv

011,,v-

ou6t O'UICOUV OUkOUV OUV

O'U'tE 'tE 'tOt t'Ol.VUV

3

NC

25

non

27 74

0

68

oui oui

21 71

24 112

non non

5 5

4

2 22

3

d >nd d >nd

NC NC

2. Emploi des particules dans Platon, Protagoras, parties dialoguees ~ non dialoguees

a) Ensemble des particules ~ le reste des mots dans /es textes dialogue ~ non dialogue: 1.246 ~ 6.073 et 1.678 ~ 8.345----difference non significative. b) Nombre de particules differentes dans /es textes dialogue~ non dialogue: 27

~ 25: difference non significative. Dans ce qui suit, des caracteres gras signaleront des particules d'emploi identique dans le Menon et l'Apologie de Socrate, d'une part, et, d'autre part, dans le Protagoras. c) Particules ne differant pas de frequence dans /es textes dialogue ~ non dialogue: 7/28 («iAJ.a, au, yap, cit, ooot, O'U'tE, 'tE). d) Particules differant de frequence dans /es textes dialogue~ non dialogue: 10/28 (dpa, cipa, "fE, 6,i, ii, 11.:ai, µev, µevt"Ot, OUkOUV, ouv). Elles s'opposent comme suit:

25

GREC &:RIT ET GREC PARLE

. Frequence - . plus elevee dans les dialogues: dpa, dpa, YE, ii, i\, µevwt,

01>KOUV,OUV

Frequence plus elevee dans les parties non dialoguees: Kai, µev. Il existe de larges points communs entre le Protagoras, d'une part, et, d'autre part, le Menon et l'Apologie: ceci montre que l'emploi des particules des deux derniers textes n'a probablement ete que peu influence par des differences chronologiques ou autres.

4.3. Xenophon, Banquet Les examens anterieurs portaient tous deux sur des oeuvres de Platon. On doit done se demander si les resultats obtenus ne tiendraient pas a une particularite de cet auteur. Pour verifier cette hypothese, j'ai examine les parties dialoguees ou non d'une oeuvre de Xenophon(± 428n-± 354), le Banquet. 26 On en trouvera les resultats cidessous.

alM aoa aoa

.

OCCURRENCES

OCCURRENCES LA DIFFERENCE

SENS

EN TEXTE DIA-

EN TEXTE NON EST-ELLE

DIFFERENCE

LOGUE

DIALOGUE

EVENTUELLE

50 4 4

a1>

9

ycio

lCOttOl

51 40 3 95 32 5 1 35 6 230 0

uiv

76

UEV't'Ol

13 5 8 0 1

Ye 'YOUV

6£

n c>111tOU c>frta

n

'"

Kai

unM PTIV UT\te

vuv

39 0 1 2 54 35 7 192 19 4 0 35 1 314 2 119 7 2 25 2 0

SIGNIFICATIVE?

DE

non

NC NC oui

d > nd

non non

NC

oui

d< nd

non

NC NC

non

NC

oui

d< nd

oui

d< nd

NC

non

NC

oui

NC NC

26 Edition utilisee par le TLG: E. C. Marchant, Oxford, 1921 [reimpr. 1971].

d nd

oui

d< nd

22

0

NC

non

NC

oui oui

d> nd d< nd d< nd

NC

111

120

oui

1cai'tOL

0 19 5

1 24 1

non non

5 4

0 2 3 2

UEV'tOL

unM UTIV UTl'tE V'UV

11

oucoc 000£

O'U'tE

0 5 1 1 24 4

0 0 9 0

'tE

19

39

'tOL

7 7

4 2

O'UICO'UV O\JICO'UV 1'

O'UV

'tOlV'UV

~VENTUELLE

non

kUi

UEV

27

14

NC

NC NC non

NC oui

NC NC

d< nd

non

NC oui

NC NC

d< nd

4. Emploi des particules dans Aristophane, Thesmophories, parties dialoguees ~ non dialoguees a) Ensemble des particules ~ le reste des mots dans Les textes dialogue ~ non

dialogue: 489 ~ 3.475 et 388 ~ 2.424-difference non significative.

28

YVESDUHOUX

b) Nombre de particules differentes dans /es textes dialogue~ non dialogue: 26 ~ 22: difference non significative. c) Particules ne differant pas de frequence dans /es textes dialogue~ non dialogue:

6/29 (aUa, yap, 611, µtv, vuv, ouv). d) Particules differant de frequence dans /es textes dialogue ~ non dialogue: 7/29 (ye, 6£, 611-ra, i\, x:ai, ouoc, -re). Elles s'opposent comme suit: Frequence plus elevee dans Ies dialogues: ye, 611-ra. Frequence plus elevee dans les parties non dialoguees: 6e, i\, x:ai, oooe, -re. Dans les Thesmophories, Aristophane a des usages relativement proches de ceux de

Platon: ni la frequence totale des particules ni leur eventail ne different significativement d'apres le caractere dialogue ou non des passages. De meme, on observe des differences significatives de frequences pour une minorite de particules prises individuellement. On peut done conclure que !'usage de Xenophon (§ 4.3) lui est apparemment propre. 4.5. Sophocle, Oedipe a Colone L'examen precedent vient de nous montrer les conditions d'emploi des particules d'apres le caractere dialogue ou non du contexte chez Aristophane. On peut cependant se demander si, dans les oeuvres versifiees, Ies resultats obtenus ne seraient pas limites aux comedies. Pour verifier cette hypothese, j'ai examine Ies parties dialoguees ou non d'une oeuvre tragique, I'Oedipe a Colone de Sophocle28 (represente en 401). On en trouvera les resultats ci-dessous.

(XA,A.(l

OCCURRENCES

OCCURRENCES LA DIFFERENCE

SENS

EN TEXTE DIA-

EN TEXTE NON EST-ELLE

DIFFERENCE

LOGUE

DIALOGUE

aoa aoa .,. au

51 5 10 2

'YOO

88

'Y&

49

'YOUV

2 132 9

6E 6n 6im:ou 011-ra

ii

11

13 29 16

41 2 5 4 57 18 0 126 7

SIGNIFICATIVE?

DE

EVENTUELLE

non

NC

non

NC

non

oui

NC

d> nd

non non

3 24

oui

1

oui

d > nd

non

28 Edition utilis&: par le TLG: A. Dain-P. Mazon, Paris, 1960 [reimpr. 1967).

LA

d > nd

29

GREC ~CRIT ET GREC PARL~

Kai

Kai-rot UEV UEV'tOt unoe unv UTl't£

vuv oumc: 000& O'UKOUV O'UKOUV ouv om&

.

155 1

142 3

35 0

47

11

7 5 5 4

3 7 2 10 3 3

18

28

2

2

10

4

'tE

8 45

22 58

-rot -roivuv

9 1

0

7

5. Emploi des particules dans Sophocle, Oedipe non dialoguees

non NC oui NC non NC non NC NC oui NC non oui oui non

d< nd

d< nd

d < nd d< nd

NC

a Colone, parties dialoguees ~

a) Ensemble des particules ~ le reste des mots dans les textes dialogue ~ non dialogue: 722 ~ 4.834 et 629 - 4.193--difference non significative. b) Nombre de particules differentes dans les textes dialogue~ non dialogue: 27 ~

26: difference non significative. c) Particules ne differant pas de frequence dans les textes dialogue ~ non dialogue: 11/28 (aAMX, apa, yap, OE, 011, Tl, Kai, µ11oe, µ11-re, ouv, -rot). d) Particules differant de frequence dans les textes dialogue~ non dialogue: 7/28 (ye, 011-ra, ~. µtv, ouoe, ou-re, -rE). Elles s'opposent comme suit: Frequence plus elevee dans les dialogues: ye, 011-ra, h Frequence plus elevee dans les parties non dialoguees: µtv, ouoe, ou-rE, 'tE. L'Oedipe a Colone de Sophocle a des usages comparables a ceux des Thesmophories d' Aristophane. II n 'y a de difference significative d'apres le caractere dialogue ou non des passages ni dans la frequence totale des particules ni dans leur eventail. Par ailleurs, on observe des differences significatives de frequences pour une minorite de particules prises individuellement. Ces caracteristiques s'observent done dans les vers tant de comedie que de tragedie, de meme que dans la prose de Platon.

30

YVES DUHOUX

4.6. Conclusion Le caractere dialogue ou non des textes ales consequences suivantes sur l 'emploi des particules (les remarques ci-dessous ne mettent en jeu que les cas ou le est calculable).

x2

4.6.1. II n'a aucune influence perceptible sur l'eventail des particules.29 4.6.2. Les parties dialoguees n'ont pas davantage de particules que les autres--et Xenophon presente meme le phenomene inverse, avec moins de particules dans les dialogues qu'ailleurs. Ceci va a l'encontre des avis donnes plus haut (§ 3.2) sur la predilection qu'auraient Ies particules pour les parties dialoguees. 4.6.3. Cette symetrie apparente dissimule toutefois une realite infiniment plus complexe. En effet, alors que la moitie des emplois des particules soot indifferents au caractere dialogue ou non du contexte (47/87), l'autre moitie yest, elle, sensible (40/87). Et dans cette demiere, ii existe des tendances opposees: 21 emplois sont plus frequents dans les dialogues, contre 19 ailleurs. L'uniformite des frequences globales resulte done de l'equilibre entre ces mouvements divers. La complexite des processus en jeu est d'ailleurs encore plus grande qu'il semble, car le profil de chaque particule est loin d'etre toujours regulier. La moitie d'entre elles peuvent etre utilisees de fa~on differenciee et indifferenciee (15/30). II y a plus: lorsque des particules sont differenciees, elles le soot presque toujours dans le meme sens, mais ii en existe deux ou la differenciation s'opere en sens opposes: ii et µiJv. Aucune particule n'est d'ailleurs differenciee dans tous ses emplois; 30 et il n'y en a qu'une seule qui soit toujours indifferenciee: ii s'agit d'aUa, qui semble done la moins sensible au caractere dialogue ou non du contexte. 31 Ces irregularites ne tiennent visiblement pas a des differences entre auteurs, puisqu'elles s'observent dans les oeuvres de Platon examinees: 7 particules sur les 17 ou le x2 est calculable y ont des emplois variables (yap, BiJ, ii, µev, µevi-ot, ouv, OU'tE). 32

Une partie importante des particules a done un comportement etonnamment changeant. On en retire le sentiment que le choix de la frequence de bon nombre d' entre el/es pourrait, en definitive, etre largement arbitraire: ii ne tiendrait pas necessairement a leur fonction, mais au desir de }'auteur de les utiliser pour caracteriser leurs contextes. 29 Rappelons toutefois que Jes syntagmes de particules n'ont pas ete pris en compte en tant que tels dans notre etude (§ 3.3). 30 Mais ii y en a deux qui ont des emplois differencies dans quatre comparaisons sur cinq: YE et

Kai. 31 Ceci ne signifie evidemment pas qu'elle ne pourrait pas differer dans d'autres echantillons.

Signalons que trois particules ont des emplois indifferencies dans quatre comparaisons (mais pas dans la cinquieme!): yap, 6,; et ouv. 32 On verra que ces divergences sont du meme ordre que celles qui s'observent d'auteur aauteur(§ 8.1).

GREC ECRIT ET GREC PARLE

31

4.6.4. Bien que largement arbitraires, les frequences des particules sont employees dans un but precis. Dans chaque oeuvre, elles servent aconstituer un noyau restreint de particules (de sept adix) opposant les parties dialoguees aux autres. Leur liste est la suivante (entre parentheses: le nombre d'emplois differencies): Particules plus frequentes dans les parties dialoguees: apa (2 ex.), apa (2 ex.), au (1 ex.), YE (4 ex.), 011 (1 ex.), Of\·ta (2 ex.),~ (1 ex.), µev-rot (1 ex.), ouicouv (3 ex.), ouv (1 ex.), i-oivuv (1 ex.). Particules plus frequentes dans les parties non dialoguees: yap (1 ex.), ot (2 ex.), icai (4 ex.), µev (3 ex.), ouot (2 ex.), om£ (2 ex.), 'tE (3 ex.). Particules plus frequentes dans les parties dialoguees et non dialoguees: (chaque fois 1 ex.).

ii, µ11v

En ce qui concerne les usages decrits par Denniston comme propres aux textes dialogues (§ 3.2), les resultats de notre etude sont les suivants: - pour~. la forte preference pour le dialogue attribuee exclusivement ala prose n'est pas verifiable a cause du trop petit nombre d'exemples; en revanche, le phenomene est bel et bien atteste en vers (Oedipe a Colone). - pour i-ot, ii semble inexact que la particule soit specialement utilisee dans les dialogues. En effet, la frequence de i-ot est si faible que la difference entre textes dialogues ou non n'est pas evaluable par le x,2 dans quatre comparaisons sur cinq. Et dans la cinquieme, elle n'est pas significative. - pour i-oivuv, qui serait de loin plus frequente dans les dialogues, le jugement semble trop absolu. Dans une des deux comparaisons appreciables par le x, 2 , i-oivuv est effectivement plus frequente dans les dialogues, mais dans l'autre, sa difference d'emploi n'est pas significative.

5. Particules et textes sceniques 5.1. Les particules dans les textes sceniques

~

non sceniques

On vient de voir que la frequence des particules contribue a opposer les textes dialogues ou non. Mais un autre facteur ne pourrait-il pas avoir aussi influence leur emploi, a savoir le caractere scenique ou non des oeuvres? II est tentant de repondre positivement a cette question, puisque le theatre a precisement pour ambition de restituer la vie reelle dans une mesure superieure a celle des autres oeuvres (voir § 6.3). Sans aller aussi loin que Denniston, pour qui 'Greek drama reproduces, as far as one can tell, the free use of particles in everyday speech, ' 33 on pourrait penser que les textes sceniques seraient plus proches de l'oral que les autres. 33 Denniston, lxxv.

YVESDUHOUX

32

Il se fait que les releves effectues plus haut revelent une propriete qui ne semble pas encore ete signalee jusqu'ici: les pieces de theatre ant une proportion de particules significativement inferieure acelles de taus les autres textes. Ceci vaut d'abord pour les pourcentages globaux des particules dans nos oeuvres de reference:

textes non sceniques: Platon, Menon/Apologie de Socrate: 16,83 % (3.080/18.299); 34 Platon, Protagoras: 16,86 % (2.924/17.342); Xenophon, Banquet: 18,31 % (l.726/9.424);35 textes sceniques: Aristophane, Thesmophories: 12,94 % (877/6.776); Sophocle, Oedipe a Colone: 13,02 % (1.351/10.378). La meme constatation s'applique aux passages dialogues ou non de ces oeuvres. Le tableau 6 permet de confronter les deux pieces de theatre avec leurs correspondants non sceniques. Le resultat de chaque comparaison se trouve dans la zone constituant l 'intersection des corpus compares. Platon,

Platon,

Platon,

Platon,

Menon

Apologie

Prot. dial.

Prot. non Banquet

Xenophon,

Banquet

(dial.)

(non dial.)

dial.

non dial.

dial.

Xenophon,

Aristophane, Thesm. dial.

*Plat.> Ar. *Plat.>Ar. *Plat.>Ar. *Plat. >Ar. *Xen.>Ar. *Xen.>Ar.

Aristophane,

*

Thesm. non Plat. >Ar. dial. Sophocle, O.C. dial.

*Plat. >Ar. *Plat.> Ar. *Plat.> Ar. *Xen.>Ar. *Xen.>Ar.

*Plat.> S. *Plat.>S.

Sophocle, O.C. non Plat.> S. dial.

*

*Plat.> S.

*Plat.> S.

*Plat.> S.

*Xen. >S.

*Xen.>S.

*Plat.> S.

*Plat.> S.

*Xen. >S.

*Xen.> S.

6. Comparaison de l'emploi des particules dans les parties dialoguees ~ non dialoguees des oeuvres sceniques ~ non sceniques

34 Ces deux oeuvres sont regroupees de maniere ll fournir une repartition entre parties dialoguees ou non comparable aux autres corpus. 35 Xenophon a un nombre significativement plus grand de particules que tous Jes autres corpus. Nous y reviendrons plus loin (§ 8.2).

GREC ECRIT ET GREC PARLE

33

A cote de ces differences quantitatives tres nettes, la situation qualitative est la suivante en matiere d'eventail des particules utilisees dans les textes sceniques ou non: 36 Aristophane et Sophocle ont respectivement 29 et 28 particules differentes, contre 30 dans le Menon et l'Apologie, 28 dans le Protagoras et 30 dans le Banquet de Xenophon. Sophocle ne difrere significativement d'aucun des trois corpus en prose. En revanche, Aristophane a un choix de particules significativement plus etendu que le Menon/l'Apologie et que le Protagoras; il ne difrere toutefois pas du Banquet. 5.2. Les particules dans les textes versifies sceniques ~ non sceniques On doit se demander si la difference qui oppose les pieces de theatre aux autres oeuvres ne pourrait pas tenir non pas a leur caractere scenique, mais a leur forme versijiee. En vue de verifier cette hypothese, j'ai cherche a comparer la frequence des particules des pieces de theatre avec des textes versifies non sceniques d'auteurs attiques. En fait, le seul corpus disponible de taille suffisante me semble etre celui des poemes de Solon (fin du vne s.-debut Vie s.).37 On trouvera ci-dessous le tableau des particules soloniennes (pour la procedure utilisee, voir § 3.3). NOMBRE D'OCCURRENCES

S

-:1:-DS


s

-:1:-DS

'I:- ns

>s

-:1:-DS

-:1:-DS

>

-:1:-DS

NC

NC

S

=

NC NC

=

NC

NC

S >S

>

S

>S

= = = = -:1:-DS -:1:-DS

NC

>S >S

>S

-:1:-DS

S

>

S

-:1:-DS

>S

>S

-:1:-DS

-:1:-DS

NC NC

>

S

=

NC -:1:-DS

NC -:1:-DS

NC

=

=

-:1:-DS

>S >s -:1:-DS > S =

-:1:-DS

-:1:-ns

= = =

NC

* ns > s =

NC

NC

NC NC NC NC NC

=

-:1:-DS

* ns < s

=

NC NC

-:1:-DS

=

= = = =

>S
S

36

YVESDUHOUX

I

'tot 'tOiVUV

NC

;t

;t

ns < s ns < s

;t

ns < s

8. Comparaison de l'emploi des particules dans les Thesmophories d'Aristophane et les corpus non sceniques a) Ensemble des particules ~ le reste des mots dans /es textes scenique ~ non scenique: voir § 5.1. b) Nombre de particules differentes dans /es textes scenique ~ non scenique: voir §

5.1. c) Particules ne differant pas defrequence dans /es textes scenique ~ non scenique:

Menon et Apologie: 13/30 (au.a, &pa, &pa, au, yap, ye, 0£, ori1tou, µev'tOt, µri'te, O'\.IOE, 'tE, 'tOivuv). Protagoras: 8/30 (O.A.Afl, apa, apa, au, yap, µEV'tOt, O'\.IOE, 'tE). Banquet: 11/30 (aU.0, au, yap, youv, µEV'tOt, 0'\.10£, OUV, O'U'tE, 'tE, 'tOivuv). d) Particules differant de frequence dans /es textes scenique ~ non scenique: Menon et Apologie: 8/30 (ori, 011Ta, ii, Kai, µev, oi>Kouv, ouv, ou'te). Protagoras: 11/29 (ye, OE, Ori, ii, Kai, µev, O'\.IKO'UV, OUV, OU'tE, 'tOt, 'tOivuv). Banquet: 11/30 (apa, 6£, ori, 011'ta, ii, Kai, µev, µriv, vuv, oi>Kouv, wt). Ces demieres particules s'opposent comme suit: Frequence plus elevee a la scene: Menon et Apologie: 011m

Protagoras: ye, 'tOt, wivuv. Banquet: &pa, Oll'ta, vuv, 'tOt.

Frequence plus elevee dans les oeuvres non sceniques: Menon et Apo/ogie: ori, ii, Kai, µev, O'\.IKO'UV, ouv, O'U'tE.

Protagoras:Oe,ori,ii,Kai,µev,O'\.IKO'UV,OUV,O'U'tE. Banquet:&, ori, ii, Kai, µev, µriv, oi>Kouv. PLATON,

PLATON,

MENON E T

PROTAGORAS

XENOPHON, BANQUEf

APOLOGIE

a)..M aoa aoa au 'YOO 'YE 'YO'UV 6£

= ;t

= =

ns > s

= = = ;t

ns < s ;t ns > s

= = ;t

ns > s ns < s

;t

;t

NC

NC

;t

ns < s

=

=

= = =

ns < s

:;!:OS> S

;t

ns > s

37

GREC ~CRIT ET GREC PARL~

on

OMOU Of\'t'a

n n

Kai

Kai't'Ot U£V IIF.V't'Ot unot UTIV UTltE vuv oucoc Ot>OE O'UKOUV Ot>KOUV ... ouv O'UtE 't'E 't'ot 't'Oivuv

* ns > s :;t!:DS :;t!:

ns

* ns * ns :;t!:

= :;t!: :;t!:

*

= =

ns

> < > < >

S

s s s s

ns > s ns > s ns < s

NC

= =

NC :;!: ns > s ns > s

* ns > s NC

:;t!:DS :;t!:DS :;t!:DS :;t!:DS

S S

NC :;t!: ns > s ns > s

*

s

=

ns > s NC :;!: ns > s :;,!:

:;!:OS> S :;!:

ns < s

* ns > s ns < s NC

:;!:

=

:;!:

S ns > s

*

>s >s s

ns NC :;!: ns ns :;!: ns

= :;!:

ns < s ns > s

9. Comparaison de l'emploi des particules dans l'Oedipe aColone de Sophocle et les corpus non sceniques a) Ensemble des particules - le reste des mots dans /es textes scenique - non sceniques: voir § 5.1. b) Nombre de particules differentes dans /es textes scenique - non sceniques: voir §

5.1. c) Particules ne differant pas de frequence dans /es textes scenique - non sceniques:

Menon et Apologie: 9/30 (aUa, &pa, au, Kai't'Ot, µ,;v, µ,;'t'E, oµroOE, ow). Protagoras: 7/30 (aUa, apa, apa, YE, OE, ow, tE). Banquet: 8/30 (aAMX, apa, au, yap, YE,~. oµroKOUV, O'UV, 't'E, 't'Ot, wivuv). Protagoras: 16/30 (au, yap, 0Tt, Oll't'a, ii,~. Kai, µEV, µEV't'Ot, µ116£, µitv, µit't'E, Ot>OE, Ot>KOUV, O'UV, 't'Ot). Banquet: 18/30 (apa, youv, OE, o,;, Oll't'a, ii. Kai, µEV, µEV't'Ot, µ110E, µ,;v, µ,;'t'E, Ot>OE, Ot>KO'UV, OUV, O'UtE, 't'Ot, 't'OiVUv).

38

YVESDUHOUX

Ces demieres particules s'opposent comme suit: Frequence plus elevee la scene: Menon et Apologie: yap, 6t, 6f\'ta, ~. µT16t, n:, 'tOt. Protagoras: yap, 61\'ta, ~. µT16t, µ11v, µ11'te, ou6t, wt. Banquet: apa, 6f\'ta, µT16e, µ11n:, ou6t, oun:, 'tOt.

a

Frequence plus elevee dans les oeuvres non sceniques: Menon et Apologie: apa, ye, 611, 6111tou, i\, x:ai, µtv, µtvwt, oux:ouv, ' OUV, 'tOtVUV. Protagoras: au, 611, ij, x:ai, µEV, µEV'tOt, O'UlCO'UV, OUV. Banquet: youv, 6£, 611, ij, x:ai, µtv, µtv'tot, µ11v, oux:ouv, ouv, wivuv.

.

5.4. Conclusion Le caractere theatral ou non des textes ales consequences suivantes sur l'emploi des particules (les remarques ci-dessous ne mettent en jeu que les cas ou le x2 est calculable).

A !'exception de la comparaison des Thesmophories avec un des corpus platoniciens, il n'a pas d'influence qualitative perceptible(§ 5.1).39

5.4.1.

5.4.2. En revanche, les particules sont significativement moins frequentes au theatre qu'ailleurs-rappelons que !'opposition entre prose-:- vers ne joue pas de role perceptible dans la frequence globale des particules (§ 5.2).

5.4.3. II existe une large minorite de particules

a

frequence non differenciee (quatre dixiemes des emplois ou le x2 est calculable:40 56/138), mais ii yen a une majorite sensible au caractere scenique ou non des textes (six dixiemes: 82/138).41 Les preferences de ces dernieres vont surtout dans le sens d 'une plus grande frequence dans les textes non sceniques (52 ex.); !'inverse est moins courant (30 ex.). Lanette preference globale des particules pour les oeuvres non theatrales resulte done de !'interaction de trois tendances differentes.

5.4.4. Contrairement aux textes dialogues ou non (§ 4.6.3), les oeuvres sceniques ou non sceniques s'opposent par un noyau de cinq particules differenciees dans tous Jeurs emplois: 611, ij, x:ai, µtv et oux:ouv. 42 Ce petit ensemble joue un role important, puisqu'il totalise pas moins de 46,7 % de toutes Jes particules (4.656/9.958). II existe

39 Voir note 29.

40 Les observations qui suivent ne mettront en jeu que ce type d 'emplois. 41 La difference entre majorite - minorite est significative. 42 II y en a trois autres qui ont des emplois differencies dans cinq comparaisons sur six (6irta, ouv

et to1).

39

GREC &:RIT ET GREC PARL~

a

une sixieme particule emploi constant: ii s'agit d'aUa, qui est toujours indifferenciee.43 Plusieurs autres particules ont des profils irreguliers: on en a 17/30 qui temoignent de frequences differenciee et indifferenciee. Parmi celles-ci, ii y en a meme six dont la differenciation s'opere en sens opposes: &pa, ye, 6£, µiiv, ou-tE et 'tOl.WV. Six particules ont done des comportements stables, mais le choix des frequences de plusieurs autres est largement arbitraire.

5.4.5. Toutes ces caracteristiques, constantes ou irregulieres, soot systematiquement utilisees pour former dans chaque texte un groupe plus ou moins grand de particules (de huit adix-huit) dont la frequence contribue aopposer les oeuvres theatrales aux autres. Leur liste est la suivante (entre parentheses: le nombre d'emplois differencies): Particules plus frequentes dans les oeuvres sceniques: &pa (1 ex.), yap (2 ex.), &fi'ta (5 ex.),~ (2 ex.), µ11ot (3 ex.), µii'te (2 ex.), wv (1 ex.), ooot (2 ex.), 'tE (1 ex.), 'tOt (5 ex.). Particules plus frequentes dans les oeuvres non sceniques: au (1 ex.), '(O'UV (1 ex.), OTJ (6 ex.), OTJ1tOu (1 ex.), 11 (6 ex.), Kai (6 ex.), µtv (6 ex.), µev'tot (3 ex.), ouKouv (6 ex.), ouv (5 ex.). Particules plus frequentes dans les oeuvres sceniques et non sceniques: &pa (chaque fois 1 ex.), ye (chaque fois 1 ex.), 6e (3 ex. de >; 1 ex. de ; 1 ex. de ; 1 ex. de AiyEtc;, tpayq,6ia tE tca\. tcroµq>6ia: Republique 394b-c. 47 Ce passage porte sur l'epopce: 7tEtpcitat ,iµcic; lltt µa)..tcrta 1totfjcrm µ,; "0µ11pov 6otcE1v Elvat tov Atyovta, a)..)..a tov lEpfo (Republique 393b). Sur le probleme de la convention thcatrale dans l'Antiquitc, voir D. Bain, Actors and Audience, Oxford, 1977, 1-12. Dans le meme sens, voir le tcxtc de Longin cite par P. Ghiston-Bistagne, Recherches sur /es acteurs dans la Grece antique, Paris, 1976, 3. 48 Hcrodote 6.21 (Ee; 6atcpua ... E7tEcrE to 8t11tpov). La Vita d'Eschyle (§ 7) evoque, quanta cllc, des deces de petits enfants et des avortements qu'aurait suscite l'entree en scene du cha:ur des Eumenides (ttvi::c; 6E cl>OOlV EV t1i E7tt6Ei~El t©V EuµEvi6rov c;, or prepositions like e1ti., 1tapa, etc. However, I shall add to Humbert's list the Homeric particles i6t, vu, 0r)v, and keep in mind the existence of dialect-specific particles like the Cypriot 1tat or the Thessalian µa, which corresponds in usage to 6£. What do we know about these particles outside literature? The answer is that we know very little; outside literature most particles are not attested or are badly attested. Indeed the extent of this non-attestation must surprise and the point requires further illustration. I start with a body of material which ought in theory to be rich in particles-that of Greek verse inscriptions. P.A. Hansen's edition of the Carmina epigraphica graeca 1-11 (1983-89), even if not completely up-to-date, offers sufficient evidence for the verse inscriptions written before 300 B.C. and I base my observations on it. Particularly in the first volume (inscriptions dated before 400 B.C.) we find texts heavily influenced by the epic language and we might expect that on the one hand the desire to imitate epic poetry and on the other the need to fill slots in the metre may have led to large use of particles which offer convenient monosyllabic or disyllabic elements. A quick reading leads to different conclusions. Not even half of our list is represented in the verse inscriptions of the period before 400. If we consider Hansen's second volume which contains for the most part inscriptions of the fourth century the evidence increases but we still have considerable gaps. In any case the main point is the rarity of these particles in the early period at least. In ca. 500 verse inscriptions written before 400 only x:ai., 6t and -re or -re ... x:ai. can be said to occur reasonably frequently; for the rest a).M, yap, µev occur more than 8 times each, while eight other particles (au0e, amap, Ei-re, eu-re, ~. 116£, 1tep, mo) occur at best four times each but often once or twice each only.1 Obviously the absence of some particles may be due to chance. Thus Hansen has no examples of µ 'tCOlVl ... i VTIO'tav· a1ti> 'tCOlVU iv 'tav QA,(l)VO VTIO'tav· ... a1ti> TTa6otaaat iv 'tov A.6q,ov 'tov 6icopov· x:al a1ti> 'tCOtvu iv 'tav Tptavyx:eiav· a1ti> 'tOOlVU ... 'from the boundary ... to the Bouphageon (passing) in the middle of the springs; from this point to the beginning of the Porthiea; from this point to the end (of the Porthiea); from this point to the end of the orchard; ... from the Padoessa to the hill with two boundaries, and from this point to the Triankeia; from this point ... '. (8) Dubois (1986: ii, 266, no. 3); Thiir and Taeuber (1994: 301, no. 29, Phigalia, second part of the Third Century; in koina). Marking of boundaries (very fragmentary): ... 'tomco 6e e[1t]l

c ... am'> 6[e ... 'tou'tco 6e .... 10

In spite of the different dialect the chronological contrast is representative. More generally the contrast between early and late is a contrast between limited use of 6t and extensive use of 6£.

3.6. ai in some longer Arcadian inscriptions Some fifth and early fourth century inscriptions show subtler distinctions in the use of M. 11 From this point of view the longer texts in Arcadian fall into two groups. The smaller group includes the Law about the cult of Demetra Thesmophoros (Pheneos?, ca. 500 B.C.), 12 the judgement about the murder in the temple of Alea (Mantinea, Fifth Century B.C.) 13 and the regulations for the temple of Athena Alea 10 For a similar set of formulae cf. Thiir and Taeuber (1994: 306, no. 31, I A (IG V 2 p. xxvii)), a second century fragmentary inscription from Olympia with a boundary division with Megalopolis. 11 Hodot (1990) offers some subtle analyses of the use of 6£ in a few inscriptions. However, his aim (viz. to establish the existence or otherwise of the potential particles icav and 6av in Arcadian) is different from mine and I hope to extend the material while looking at it from a somewhat different angle. 12 Dubois (1986: ii, 196, no. 1), Thiir and Taeuber (1994: 269. no. 20; cf. (1)). 13 1G V 2 262, Schwyzer DGE 661, Dubois (1986: ii, 94), Thiir and Taeuber (1994: 75 no. 8; cf. (2)).

PARTICLES IN GREEK EPIGRAPHICAL TEXTS

59

(Tegea, end Fifth Century or beginning Fourth Century).1 4 The second group includes most of the remaining dialect inscriptions from Arcadia of suitable length. Prominent examples are the rules about building contracts from Tegea (Second half of the Fourth Century),15 the decree for the return of the exiles also from Tegea (324 B.C.), 16 the mid-fourth century boundary statement from Orchomenos mentioned above (in (7)), and the various proxeny decrees in dialect (see above). To this group may also belong the synoikia between Orchomenos and Euaimon (Orchomenos, mid fourth century) 17 and the synoikia between the Heliswasioi and the Mantineans (Mantinea, date uncertain but at latest 350-40 and possibly earlier), 18 though these two inscriptions and particularly the latter seem to have an intermediate position between the two groups. It is noticeable that the two groups also differ on chronological grounds, with the first group including all the early inscriptions. Fundamentally OE is a connective particle which links sentences rather than clauses. As such it normally takes second position in the first clause of the sentence after the first accented word. Because 6e is a connective we do not expect it to appear in the first sentence of a text and indeed it never does. More delicate is the question of the sections in which a text may be divided. The clearest instances are those of inscriptions where the division into paragraphs is graphically marked either by double punctuations (as in the regulations for the temple of Athena Alea) or by an horizontal line (as in the synoikia of the Heliswasioi and the Mantineans) or by a line and an empty letter space (as in the rules about building contracts). Noticeably in the earliest of these texts (the first) no paragraph has an initial 6e; the second text follows the same rule with one possible exception. 19 The third text, on the contrary, regularly breaks the rule while at the same time also breaking (once at least) the rule according to which 6e is inserted after the first word of the sentence (IG V 2 6, 21: Mri el;eCTrro 6e ... ). If we look at other inscriptions where separate paragraphs or sections can only be identified on semantic bases we obtain similar results. In the fifth century murder judgement from Mantinea a serious change of topic calls for the absence of initial 6e; 20 by contrast in the much later Tegea decree for the return of exiles 6e sentence follows 6e sentence so that, if the previous criterion were to be adopted, l4 IG V 2 3; Schwyzer DGE 654, Dubois (1986: ii, 20), Thiir and Taeuber (1994: 11 no. 2). 15 IG V 2 6; Schwyzer DGE 656, Dubois (1986: ii, 39), Thiir and Taeuber (1994: 20, no. 3). 16 IG V 2 p. xxxvi; Schwyzer DGE 657, Dubois (1986: ii, 61 no. 4), Thiir and Taeuber (1994: 51

no. 5). 17 IG V 2 343, Schwyzer DGE 665, Dubois (1986: ii, 146), Thiir and Taeuber (1994: 130 no. 15). 18 Te Riele (1987), Thiir and Taeuber (1994: 98 no. 9). l 9 After the division sign the new paragraph at line 13 starts with "Ocm 6E cruvpcil[a]la E'tV'fxavov fxovn:i; ol 'Eltcrfcicrtot a,hoi. 1t0 au'toi; :1tcipoi; Mavnviii; tytvov'tu ... 'However many contracts the Heliswasioi had among themselves before they became Mantineans, will be valid .. .' The unique presence of 6t in this paragraph may raise the question whether we should not read 'Ocrci6£, accepting the existence of a univerbated ocr6cr6£ parallel to 'tOcrcicr6£, which, as shown by Risch (1969), arose perhaps in the post-Mycenaean period, but panhellenically, from an earlier ~uence 'toooi; 6£. 20 Notice the absence of 6t in lines 14, 18, 30. The only possible exception is in line 24 where the editors restore EuxoMi [6') a6£ foE'tOt 'to1 a[lt'tE:piot, but it is difficult to build too much on a restoration.

60

ANNA MORPURGO DAVIES

most of the inscription would count as one immense paragraph. This may be indeed the correct interpretation if one thinks of the involuted legal style which prevails in later texts-but obviously there is a certain element of circularity in trying to argue that new paragraphs never start with 5e, while then arguing that in some inscriptions paragraphs are very long because most sentences start with OE. Moreover the parallelism with the building inscription where paragraphs are graphically marked speaks for the introduction of OE at the beginning of paragraphs. The truth is probably in the middle. With increased sophistication in 'legalese' it becomes more and more necessary to mark formally the links between the different parts of a text including parts which concern different subjects and which can consequently be marked as belonging to different paragraphs.

3.7. oi in texts of different periods Even on this simple test which concerns the presence or absence of OE at the beginning of paragraphs the existence of a linguistic contrast between early and late inscriptions is confirmed, but the phenomenon is underlined if we actually look at the meaning of OE in texts of different periods. In the lex sacra about the cult of Demetra Thesmophoros, in the judgement of Mantinea and in the dispositions for the temple of Athena Alea, OE is regularly used to indicate a contrast with the previous sentence. In practically all instances the correct translation is 'but' rather than 'and'; that this is so is shown by the frequency of 5e clauses which negate the previous clause, often elliptically, but sometimes with an actual repetition of the verb: (9) Regulations for the temple of Athena Alea (note 14), I. 15 #Ta_htepa 1tp6~ata µe veµev iv 'AUat 7tM>A.Ev, -ro 6£ µe'tov iv4>oppiev 'on the one hand (µiv) for a bigger piece of cattle he will owe a drakhma, on the other hand (6£) for a smaller one there will be inphorbismos' (23) ibid., I. 22 -r6 µtv tµuro -rot 0eo'i, -ro 6£ tµtau -ro'ic; htepoµvo:µovm ...

27 The examples are chosen at random: Corcyra 1G IX 1 682, Schwyzer DGE 136 (fourth century):

1tpo~evov 1tot£1 ci ciA.ia .. : 6i6wn 6t Kai ya; Kai olKia; fµ1tacnv ... , Megara 1G VII 8, Schwyzer DGE 155 (early third century): ... 1tpo~evov au'tov Elµey Kai tqovou; auwO .. : elµev 6£ am(i) Kai oiKia; fµ1taatv, Oropos 1G VII 4250, Schwyzer DGE 812 (fourth century): ... 'AµuV'tav 'Avn6xou MaKeoova 1tp6~evov etv .. : ci'tEAEtav 6t etv Kai ciauUav ...

68

ANNA MORPURGO DA VIES

' ... on the one hand (µev) half to the goddess, on the other hand (M) half to the temple administrators ... ' (24) Rules about building contracts (note 15), I. 49: ... tOV µEV Epyatav ECJOEA.M>vtec; ... , tOV 5e Epyrovav 1.;aµt6vtec; ... '(let them have power) on the one hand (µev) to sack the workman, on the other hand (6£) to fine the contractor ... ' (25) Synoikia between Orchomenos and Euaimon (note 17), I. 73 and I. 92: ... 1CEUOp1CEVtl µEV taya8a, [E]7ttOp1CEVtl 5e E~O[A.E]a8at amoy Kat yevoc; ' ... on the one hand (µev) for whoever respects the oath all good things, on the other hand (6£) for whoever breaks the oath let him die and his descendants' (26) Decree for the return of exiles (note 16), I. 41ff.: ... Ei µEV av cj)OtVTltOl ... Ei 5' av µ11 cj)OlVTltOl ... '(whoever holds the property) on the one hand (µev) if he looks as (having paid the debt to the goddess ... let him give back to the returning exile half of the property), if on the other hand (6£) he does not look as (having given back to the goddess) ... •28 In other texts and other dialects µev is far more frequent and seems to be used with more freedom. Should we assume that we are dealing with an Arcadian inherited usage? About fifty years ago Manu Leumann (1949) argued with good evidence that µev was simply a shortened form of µ11v, which in its tum was the Ionic form of µav. Denniston died in the same year in which Leumann 's article appeared and consequently we do not know how he would have reacted; he did point out ([1934] 1954: 328) that 'the parallelism in the uses of µav (µ11v) and µev is on the whole remarkably close' but also observed that, while, leaving Epic on the one side, 'µav, µ11v, µev are confined respectively to Doric, Attic and Ionic', 'preparatory µev is common to all three dialects'. However, if Leumann is right, it should follow that µev must be Attic or Ionic since it presupposes a change > 11. Arcadian usage does not contradict this view: as pointed out above the only constructions attested are those with preparatory µtv and these show a lack of flexibility which is striking; if they were due to the imitation of an outside model the textbook feeling which I mentioned earlier would be understandable.

a

28 The sequence 6 µtv ... 6 6t probably appears also in a very fragmentary text from Mantinea of the early fifth century (IG V 2 261) which seems to offer the first instance of µev.

PARTICLES IN GREEK EPIGRAPIIlCAL TEXTS

69

8. Some conclusions I started in 1. with three questions or observations to which we now need to return. Merely from the few examples adduced it is clear that the epigraphical texts which we have been looking at do not offer the same extensive use of particles which we find in Homer or Attic prose. Of course the very limited use of particles in Arcadian inscriptions does not prove that the spoken language was equally depleted of particles. [Ed. note: see for this issue also Duhoux' article in this volume]. But more work needs to be done to ascertain how far this apparent poverty is characteristic of specific dialects or specific periods or of epigraphical language in general. One thing, however, is certain: we cannot assume a priori that all Greek dialects shared the same particles and made the same extensive use of them. The history of Arcadian on the one hand and that of Arcado-Cypriot and Mycenaean on the other make clear that developments in the use of particles, i.e. changes in the particle inventory as well as changes in the way in which the same particles are used and in the function that they fulfil, are characteristic not only of literary languages but also of the epigraphically attested dialects. The lesson to be learned is that we should be careful in attributing to the one or the other dialect a specific particle or particle use; it is conceivable that in each instance we are dealing with features which belong to a specific phase rather than to the whole history of the dialect. The important point is that even in our small world we have evidence not only for the loss of old particles but also for the appearance of new particles. The way in which these changes occur partly contradicts the received opinion, but only partly. The processes which led to the disappearance of OE in Cypriot and to the emphasizing of its adversative value in early Arcadian are likely to be internally led; it would be difficult to see how they could have been determined by external influences. On the other hand, we should not necessarily think in terms of purely systemic developments; it may well be that, as Bakker (1993) has suggested, the adversative value of 6e is connected with the development of a written content-biassed tradition which replaces an old oral tradition. At the same time it would be foolish to exclude the importance of interdialectal contacts for the development of the particle system. The standard example has been available for a long time. We assume that the spread of x:ai. and the quasi-disappearance of 'tE are post-Mycenaean; it follows that either they happened independently in all Greek dialects-which is hardly plausible--0r that we must allow for influences and counterinfluences of various types. In the texts that we have studied the replacement of Mantinean x:ac; with x:ai. gives concrete evidence for a similar process, i.e. the introduction of a new form of a well known particle thanks to external influence. But do we have evidence for the wholesale borrowing not of a new form of particle but of a new particle and perhaps of new constructions? Above I have argued that both the most plausible etymology and the somewhat stilted, textbook-like, use of µev in Arcadian speak for a borrowed particle. If this is correct, it also follows, as Leumann believed, that all instances of 'Doric'

70

ANNA MORPURGO DAVIES

and 'Aeolic' epigraphical µtv are due to borrowings and that these borrowings are reasonably early: just to give an example, µtv ... OE are found in sixth century Cretan inscriptions and are omnipresent in the Gortyn code. Similarly I have also made a case for the the possibility that the purely connective/transitive use of OE which appears in the Arcadian inscriptions of mid and late fourth century may be influenced from outside Arcadia. Do we then reject the view that particles belong to a closed class and are not prone to borrowing or do we take refuge in the observation that we are dealing with dialects and not with separate languages, which could explain why the developments which we have been describing may be externally determin=d? The general point remains unchallenged. The status of the Greek dialects as dialects or languages, if the distinction is meaningful, is of course in dispute, but there is little doubt that structural similarity and frequent contacts must have allowed a range of mutual influences which would not have been possible in different sociolinguistic situations. However, we ought at least to notice that the general principle itself has been powerfully challenged by evidence more compelling than that discussed above. In considering a series of claims about the plausibility or otherwise of grammatical borrowing Campbell ( 1993) concludes (p. l03f.) that 'none of them holds true in any absolute sense.' In particular he rejects the view that 'prepositions, conjunctions, and particles, to the extent that they are used grammatically, can be borrowed from one language to another only with great difficulty,' pointing to the countervidence provided by 'the typical borrowing of conjunctions and other discourse particles from Spanish into a large variety of Indian languages of Latin America' (ibid., 100). In an earlier article Brody (1987) had analyzed the extensive borrowing from Spanish into the Mayan languages of particles used as discourse markers and pointed to various processes which led either to the joint use of isofunctional Spanish and Mayan particles or to the exclusive use of Spanish particles like pero 'but', como 'like', pues 'well', y 'and', porque 'because', entonces 'then', all of which can function as discourse markers in Mayan. Here are we dealing with unrelated and structurally different languages, one of which however is sociolinguistically dominant. On the other hand, at a more anecdotal level, it is not too difficult to find similar examples nearer home: it is generally assumed that the Modem Greek µa 'but', which replaces the old OA,A,Q and to a certain extent 6£, 29 is a borrowing from Italian ma 'but', in its tum a replacement for Latin sed derived from Latin magis 'more, rather'. The final conclusion is that we should not hesitate to assume that in the class of particles interdialectal borrowings are not only possible but likely. If so, however, much remains to be done to establish not only what particle forms were borrowed from one dialect into another but also how particle usage was in any specific case determined by external influences. If it is indeed the case, as for Mayan and Spanish, that the dominant language is more likely to influence the usage of the less important Ian29 Not to be confused with Thessalian µa, which in that dialect fulfils the functions of M.

PARTICLES IN GREEK EPIGRAPHICAL TEXTS

71

guage, studies of this kind may provide us with important insights about the sociolinguistic status of the Greek dialects.

References Andreou, I.

'Ta tmypaµµa-ra -cou 1toi..uav5piou 't'Tl-t4i 1eo~

Reexamen des emplois de a.i.«i a la lumiere de l' enonciation dans Les Grenouilles d'Aristophane LOUIS BASSET Universite Lumiere Lyon 2

1. Les conditions d'un reexamen 1.1. L'interet d'une nouvelle approche, pragmatique L'etude des conjonctions «adversatives» a ete depuis une vingtaine d'annees renouvelee par la prise en compte des conditions de l'enonciation. Le point de depart de cette nouvelle approche fut une breve remarque de 0. Ducrot (1972: 128-9) proposant une interpretation «argumentative» de la conjonction fran~aise mais. 11 a ensuite lui-meme developpe cette interpretation, seul ou avec d'autres, en plusieurs circonstances. l Des approches semblables, c'est-a-dire de type pragmatique, ont ete par la suite proposees pour des conjonctions adversatives appartenant a des langues diverses. Ci tons pour le latin, l 'etude de at, oppose en particulier a sed, par C. Kroon ( 1991, et 1995: 333-370), et celles de A. Orlandini sur at d'une part, immo et atqui d'autre part (1994 et 1995). Ces deux auteurs ont en outre la particularite de rattacher leurs analyses a la Functional Grammar de S.C. Dik, dans laquelle est en effet proposee une analyse pragmatique de l'enonce (1978: 127-156). Pour le grec, la liaison µtv ... 6E ... apres negation a ete etudiee du point de vue de l'argumentation par A.-M. Chanet (1990). 2 Mais a ma connaissance, la conjonction n'a pas donne lieu a une etude de ce genre. Les pages que lui avait consacrees C.J. Ruijgh dans Autour de re epique (1971: 125-126, 135-140, 785-794) sont en effet anterieures au developpement de la pragmatique. Elles etaient done tributaires de l'expose de J.D. Denniston (1954: 1-32), tout en y mettant de l'ordre. 3

aUa

1 Voir bibliographic jointe. 2 L'emploi de µtv yest decrit comme celui d'un «repoussoir argumentatif» (p. 33). 3 C.J. Ruijgh a regroupe, p. 125, les divers emplois des conjonctions adversatives sous deux rubriques, l'emploi oppositif (allemand aber) et l'emploi eliminatif (allemand sondern). L'emploi eliminatif etait considere, p. 135, partir des donnees statistiques d'Herodote, comme l'emploi fondamental de ciUa. L'etude proposee ici doit beaucoup acette misc en ordre, meme si la perspective

a

76

LOUIS BASSET

Mais certaines remarques anticipaient deja sur les developpements ulterieurs, par exemple (p. 138): «Ainsi, quand alla introduit un ordre apres un discours OU un dialogue, la particule signale, pour ainsi dire, que le discours ou le dialogue ne suffit pas mais qu'il faut proceder a l'action.» De telles remarques, ainsi que la mention repetee d'emplois «correctifs» de alla, ce qui peut suggerer une interaction verbale, sont une incitation a reexaminer l'ensemble des emplois de alla a la lumiere des conditions d'enonciation. 1.2. Le choix d'un dialogue comme texte de reference Or, si les emplois conjonctifs de alla sont lies a l'enonciation en general et aux intentions argumentatives en particulier, ii parait preferable de les observer dans un texte ou domine le dialogue. Je me suis done propose de les etudier dans une comedie d' Aristophane, et j'ai choisi Les Grenouilles, comedie riche en dialogues agonistiques. L'expose de Denniston (1954) me permettait de controler l'absence eventuelle de certains emplois dans ce corpus restreint. Je suivais d'ailleurs dans ce choix l'exemple meme d'O. Ducrot, avec d'autres linguistes. Ses propres conceptions sur la conjonction mais ont en effet ete illustrees et approfondies dans une recherche collective consacree aux emplois de mais dans deux scenes d'une comedie de Feydeau. Le resultat de cette recherche fut un article intitule «Mais occupe-toi d' Amelie» public une premiere fois en 1976, puis repris dans Les mots du discours en 1980. Le dessein de cette etude etait de tenter une description unitaire du mais fran~ais en rattachant tous ses emplois, sauf toutefois ceux qui correspondent al 'allemand sondern, au «modele standard» qui avait ete precedemment defini, et qui etait ainsi resume (1980: 97): «l'expression P mais Q presuppose que la proposition P peut servir d'argument pour une certaine conclusion r et que la proposition Q est un argument qui annule cette conclusion.» La difficulte de l'entreprise tenait surtout au fait que, le texte de reference etant un dialogue comique, de nombreux mais se trouvaient en debut de replique; ce qui rendait souvent difficile l'identification de Pet de sa conclusion r. II m'a meme semble que cette identification avait souvent un caractere acrobatique, qui n'emportait pas toujours l'adhesion. Entin, l'impossibilite de rattacher au modele standard les emplois correspondant a l'allemand sondern, m'incitait a penser qu'il n'etait pas assez general, pour mais comme pour alla. Aussi ai-je fait mien, pour l 'appliquer au grec aU.a, l'espece de voeu final qui au terme de cette etude concluait sur les resultats acquis et les difficultes rencontrees (Ducrot et al. 1980: 130): que l'etude soit reprise, pour montrer l'unite semantique de la conjonction etudiee, en privilegiant les emplois du dialogue, en particulier en debut de replique, et sans l'a priori d'une interpretation tiree du discours suivi. II pragmatique et le choix d'un dialogue comme texte de reference om pour effet d'inverser la hierarchie des emplois.

'AU' t~OA.Otcr8' amlj> lCO~

77

m 'a semble que, contrairement al 'espoir qui etait exprime, les resultats ne seraient pas necessairement concordants. 1.3. Unite semantique et diversite fonctionnelle La recherche d'une description unitaire doit cependant permettre de rendre compte aussi de la diversite des emplois. Je suis pour cela parti de l'idee, maintenant assez commune, qu'en la matiere l'unite est d'ordre semantique et la diversite d'ordre fonctionnel. Une signification unique, qu 'ii faut definir, est a la base de tous les emplois. Les differences entre ceux-ci viennent des differents objets linguistiques que peut coordonner la conjonction aUa. II ne s'agit done pas de differences de sens, comme le suggerent les distinctions d'emplois eliminatifs, adversatifs, progressifs. 4 ll s'agit en fait de differences deportee syntaxique ou pragmatique. C'est de cette fa~on qu'en d'autres tempsj'ai essaye de rendre compte des differents emplois des particules modales et de certains adverbes comme 'taxa, traduit «bientot» ou «peut-etre» (Basset 1988: 33-34). J'avais par exemple explique ces deux emplois de 'taxa par la meme valeur de proximite, mais tantot c'est une proximite portant sur l'evenement (le contenu de l'enonce), tantot une proximite portant sur !'assertion (l'enonce lui-meme, c'est-a-dire son enonciation). C'est de la meme fa~on que l'on distingue en fran~ais des emplois differents de certains adverbes, comme sincerement, adverbe d'enonciation ou de contenu. C'est done sur ce modele, qui peut cependant etre affine, qu'on envisage ici de distinguer les emplois de au.a. 2. Exclusion des emplois non conjonctifs 2.1. Les emplois adverbiaux Mais ii importe cependant de ne retenir que les emplois conjonctifs. II faut done eliminer d'eventuels emplois adverbiaux de au.a, ceux qui sont les plus proches du sens etymologique «autrement». Outre }'analyse semantique et le critere de la position (initiale pour aUa conjonction), on peut utiliser ici un critere souvent propose: si deux particules relient les memes objets linguistiques, l'une au moins n'est pas une conjonction. On a par exemple ecarte «done» de la liste des conjonctions fran~aises, puisque «done», dans tous ses emplois, peut se combiner avec une conjonction reconnue comme telle («or done», «et done»; alors que *«or car», par exemple, est impossible (cf. en particulier Dik 1968: 34). De meme, dans la collocation 6' au.a, presente chez Aristophane, mais pas dans les Grenouilles, a)..w est une particule adverbiale (Denniston p. 10). En revanche, dans le tour epique aUa 'tE, c'est 'tE qui est un adverbe, ainsi que l'a montre C.J.

4 Voir Denniston p. 1 (eliminative), p. 5 (balancing), p. 20-21 (inceptive, adversative,progressive).

78

LOUIS BASSET

Ruijgh (1971: 785-794). On trouve aussi ailleurs chez Aristophane la sequence o)J,,' ou (...) yap dans laquelle c'est yap qui est adverbial. Notre corpus presente d'autre part quatre emplois de o)J,; i\ apres negation, pour lequel seule I'interpretation adverbiale «autrement que» est acceptable en synchronie (!'accentuation adjectivale a)J..' i\ serait meme parfois acceptable): (1)

ou6t.v yap fo-r' ciU' ii lCOQ~ («Carce n 'est rien d'autre que koax», 227; de meme 928, 1073, 1130)

Cependant des tours conjonctifs proches ont pu interferer (Denniston p. 26-27). Un tel tour conjonctif est sans doute a l'origine de l'emploi de ciU..a seul au sens «excepte», selon une evolution comparable a celle du but anglais dans «no one but you» (Denniston p. 3-4). Notre corpus en presente un exemple ignore de Denniston (qui, hormis un exemple de Sophocle, ne connait cet emploi que chez Aristote): (2)

OU yap µoucmv ciU' ci1eoucnta ... («Je n'ai pas d'autre choix que d'entendre ... », 1180)

Cependant, en synchronie, cet emploi n'est plus conjonctif. II equivaut a MllV. On peut aussi hesiter entre un emploi primitivement conjonctif et un emploi adverbial dans le cas de l'emploi apodotique de ciU.O, absent de notre corpus. Selon que la protase est consideree comme une independante ou une subordonnee, on traduira en effet «mais» ou «en revanche» (voir Ruijgh 1971: 785). Mais, au moins en synchronie attique, ou la protase fonctionne comme une subordonnee, ii parait preferable d'interpreter alors au.a comme un adverbe.

2.2. Le cas des combinaisons commen~ant par ou II est plus difficile de se determiner en ce qui conceme Jes combinaisons ou µflv ciA.A.a, OU µev-rot ciA.A.epE 011 'tO'X,EIDc; aih'· OU yap (i)..)..d ltEl

ICO~

83

que la composante semantique invalidee n'ait pas ete effectivement adoptee dans ce qui precede, mais soit restee virtuelle. Sur ces bases theoriques, je propose une repartition pragmatique des emplois de dans les Grenouilles, en distinguant d'abord ceux qui repondent a un comportement, puis ceux qui marquent une rupture discursive, enfin ceux qui ne rompent pas une continuite discursive.

all.a

4. Classement des emplois de a).).ci dans les Grenouilles 4.1. La conjonction a).).ci repond a un comportement non verbal Si la replique introduite par ai..i..a repond a un comportement non verbal, ii n'y a dans ce qui precede ni presuppose, ni pose (sauf peut-etre dans certains gestes codes). Le seul des elements semantiques definis ci-dessus qui puisse apparaitre est un sous-entendu de situation «cela va continuer», et la conjonction peut servir acorriger ce sous-entendu. Elle est alors une marque d'impatience. En l'absence d'un tel sous-entendu, elle indique seulement l'irruption d'une nouvelle situation d'enonciation (cas particulier de l 'emploi de decouverte ou de surprise). C'est a l'emploi d'impatience que correspondent les deux exemples des Grenouilles ou Dionysos reagit au tintamarre que constitue le coassement des grenouilles: (5)

BA Bp£1C£1C£1CEI; !COO~ ICO~.

AI.

'A).).'

e~6i..ota0' aimp JCO~

(«- Brekekekex, coax, coax.

-

Mais puissiez-vous crever de votre coax meme», 226; de meme 240)

4.2. La conjonction (i).).ci marque une rupture discursive Generalement la replique repond a du verbal. 11 peut alors arriver que le nouveau locuteur continue un propos precedemment amorce (par le locuteur precedent ou par lui-meme avant une interruption). 11 s'agit alors en fait d'une continuation de replique. Mais s'il s'agit bien d'un propos nouveau, le nouveau locuteur se trouve dans une situation d'enonciation leguee par le propos precedent. La conjonction adversative indique alors qu'il n'accepte pas cette situation d'enonciation telle quelle. Le dialogue est alors continue au prix d'une correction affectant l'une ou l'autre des quatre composantes semantiques de l'acte de parole precedent. Meme a l'interieur d'une replique, la conjonction adversative peut indiquer une rupture de I'unite discursive. Le locuteur peut instaurer par exemple un dialogue fictif (figure de l 'hypoplwre ou occupatio). Il donne ainsi la parole aun interlocuteur fictif dont la situation d'enonciation ne correspond pas ala sienne. Cette figure, qui a ete decrite pour par Denniston (I, 3, iii, p. 8-9), et pour le latin at par C. Kroon (1995: 340-2), semble cependant absente des Grenouilles.

aUa

84

LOUIS BASSET

Mais en dehors meme de cette figure, une rupture de l'unite de discours reste possible. Le locuteur peut en effet soit decider de changer de theme de discours, soit avoir fait en parlant une decouverte qui modifie sa situation d'enonciation (d'ou correction de pose ou de presuppose), soit renoncer apres-coup a un sous-entendu .

4.2.1. La conjonction ~ ~uv-roµo~ -re-rptµµeVTI, ii 6ta 8ueia~. («-11 ya un chemin, qui part d'une corde et d'un tabouret: ii suffit que tu te pendes. -Arrete, c'est d'un chemin trop resserre que tu me parles! -Alors, ii y a un sentier battu, un raccourci. II passe par la coupe a poison», 123)

A Dionysos qui lui a demande un chemin pour aller dans I'Hades, Heracles a propose un premier itineraire, qui est done devenu le theme du dialogue, mais rejete ensuite par Dionysos. Heracles propose alors un nouvel· itineraire, nouveau theme de dialogue. C'est l'emploi transitif ou progressif (Denniston II, 9, p. 21), qu'on observe aussi dans des recits, pour passer a un nouvel episode, souvent traduit par a/ors ou eh bien. En debut de replique, le changement de theme de discours peut aussi correspondre a }'introduction d'un plan d'action, apres un constat (Denniston I, 3, ii, p. 8): (7)

AI. "H611 '1ta-r~a cr'; SA. Ou µa Ai' ou6aµo'i OOICEI.~. Al. 'A)..).,,' elµ' £7tl 'tOVOl ICQl 7tQ't(l~O). («-T'ai-je deja frappe? - Non, par Zeus, nulle part, apparemment. -Eh bien je vais aller frapper celui-ci», 646, de meme 577)

Apres avoir soumis Xanthias a la question, sans resultat, Eaque decide de passer a l'etape suivante, en changeant de victime. Mais c'est le plus souvent al'interieur d'une replique que la decision de passer a }'action constitue une rupture du theme de discours precedent. On passe ainsi d'un constat d'echec aune nouvelle tentative (662,669, 1103, 1235, 1248, 1397, 1435), du menu a }'invite (507, 512, 517), des reproches a !'exhortation a mieux faire (700, 734), de }'opinion d'un tiers a celle des interlocuteurs (1426), et meme du trouble

'AU' t~6AOta8' am4> K:oa~

85

physique a la prescription medicale (!), selon un modele releve par Denniston (II, 9, p. 21) chez Hippocrate.

(8)

.:\I.

'All' copa1Ctco. olae 1tpoc; 'tflV 1capoiav µou

ICO~

95

En revanche, toute ellipse clans l'enonce qui precede aUci et annon~ant une mention ulterieure, n 'est possible que lorsque les cleux enonces sont semantiquement subordonnes l'un a l'autre, c'est-a-dire lorsqu'il n'y a pas rupture discursive, mais un seul acte de parole. Ce que corrige aAMi est alors virtuel, qu'il s'agisse d'un sous-entendu ou d'unpose, comme dans l'exemple (27). Cette ellipse d'un verbe non rhematique apparait dans IO exemples. Mais le premier enonce peut meme faire I'ellipse du rheme, C 'est-a-dire du pose contredit, si celui-ci est deja exprime par l 'interlocuteur, par exemple dans une question. II arrive done que seul le theme soit reexprime. (28)

SA.

KciJcei-ra 1tc'i>c; ou Kat l:ocj>oKAETJ~ avTEMi~ew wu 0p6vou; 01. Ma Ai' OUK EK£\.VO~. £KUO£ µtv AiaxuAOv, O't£ 6ri KO't'JlA.0£ ... («-Mais alors comment se fait-il que Sophocle ne se soit pas empare du trone? -Non par Zeus, pas lui, mais ii a embrasse Eschyle, lorsqu'il est descendu ici», 788; de meme 1457, 1462)

au·

II ya ellipse du pose rejete «ii s'est empare du trone», mais reprise du theme «lui». Le tour est cependant bien plus frequent sans aucune reprise, avec seulement l'expression du rejet. II est remarquable que ce rejet ne soit alors jamais exprime par un simple ou, mais par µ11 (103, 167,611, 745, 751; cf. Denniston I, 1, iii, d, p. 4), ou par µa (-rov) Aia (174,501,663, 753, 779, 1053), rarement renforce par OU (650, 1183). (29)

NE. Aoo 6paxµa~ µia0ov -rclet~; .:11. Ma Ai', a).).; ewnov. («-Tu paieras cleux drachmes de salaire? -Non par Zeus, mais moins», 174)

Le rejet n 'est pas toujours un rejet du contenu exprime, mais est parfois rejet de la forme, c'est-a-dire d'un mot employe par l'interlocuteur. C'est par exemple pour surencherir. (30)

HP. l:e 6£ -rafu' apfoKet.; Af. M

KO~

97

expliquer l'emploi de la conjonction, ce facteur avait plus de force que l'eventuel presence de sous-entendus. Malgre ces cas douteux, ii ressort de notre examen que sur 101 (ou 100) occurrences de conjonctif dans les Grenouilles, 52 (ou 51) signalent une rupture d'unite discursive. Ces 52 occurrences constituent une petite majorite, au moins relative, face aux 7 occurrences qui corrigent un sous-entendu virtue!, et aux 42 qui corrigent un pose virtue! apres negation de rejet (y compris les 16 emplois apres negation seule, en quelque sorte intermediaires). On voit, par rapport aux theses de 0. Ducrot et al., le changement de perspective apporte par cette etude. Ce qui etait pour eux le modele standard (correction de sousentendu, du type «II est petit, mais fort») est ici un emploi assez rare, alors que des emplois consideres par eux comme marginaux ou d'autres exclus de leur etude se revelent ici bien plus frequents (changement thematique, correction de pose du type sondern). En outre, ce changement de perspective n'est pas vraiment du au choix d'un dialogue comme texte d'etude. Surles 52 exemples de rupture discursive, 29, plus de la moitie, sont a I 'interieur d'une replique. Ces emplois sont done loin d'etre specifiques du dialogue. Le point de vue adopte ici permet d'integrer a la description l'emploi du type sondern. Cet emploi est certes frequent dans Jes Grenouil/es, mais non majoritaire comme ii le serait sans doute dans un texte sans dialogue.1 3 Si, malgre cette frequence, plus ou moins grande selon le type de texte, je ne le considere pas comme central, c'est que j'admets )'unite semantique de L'emploi du type sondern en effet a une definition semantique et fonctionnelle trop etroite pour couvrir, en synchronie, les autres emplois de Les divers emplois du type aber en revanche supposent une definition semantique et fonctionnelle plus souple. Celle-ci peut justifier aussi Jes emplois du type sondern dans Jes langues qui n'ont pas de conjonction specifique pour ces emplois.

aUa

aUa.

aUa.

5.2. Definition de la coordination par

al.l.u

Voici comment ces divers emplois permettent de definir la coordination binaire exprimee par aUa, selon les trois exigences indiquees ci-dessus en 3.1. - 1) Relation semantique entre Pet Q: Dans la structure P a).,).,a Q, OA.Aa indique que Q corrige P. Une composante semantique de Q est substituee a une composante semantique de P. Cette definition semantique unitaire de aUa en fait une conjonction plutot corrective qu'adversative (la relation interlocutorale ne me parait pas fondamentale, bien qu'elle soit souvent presente, et meme preponderante dans le cas d'un sous-entendu virtue) de situation). - 2) Fonctions pragmatiques de P et Q: 13 Ruijgh (1971: 135) evoque Jes comptes du lexique de Powell concemant Herodote, avec 399 exemples de ouJC A OA.A.ci B sur 515 de 'tO>V EYEVE'tO 6 'ElliJvrov 8eoc; Emipac; eµe Ea8at. PUSH ouoelc; yap O'U'tO) OVOTJ'tOc; fon oanc; 1t6A.Eµov 1tpo ei.piJVTJc; atpEE'tat · PUSH EV µev yap til Ot 7t0\.0£c; -rouc; 7tO'tEpac; 8a.1t'tOUot, EV oe 'tq) Ot 7tO'tEp£c; -rouc; 1ta'ioac;. POP ciUa 'tO'U'tO Oaiµovi KOU $tA.OV ~V O'U'tO> yevta801. (1.87.3-4) "'The god of the Greeks encouraged me to fight you: the blame is his. PUSH No one is fool enough to choose war instead of peace - PUSH in peace sons bury fathers, but in war fathers bury sons. POP It must have been heaven's will that this should happen."'

must not destroy the bridges ... we must let the enemy escape'); 109.4 ('we must not pursue the enemy ... it's better to stay in Greece'). 19 The two are of course related in that both promises and directives are action speech-acts. 20 Cf. 3.145.2; 4.115.2; 136.4; 5.79.2; 6.130.2; 7.5.2; 160.2; 8.22.2; 57.2; 62.1; 143.l; 9.9.2.

ADVERSATIVE RELATORS BETWEEN PUSH AND POP

109

Croesus's claim that it was Apollo who caused him to start the war is proved negatively in the embedded sequence, through exclusion of the contrary (namely, that he did so out of his own free will). After the POP the statement is repeated in a modified form. What OA.MX replaces here is an implied negative statement. The embedded sequence is a set of general statements in the present tense, contrasting with particular statements in the past tense.21

2.2. de dicto In (3), (8) and (11), aA.A.a is used de re. When used de dicto aA.A.a rounds off excursuses and replaces one Discourse Topic with another; this is the only type of context where the particle is found at PUSHes as well as POPs. (2) is an example of the former.22 When aA.A.a is so used at POPs, the POP is almost invariably realised in two stages: (12)

£7tlCJ'tµwc; µevtot is curious because the two words seem to do the same job. l>µwc; is a pro-adverb denoting denial of expectation anaphorically (only rarely cataphorically), for example after an £l icai. clause. In au· l>µcoc; (7.148.4; 8.143.1) ci).).ci is a replacing adversative used de dicto, so there is no tautology. Perhaps l>µwc; is a Theme-like constituent here, as English still often is. Cf. 1.189.4. 35 An alternative analysis would be denial of expectation de dicto: from Harpagus' admission that he had not killed the baby himself but given it to the shepherd the king may have inferred that Harpagus had therefore been disobedient, and this is denied in the following. For further examples of µevtot de re used as symbolised in (21) cf. 7.233.2; 9.40 {modifying); 11 I.I.

S.R. SLINGS

116

3.2. POP particle, de dicto µevtot is not used de re after pre-sequences; more in general, it strongly favours de dicto use as a PUSH/POP particle. At the de dicto level, the difference between all.a and µev-rot comes out as clearly as at the de re level. As we saw in examples (2), (12) and (14), alla replaces one Discourse Topic and/or story-line with another. µevt0t, on the other hand, is used to redirect the reader's expectation36 raised by the embedded sequence: (24)

o'i foepaA.Ov µev E; tTJV 'Acri.T1V Ktµµ£pio~ EKPaA.6v-re; EK -rii; EupC07tT1;, tOUtOUJt 6i: E1tt01t6µevot q>Euyouat O'UtO) E; tTJV MT16tKTJV xroPTIV 07ttKOVtO. PUSH eatt 6e 07t0 t11; )..i.µvT1; 'tii; Mat1\tt60; E7tt oatv 7tOtaµov Kat E; Ko)..xou; tptTJKOVta 'flµEperov eui;rovq> 666;, EK 6t -rii; Ko)..xi.60; O'U 7t0A.A.OV 'U7tEpPfivat E; tTJV MT16tKTJV, (i).,).,' EV to 6ta µfoou e0vo; Q'\.ltCOV fott, I:amtEtpE;, tO'UtO 6e 1tapaµetpoµEVOtcrt £l Vat EV tj\ Mr16tK1]. POP Otl µevtot oi YE I:Ku0at tO'lltlJ Eaepa)..ov, aUa tTJV KQtU7tEp0E 66ov 7tOA.).,q> µaKpOtEPTIV EKtpa1t6µ£VOt, EV 6E/;tij exov-re; to KauKacrtov opo;. (1.103.3 - 104.2) 'The Scythians had entered Asia in pursuit of the Cimmerians whom they had expelled from Europe, and so they had invaded Median territory. PUSH From the sea of Azov to the Phasis and the Colchians is a thirty days' journey for a quick traveller; but it is not far from Colchis to Media, and to reach it one has to pass through the country of only one intervening people, the Saspires. POP The Scythians, however, did not enter Media by this way, but took the much longer northern route, keeping the Caucasus mountains to their right.'

Note the repetition of fotpaA.Ov before the PUSH and after the POP, and the contrast between the aorists and the omni temporal presents of the embedded sequence, a geographical excursus which may easily lead the reader to expect that the Scythians had taken the road across the land of the Saspires; µevtot is used to contradict this expectation. As in the case of a)..M, µevtot de dicto may modify the embedded rather than the embedding sequence. 37 In speeches, µevtot can redirect the listener's expectation that the speaker is going to say something which he actually will not say: (25)

(the Mysians ask Croesus for his son and a select band of young men) 7tat6o; µi:v _1tept tO'U Eµou µiJ µvriaSf\'tE Ett' PUSH O'U yap dv uµ'iv

36 Cf. Sicking (1993: 34) 'correcting possible misconceptions and/or frustrating expectations'. 37 Cf. 4.81.2 (from the fact that Herodotus says that he was unable to reach a conclusion about the number of the Scythians a reader might have inferred that he will pass over the problem, but he goes on to tell about the Exampaeus bowl, which gives an indication-reference to the embedding sequence); 9.15.3 (the position occupied by the Persian army as described in the embedded sequence might lead to the assumption that the palisade Mardonius construed covered all that ground, but it did not).

ADVERSATIVE RELATORS BETWEEN PUSH AND POP

117

Mv 1((1) eiMtei; tci>v ~v 1tEpl llip5ti; tE 1Cat autov Kpo'i.aov. (l.78.2-3) 'At once he sent messengers to the interpreters of Telmessus. His messengers did indeed arrive at Telmessus and learn the significance of the omen from them, but they never managed to tell Croesus what it was-pusH for before their ship made Sardis on the return voyage, Croesus had been taken prisoner. PUSH The interpretation of the men from Telmessus was that ... POP The men of Telmessus gave this answer to Croesus, who had already been made a prisoner, though they didn't have news from Sardis or Croesus yet.'

The story might seem over with Croesus being taken prisoner. But Herodotus still wishes to record the explanation of the omen, even though it is irrelevant by now. This is a footnote, and the footnote is meant for the reader. As in (26), there is no adversativity if the text is read in a linear way, but PUSH/POP analysis shows that one reads texts in that way at one's peril. A number of times, the contrast is between two parallel events, one taking place at the main narrative moment, the other later:

(33)

(After the battle of Plataea, Pausanias finds huge quantities of gold and silver, left behind by the Persians. He comments on this to the Greek commanders:) ta-Ota µi:v TiauaaviTJV Uyetat d1te'iv 1tpoi; toui; O'tpatTJyOui; tci>v 'EUiivrov. PUSH UatEpq> µ£Vt0l xpovq> µeta ta-Ota 1Cat tci>v TIA.atatE(l)V eupov auxvot 8ii1Cai; XPUO'OU Kat v (lA,A,(l)V XPTJµatrov. (9.82.3-83. l) 'This is what Pausanias is reported to have said to the Greek commanding officers. PUSH After these events many people in Plataea, too, found coffers full of gold, silver, and other valuables. •45

The reader's expectation that the main story-line will continue is contradicted. This analysis holds good as well for the next example, where 'modification' better

45 The embedded stretch goes on with other discoveries later made by the Plataeans. The POP

occurs at 84.1.

ADVERSATIVE RELATORS BETWEEN PUSH AND POP

121

accounts for how µ£vtot PUSHes work than 'denial of expectation'. They have to do with variant versions of the same story: (34)

EJtEt'tE 6e Kai taiha EKaµov Jt0t£'UV't£. PUSH Kat 'tOl av6pa ye n>pawov a«1>8ovov e6et elvat, e:xov-rci ye 1tciv-ca -ca ciya8ci· POP -co 6t im:evav'ti.ov -cou-cou Et; -rout; 1tOA.tii-rac; Jtt«1>u1Ce· (3.80.4) "'These two vices are the root cause of all wickedness in the monarch: PUSH by pride and by envy he is led to acts of savage and unnatural violence. PUSH Absolute power ought, by right, to preclude envy on the principle that the man who possesses it has also at his command everything he could wish for; POP but in fact it is not so, as the behaviour of kings to their subjects proves."'

Here A is the denial of an expectation not raised by B but expressed in B. The counterfactuality of the Kai.'tot sentence,52 and the fact that it deals only with envy, not with pride, show that the Kai-cot clause is an embedded sequence. Once again, the POP is used to repeat the A conjunct. 4.2. de dicto

At the de dicto level, Kai-cot is used when a view is stated, and a contrary view, which is not accepted, treated in an embedded sequence: (41)

Kat aptO"tOt; EYEVE'tO µaKpq> 'Apta't06T1µ0 -rou-rov etvm ciµei.vro. POP ci).).a 'tama µEV Kat «!>86vq> av El1tOlEV (9.71.2-4) 0

51 Cf. 7.9p.I (POP at 9p.2 toi.vuv).

52 Cf. 5.45.2. With different signals: 7.10y.2.

ADVERSATIVE RELATORS BETWEEN PUSH AND POP

125

'Much the greatest courage was shown, in my opinion, by Aristodemus, ... After him, the greatest personal distinction was won by three Spartans, Posidonius ... PUSH However, when, after the battle, the question of who had most distinguished himself was discussed, the Spartans present decided that Aristodemus had, indeed, fought magnificently but that he had done so ... in his desire to be killed in his comrades' eyes; Posidonius, on the contrary, without any wish to be killed, had fought bravely. POP It may, of course, have been envy which made them say this;' Herodotus states his personal view and maintains it in spite of the fact that the Spartans present at Plataea thought differently. One might have expected him to go by the decision of those who had been there, but a denial of this expectation is expressed in the A conjunct. The POP dismisses the Spartans' dissenting view definitively. 53 There is one instance of this use in a speech: (42)

"Q paatA.E'U, apxf\0Ev ,imatciµ11v O'tt 0A.ll0Et1J xperoµevoc; OU ~i.A.a tot

Epero. au ()£ E1tEt ,ivo:yKaaac; A.EYElV trov A.Oyrov touc; 0A.110EO"t(i-touc;, EA.EYOV ta Kat,iKOVta l:1taptt,itl]O"t. PUSH Kai.tot roe; eyro 'tUYXAI. I.KC07t't£ttAOaoci,ot · t.:aii:ot aA.Oy6v YE O&l 'tlVQ Kat OEtA.i~ avOpE'iov Elvat. l:I. - TTavu µEV OUV. m. - Ti oe oi. K6aµtot mhrov; ou tautov touto ttx6v9aatv· ciKoA.aaiQ nvt a0>4>povec; Elcnv; t.:aii:01 ci,aµev y& ciouvatov Elvat, a).).,' oµm~ auto'ic; auµpaivEt tOUtq> oµotov to 1ta8oc; to 7tEpt tO'llTIIV 'tTJV EUTJ0ri aroci,poaUVTJV" ci,opouµEVOl yap EtEprov rioovrov q>e)..iµ~ 1tp~a~ i\ p)..apeproc; 6 i.a'tpo~ ou ytyvroaicet EaU'tOV co~ E1tpal;ev· 1mi1:ot coq,e)..iµ~ 1tpal;a~. co~ 6 ti;; 'And filled with astonishment, I said to him: "Do you really think that the relation between the just and the holy is such that they have only some slight similarity to one another?"' No such comment appears in Meno 77c, since this dialogue is written in direct dramatic form. But we may well conclude that here, too, Socrates is expressing his astonishment at the opinion of his opponent: yap OOKEt tli; oot, co Mevrov, ytyvcooKrov t'taAEXeiivm;

1(56

C.M.J. SICKING

any other-although it is, perhaps, not without significance that Socrates proposes precisely this differentia: the analogy between philosophy and medicine, and between physical and moral health, will tum out to be one of the central themes of the dialogue (cf. also 448b4). As &pa indicates, Socrates does not expect an affirmative answer, but it is far from impossible that he would have accepted, or even welcomed, it as a basis for further conversation. Socrates then makes Gorgias admit that maintaining that rhetoric is a 't'EXVTI 'about words' implies that its practitioners will be capable not only of speaking but also of thinking rationally about the matter of their discourse. With the op' ouvquestion he returns to the analogy with medicine in its enriched version: is Gorgias prepared to endorse the premiss that medicine will make men able both to speak and to think about their patients? On the basis of this, the final conclusion that just like rhetoric, medicine also is 1tEpt A.6youc;, besides making clear that Gorgias' definition is too wide, also implies that, just like any other art, rhetoric will have to make its practitioners capable of understanding the 'principles' of its subject matter. This implication will tum out to be of fundamental importance for the main issue of the dialogue. One final example of &pa and &p' ouv can be taken from the continuation of a passage I have quoted above [(10)]. There, after having Polus made admit that «he who is punished is benefited», Socrates proceeds to find out what kind of benefit Polus is thinking of: (l 5)

Socrates: ..Apa iiV1tEp tyro u1toM1µpavro 'TilV ~iiav; pe11,tlrov 'TilV 'lfUX'flV yi.yvE't'at, Et1tEp 0tx:ai.roc; KOA,Q~E't'at; Po/us: Etx:6c; ye. Socrates: (apa;) Then he who is punished is rid of evil in the soul? Po/us: Yes. Socrates: ..Ap' ouv -cou µeyi.o-cou a1taAMTIE-cat x:ax:ou; Look at it in this way (cooE oe ox:61tet·): In the fabric of man's material estate do you see any other evil than poverty? Po/us: No, only poverty. Socrates: Tio· tv ocoµa-coc; x:a-caox:eufl; Would you say its evil is weakness and sickness and ugliness and such things? Po/us: I would. (477a5-b8)

Here also, both the &pa- and the op' ouv-question can be seen to be intended as veritable yes/no questions. The kind of benefit Socrates is referring to needs further specification: is his soul made better if he is rightly punished? If Polus will agree to this, this will provide Socrates with a premiss for the further statement that «(apa) he wo is punished is rid of evil in the soul» (cf. 475c7-9). This in tum will provide the basis for asking Polus the question Socrates has been aiming at for a long time: would Polus agree or not that «evil in the soul» is «the greatest of evils»? For the

PARTICLES IN QUESTIONS IN PLATO

167

time being the question is left open: Polos is not supposed to answer it before it has been subjected to a separate investigation, introduced by ro6e 6e mc61tet. Only at 477e4-6 he is invited to answer it on the basis of the outcome of the investigation: (15a)

'H a6ucia apa Kai. Tl OKOMXai.a Kai. 'tCOV 0V'tCOV KaK0V eanv; - Cl>ai.VE'tat.

11

QA.A.Tl

\j/UXlli;

7t0\/Tlpi.a µeyunov

4.dpa The point of departure of my discussion of c'ipa in questions is the treatment of apa by Van Ophuijsen, who convincingly defines (102) its contribution to step by step arguments as conveying «that the present statement has to be accepted on the strength of the preceding ones as soon as these are granted». We may render its contribution in English by expressions such as: 'if this is so', 'it appears', 'if this is granted'. This may be illustrated from two passages I have quoted earlier on. In (10) steps 3 ('if this is so, the quality of the blow received by the stricken depends on the quality of the blow given by the striker'), 13 ('if it is granted that just things are honorable, then the man who is punished [justly] suffers what is honorable'), 15 and 16 are cases in point. In (14] we have similar instances both of ouK c'ipa and of apa. I am, then, fully prepared to follow Van Ophuijsen (101) in taking it that, in Plato, apa is far from being «used practically as a variant for ouv and 6ip> (Denniston 40), but, on the contrary, «is more apt than both ouv and 611 to be used in cases of strictly formal connexion»: «c'ipa ties the acceptance of a proposition to an assumption in the context» (Van Ophuijsen 87). Thus, apa is, so to speak, on the lower side of a gliding scale that goes from veritable yes/no questions via various other question types (among them ouKouv-questions, questions with simple ouv, with 6e, &c.) to those questions where the interlocutor is given to understand that he is supposed to have committed himself to confirming the suggestion offered to him. &pa-questions submit «for confirmation or denial a suggestion based on the preceding statement or formula of assent» (Van Ophuijsen 116). What makes them different from questions that are introduced by other particles is precisely the nature of the relationship between the content of the &pa-utterance and the statement(s) confirmed earlier on by the interlocutor. By using c'ipa the questioner suggests that his conversation partner must either accept the predication based on the preceding µoA.OyTlµeva or invalidate the logic behind the questioner's suggestion so as to force him to vindicate his argumentation or to abandon this line of reasoning. The one problematic aspect of apa in the present context is the remarkable fact that, in our editions, some &pa-utterances are printed with a full stop, whereas after others a question mark is inserted. I have spent some time on trying to find out why this is so, but have not succeeded in tracing any consistent criteria that may have

168

C.M.I. SICKING

made Burnet-who is without exception followed by Dodds-decide in favour of the one or the other. In 476b3ff. [= (10)), I see no relevant difference between steps 3, 15 and 16 on the one hand and step 13 on the other, that would make one print a period in the former, and a question mark in the latter; nor can I discover any characteristic of the two instances of (ouic) apa in 449elff. [= (14)) that would justify printing a full stop rather than a question mark. If it is correct that the force of apa is to be defined in terms of the 'acceptance' rather than of the 'truth' of the statements involved (cf. Van Ophuijsen 139), printing a period after (a selection of) apa-questions would seem to betray a lack of understanding of Socratic dialectic: the mere fact that Socrates is offering a proposition that is based on statements previously agreed on does not imply that the matter is closed. Just as in the case of other questionstatements, the content of apa-questions has to rise to the status of c.i>µoA.oyTJµevov before it can be used as a basis for further argument. It is, perhaps, a matter of taste whether one wants to make this visible by printing a question mark in the text; if, however, an editor would prefer-as I would not-printing a period he might at least be expected to do so consistently.

5. Ti ouv, tl oi, Ti OT), Ti ouv OT) and Ti 1t0tE In the final part of this paper I will offer some observations on tl ouv; 10 tl M; 11 tl 6ii; 12 TI. O'UV 61t 13 TI. 7tO'te;1 4 According to Kilhner-Gerth, questions introduced by tl(~) ouv are used in dialogue either «wenn der Fragende in Beziehung auf eine gethane Ausserung eines anderen mit Lebhaftigkeit (my italics) Aufklarung verlangt» or «folgemd», in a way that is to be compared with Latin quis igitur ... ? (K-G 2, 161-2). I would, however, submit that there is nothing in tl ouv that makes it especially apt for being used in lively questions or for inviting one to affirm a conclusion drawn from some preceding statement. In the Gorgias there are 11 instances of tl ouv, either standing on its own or introducing a complete sentence. In some cases it is used by one of Socrates' conversation partners, as in: (16)

Socrates: If you wish to question me, ask me what part of flattery I claim rhetoric to be. Po/us: I will. Answer me: what part? Socrates: I wonder whether you will understand my answer. Rhetoric in my opinion is the semblance of a part of politics. Po/us: Ti ouv; icaA.Ov Tl aiaxpov A.tyet~ aU'tT]V eivat;

l0452a7,452c4,460bl,463d3,466a4,478b3,498a7,504b8,509c9,516a4,516bl0. l l 34 occurrences in the Gorgias. 12 448el, 469a3, 470a4, 486e4. 13 450b3, 452d9, 453b4, 505c7, 515el. Ti yap o,;: 480b6; 1t~ &;ta: 469b7. 14 455a8, 463a2, 488cl, 489d6, 490bl, 502c2.

PARTICLES IN QUESTIONS IN PLATO

169

Socrates: Bad-for evil things I call bad-if I must answer you as though you already understand what I mean. (463c6-d5) Here, Polus' problem with Socrates' answer to his first question, apparently, is that he cannot understand its relevance for what is, for him, the subject-matter at hand: how is Socrates' answer going to contribute to answering the question whether rhetoric is to be called good or bad? So, if one wishes to paraphrase the value of tl ouv, it will have to be by something like: 'What is the relevance of this for the issue at hand? What I want to know is: do you mean that rhetoric is good, or bad?' The reverse of this can be seen in ( 17), a passage that will provide us at the same time with some characteristic instances of tl re: ( 17)

Socrates: The good is not the same as the pleasant, nor the evil as the painful. For we cease from the one pair at the same time, but not from the other, because they are distinct. How then (m~ ouv marks the return from the explanation to the main line of the argument) could the pleasant be the same as the good, or the painful as the evil?( ... ) Do you not call good people by that name because of the presence in them of things good, just as you call beautiful those in whom beauty is present? Callicles: I do. Socrates: Ti re; Do you call fools or cowards good men? You did not just now, but it was the brave and the wise, or do you not call these good? Callicles: I do. Socrates: TI re; Have you ever seen a silly child enjoying pleasure? Callicles: Yes. Socrates: And never seen a silly man enjoying pleasure? Callicles: Yes, I suppose so. au.a tl wiho; Socrates: Nothing, just answer. Callicles: Yes. Socrates: TI ot; And a sensible man experiencing pain or pleasure? Callicles: Yes. Socrates: Which (1t6-repot re) feels more pain or pleasure, the sensible or the fool? Callicles: I do not think there is much difference. Socrates: That will do. Have you ever seen a coward (ot) in battle? Callicles: Of course. Socrates: Ti ouv; When the enemy retreated, which of the two seemed more to rejoice, the cowards or the brave? Callicles: Both equally, I think, or if not, pretty much so. Socrates: It doesn't make any difference. We may leave it at that: what I want to know is whether cowards too feel pleasure, just like the brave (Ouoev

C.M.J. SICKING

170

61.a4>tpe1.. xaipoucnv 6' ouv 15 Kat oi 6e1.)..oi; - 04>66pa ye, - Kat oi a4>pove~. ~ £01.KEV). (497d6-498b4) What makes this exchange remarkable is that Socrates is posing a whole series of seemingly unconnected questions, all of them introduced by -ri. 6£; or containing just 6£. Only at 498b7 ouKow will mark the question which at last reveals the application of the series: 'Then fools and wise, cowards and brave feel pain and pleasure to a like degree, as you say, but the coward more so than the brave?' (OuKouv )..unouvim µi:v Kat xaipouo1.v Kat oi a4>pove~ Kat oi 4>p6v1.µ01. Kat oi. 6e1.)..ot Kat oi. av6pe1.01. 1tapa1tA.T1oiroCJEµEVat (Od. 4.5-7) 'He [Menelaus] was sending away his daughter in marriage: for already in Troy he had promised and consented to give her'

TAP INTRODUCING EMBEDDED NARRATIVES

177

This last use of yap, to introduce infonnation relating to the past, is fairly widespread in Homer; roughly 20% of the instances are anterior (as against 75% simultaneous and 5% posterior). Often the anteriority is made explicit by the use of temporal modifiers like 11611 (e.g., II. 3.205), 1to-re (e.g., II. 6.216), 1tapo~ (e.g., II. 11.111 ), 1tpiv (e.g., Od. 11.484), ou ... mo (e.g., II. 1.154), or x0t~6~ (e.g., II. 1.423). This 'anterior' yap is often employed in the narrative device of the epic regression: the narrator mentions an event, then goes back in time step by step until a certain point, and then narrates the events again, often in more detail, in their normal progressive order (schematically: D-C-B-A-A'-B'-C'-D').1 A famous example is the beginning of the Iliad: (5)

D

C

B

Ti~ 't' ap acpcoe 0ecov ept6t /;UVEflX:£ µaxea0at; All'tOU~ x:ai. &to~ ui.6~· (8-9) 'What god was it then set them together in bitter collision? Zeus' son and Leto's, Apollo,' 2 oyap pami..f\t xoM00ei.~ VO'U~OµEVO> 1tt:6iot0 o~ ivt pw~etv-re µuptlCi.v, B ayKUA.OV apµa a~av-r' EV 1tpon(!> puµcp C airrro µEV EPll'tllV 1tpoc; 7tOA.tV, 7tt:p oi QA.A.Ot an>~6µevot ,optov-ro, D au-roe; 6' EiC 6i~poto 1tapa -rpoxov ~EICUA.ta8TJ 1tp11vric; ev Kovi'nmv E1t1. m6µa· E' 1tap 6t oi E'U't£t>8£v. tlc; yap apxa o~aw vauni..iac; ... ; (P. 4.68-70) 'Of him [Arcesilas], then, will I sing, and of the Golden Fleece, for when the Minyan chiefs set sail to fetch it, the gods sowed honor for his race and him. What, then, started them on that voyage ... ?' (there follows the story of the quest for the Golden Fleece until line 246)

Braswell (1988: ad Joe.) comments: 'This use of explanatory yap is regularly found 'after an expression denoting the giving or receiving of information, or conveying a summons of attention' (Denniston Greek Particles 59). It is often used to introduce a story or myth.'ll Here, in my view, we have a second explanation for the use of yap at the opening of narratives: this time it is not the outcome of the narrative which is announced, the actual story then following in a section introduced by yap, but the narrative itself ('I will sing of the quest for the Golden Fleece').

Sophocles Sophocles' seven extant tragedies contain eight narratives by messengers, reporting events which have taken place offstage. 12 Four of these narratives are introduced by yap, e.g.:

(9)

(Creon has asked the messenger how locasta died)

Ay. auni 1tpoc; autfic;. 'tCOV OE 1tpax8ev-trov 't(l µEV ai..yta-t' (l1t£V£lOV £tµ'iv ').i;yetv. "Hv -yup 7tO'tE XPOVOro"tcov µV11aoµm o'i TT6vwto Ka'ta ,,rov 6£ µit £7tl0TJA.Ov; ('lo: Who then is to loose you against the will of 2.eus? Prom.: It is to be one of your own lineage. Io: How do you say? Do you mean that a child of mine will release you from your misery?', A. Pr. 771-3)26 By using ~ Io underlines that she can hardly believe and understand what Prometheus is saying and that, for that reason, she is checking whether she has drawn the right conclusion. 3. Whereas with µriv, as has been argued above, the speaker as it were personally guarantees the truth of the proposition concerned and generally reacts to, and expresses the contrary of, what the addressee might either suppose or wish, ~ (as a representational particle) is as it were more objective 'there is no denying', i.e. neither for the speaker nor for the addressee: 'there is no denying-whether or not you and I think it unbelievable or undesirable. ' 27 By ~. the speaker presents the proposition as undeniably true. Often, of course, a speaker will underscore the truth of his proposition in this way when he supposes the addressee to be inclined to disbelieve him (in this respect~ resembles µ11v). However, an ~-clause does not necessarily react to information given previously by the addressee, as may be inferred from examples where ~ is used by a character entering upon the stage without having heard the previous words, cf. (12)

Creon:

~ 1t6U' E7tT1l8ov ei.atoe'iv XP'tl~rov a·, ava~

'E-re6KA.££i; ... I ... Eteocles: Kai. µiiv i:yro a' EXPlJ~Ov eim&'iv, Kpfov· ('Cr.: Truly, I have gone to many places, hoping to see you, king Eteocles. Et.: And I really wanted to see you', E. Ph. 697-700) In 690 Eteocles wants to send forth someone to fetch Creon, unnecessarily, since at that very moment Creon appears, opening his words with ~- Note the opposition with Kat µ11v used by Eteocles in his reaction. With Kat µ11v Eteocles underscores the truth/sincerity of his assenting words, from which we may infer that he thinks it unlikely that Creon expects that he (E.) wants to see him(= Creon). Generally speaking, ~ is used in all kinds of opening words which do not react to the words of a previous speaker, e.g. in the closing lines of the tragedy spoken by the chorus (S. Aj. 1418), in the opening line of a long speech or prophecy which has been announced in advance, or in the opening line of a choral song (A. Eu. 34, Pers. 852, Pr. 887; E. Andr. 274, Med. 579). M11v is never used in this way. 4. The above description, notably the idea that ~ functions at the representational level and forces the truth of something both upon the speaker and upon the addressee

26 Cf. e.g. S. El. 401, OT 622,943, Tr. 971.

27 The observations in Sicking (1986: 133, 137) point in the same direction. Unfonunately, he does not funher investigate this point in Sicking & van Ophuijsen (1993: 54-7).

EMPHASIS AND AFFIRMATION

221

('there is no denying, whether or not you and I think it believable') also explains its frequent collocation with a number of attitudinal particles which are not found in combination with µi\v. The strong personal conviction conveyed by µi\v apparently clashed with the values of these attitudinal particles. We find the following combinations with~ (and not with µi\v). - ~ &pa or~ 'tapa (= wt apa). As stated in section 2, the attitudinal particle apa expresses the idea that the speaker cannot but accept the truth of the proposition involved, although he is surprised at it. He thus anticipates or wants to elicit a possible feeling of surprise on the part of the addressee. "H ('t)apa is often found in passages in which a speaker draws a conclusion, a conclusion that is inevitable in view of the previous words or of the situation and that at the same time is surprising--often disappointing-for the speaker (and possibly also for the addressee). An example is ( 13), where in a long rhesis Admetus is reproaching his father that he has not shown the courage to die in his place. In his own words, 'put to the test, you showed who you are and I do not reckon myself your true-born son.' Admetus then continues with (13)

~ 'tapa 7tUV ICO't' oµµa GOV, £i 611 yevoiµ11v &tµa-rcov eA.Eu8epa -rcov 1tp6a8e. (' So be it. Where shall I begin the harsh words I have to say? Where end? Which words shall I put in the midst? And truly dawn after dawn I never failed to repeat over and over what I wanted to tell you to your face if ever I was free from past terrors', E. El. 907-12)

Here the speaker contradicts the possible implications of her own questions (907-8), viz. that she has never thought about the things she would say. 32 See De Jong (1991) for a discussion of one type of narrative in drama: Euripidean messenger~ ~ n y examples, as in (18), 'YE is added in the µ,iv-clause to explicitly make this (usually unexpected and therefore most important) constituent the scope of the utterance, cf. also (2), (9), ~19), (20), (25). 4 Cf. e.g. A. A. 1279, Pr. 268; E. Rh. 778, 958.

224

GERRYWAKKER

Interestingly, in monologic argumentative contexts dialogic phenomena may occur (such as questions or directives, presupposing the involvement of an addressee; interjections; the presence of first and second person pronouns etc.). 35 In such contexts µiiv is also found, cf. (20)

OU µiJv tpe'i; "(£ µ' ci>c; anµa~ovra aov "fllpa; 0ave'iv 1tpou6ro1Ca;, ... ('Surely you will not say that you have given me up to die because I failed in respect for your age', E. Ale. 658-9)

Admetus is summing up the arguments as to why his father should have chosen to die in his place: he has got everything during his life (long life, kingship, son). With the ou µiiv-clause Admetus explicitly contradicts the possible counter-argument Pheres might think of: 'all right, during my life I have had all, but you did not honour me.'36

As the above examples show, µiiv in non-dialogic contexts has the same function as in dialogic contexts, the only difference being that by definition the speaker/narrator cannot react to (the implications of) his addressee's previous words. He rather contradicts the possible conclusions his addressee may draw from the facts that the speaker himself has presented just before.

3.2. The so-called adversative value of J&l\V In many of the above examples, where µiiv corrects or eliminates the (implications of the) previous proposition(s), an 'adversative' nuance is present as well, cf. exx. (2), (8), (9), (18), (19), (20). It seems unwarranted, however, to attribute in these cases an adversative connecting function to µiiv. 37 The adversativity results from the fact that contrasting assertions are made and does not as such belong to the meaning of µiiv. A clear case in point is (21)

Creon: OU pouwµat 'tOV µavnv QV'tEl1tEtV ICOIC~. Teiresias: JCal µiJv Atyet;, 'lfEUOTl µe 0ecmi~etv Atyrov. ('Cr.: I do not wish to reply rudely to the prophet. Teir.: And truly you do speak rudely, saying that my prophecies are false', S. Ant. 1053-4)

Miiv, as elsewhere, means 'and truly (you do that)'; by the use of µiiv Teiresias insists on the truth of what he says, clearly because he is contradicting Creon. The adversative relationship is not explicitly indicated as such, however, and µiiv has its normal function as an attitudinal particle at the interactional level, not as an adversative 35 Cf. Kroon (1995: 111-5). 36 Denniston (338) attributes a progressive function to this µiiv 'nor again', unnecessarily, in my opinion. Comparable examples are A. A. 1068; S. El. 817; E. Ale. 653, 1018; Med. 1032. 37 In (3), this is impossible anyhow, given the presence of but also in other cases the adversativity is not part of the semantics of µiiv.

au.a,

EMPHASIS AND AFFIRMATION

225

connector at the representational level. Otherwise stated, µT]v does not itself express the adversative relationship, but by its very meaning it is very much compatible with such a context. For Homer, as I stated in section 1, it has been argued that µT]v never fully has the status of an adversative connector. Everywhere its attitudinal value applies. It must now be asked whether the same holds for tragedy in those cases where a nuance of adversativity is present, at least in the context, and where commentators and/or Denniston attribute an adversative value to µT]v. 38 For most combinations (you and the summary presented in the YE µiiv-clause, cf. Griffith's paraphrase ad loc. 'but (this) at any rate (I will tell you)'. If we assume that in all eight YE µiiv-cases YE focuses the attention on the contrast, this leaves us with the question as to which value is expressed by µriv. Since contrasting states of affairs are presented a nuance of adversativity is inherently present; µriv could be said to mark this relation. But it certainly also fulfils its primary function of an attitudinal particle: the addressee is perhaps not likely to accept the truth of the statement concerned Miiv functions, then, primarily as an interactional particle, though it functions perhaps also as a connector, marking the relation of adversativity at the representational level of discourse. Note, however, that we are dealing here with a group of only eight examples, a small minority of all cases. Be that as it may, in all supposedly adversative examples µiiv has (also) its primary attitudinal value. There are no examples where µriv must be taken as just an adversative connector.

3.3. The progr~ive value of µ11v Just as µiiv 'truly', 'really' is highly appropriate in adversative contexts, it is also very much at home in enumerations, to mark an item of which the speaker may expect that it will elicit the addressee's disbelief or surprise. Anticipating a reaction of disbelief he marks the truth of what he is presenting with µriv. We thus often find µriv in a climax, cf. (24)

1tpco-rov µi:v E'l)(JEPEt.aV ... I ... otcrn ... I E1tEt'ta EA.EU8Epa I x:alfj ... Kat yaµrov E1tO~i.rov I 't"E'll~'IJ" I M>yrov YE µ11v EUICA.Etav oux op~~ 0011v I CJOU't11 't"E x:ciµot 1tpoapaA.Et~ ... ('first you will win praise of piety; next you will be called free and you will obtain a worthy marriage. Then, don't you see what fair fame you will win for yourself and for me?', S. El. 968-74)

a· ...

Electra is sketching the positive consequences that Chrysothemis will experience if she follows her advice. The mere number of the lines devoted to each item (2, 3 and 12, respectively) indicates that the third item is characterised as a climax. Just as in (22) above, yE may be used to focus the attention on a contrast. Electra's l6yrov contrasts with the epya (freedom and marriage) implied by the preceding context. Miiv is added because in the circumstances Chrysothemis might perhaps not think of this point: 'Really, how much EUKA.Eta you will have.' While the attitudinal value might, then, be present, µiiv is used in a totally different type of discourse (argumentative monologue). Thereby it acquires a progressive nuance, since it intro-

EMPHASIS AND AFFIRMATION

227

duces, at the presentational level of discourse, a new point, that the addressee probably did not expect.39 Compare also, in a dialogic context (25)

Kat µriv 'tO y' au.a K~ Kat 1taA.Oi.' E1tTJ ([The chorus advise Oedipus to consult Teiresias; Oedipus replies that he has already sent for Teiresias] Ch. 'All the rest, to be sure, is vague and ancient rumour', S.OT 290)40

Having made their point about consulting Teiresias concerning the murder, the chorus put forward a new point in connection with the murder, namely the various stories that are being told. Beforehand, they indicate that these stories are definitely vague and old. The chorus add µ,iv to prevent Oedipus from estimating the importance of the stories in a different way (which he does indeed, cf. 291). Here, too, µ,iv seems to have mainly an attitudinal value. The effect of progression is certainly present, but arises out of the context.41 There are also examples in narrative contexts, e.g. within a messenger's speech (26)

The Greeks have encouraged themselves with the following words: 'Free your native land, your children, wives, gods, tombs of your ancestors. Now you fight for your all' Kat µriv 1tap' T\J.I.COV ITepcn~o~ yi..coo011~ p68o~ 'U1tTJV'tla~E, KOUKt-r' ~v µeUetv aKµ,i. (' And really, from our side a clamour of Persian cries answered, and the time brooked no delay', A. Pers. 406-7)

This µ,iv is commonly taken as progressive, introducing a new point (Denniston, Broadhead a.I., Sidgwick a.I.). It is, however, more than that. After the description of the way the Greeks prepared themselves, the adressees might perhaps infer that the Persians did not react anymore. With Kat µ,iv this possible inference is explicitly contradicted. Once again, then, µ,iv has primarily an attitudinal value; the progressive nuance is due to the context.42 A transitional stage between interactional (i.e. attitudinal) and presentational (i.e. progressive) µiJv is probably to be seen in the use of Kat µ,iv (which is characteristic of drama) to mark the entrance of a new character on the stage (27) or as a marker of the sudden realisation of some fact (28): 39 Cf. with YE µ,;v E. Rh. 196; with ical µiiv ... (yE) A. A. 1188, Ch. 205, Th. 668 {ooot ... µ,;v); E. Andr. 672, Hee. 317,824. 4 Cf. E. Ale. 516 (the new item 1tat11p YE µ,;v is in contrast with xat6E~; at the same time the proposition contradicts the possible idea of the addressee that the death of his father is a very serious matter), E. Cye. 141, Hel. 1071, 1079; A. Ch. 174. 41 Denniston (354) and Dawe a.I. claim that µ,;v here expresses 'agreement' or 'assent': 'aye, truly', 'well certainly'. This seems rather improbable. 42 Some other examples: A. Pr. 459, Th. 538.

°

228

GERRYWAKKER

(27a) (27b) (27c) (27d)

Kat µiiv 1tpo 1tUMOV ii6' 'IaµriVTJ (S. Ant. 526) o& µiiv A1µcov (S. Ant. 626; the only example of µriv alone) Kat µiiv opro ... Eupu6i1CT1V (S. Ant. 1180) Kat µiiv 06' &val; au-roe; Ecl>TIKEt (sc. Creon; s. Ant. 1257)

(28)

Admetus: co 6a'iµov, ofoc; au~uyou µ' 01tocrn:pE'ic;. Alcestis: Kat µiiv CJKOt"EtVOV oµµa µou l}apUVEt"at. Admetus: Q1t(l)A.0µ11v ap', Et µE 6ii AEl'lfEtc; ... ('Adm.: Oh my destiny, from what wife are you bereaving me' Al.: Ah! my eyes grow heavy and dark. Adm.: I am lost, then, if you will really leave me', E. Ale. 384-6)43

These two groups of examples have in common that they do not express a direct reaction to what precedes. However, they do draw attention to an event that will not have been expected at that very moment by the addressee. In this sense, then, a new point is involved. When a new character is introduced in a Kat µriv-clause, this character is always a person whose entrance has not been announced in the preceding lines. Kat µriv thus expresses, at the interactional level, 'really there we have' (the speaker expresses his surprise that ~t that very_1!_1_o_me!1!.... is coming and wants his addressee(s) to share that feeling). On the other hand, at the presentational level, µriv highlights a-surprising-new tum in the course of the events/discussion. Concerning (27b), Denniston (356 (6)) supposes that µriv has a breaking-off function, but this term is more suited for cases like (29), where the combination aUa ... yap has an explicit breaking-off function: (29)

aU' o6E yap 6ii pamAEuc; xropac;, I Kperov ('but enough about this for [aUa ... yap] here comes - please note [6ii] - the king of the land, Creon', S. Ant. 155-6)

Mutatis mutandis the same applies to cases like (28). The state of affairs described in the Kat µriv-clause is new and unexpected and constitutes at the same time a tum in the course of the events. I should add that Kat 6ri, too, is used when a new character is entering on the stage. Just as in (4)-(5) as opposed to (6)-(7), the difference between Kat µriv and Kat 6ri seems to be that the former is connected with unexpected events, while the latter is connected with events that are expected, cf. (30)

Medea:

1taA.at ... I Kapa6oKro -raKE'i8Ev ot 1tpol}riCJE-rat. Kat 6ii 6t6opKa i-6v6E -rrov 'Iacrovoc; crn:ixov-r' 01ta6rov·

43 Cf. E. ANlr. 820, Ba. 918,957, Ion 201, IT 1050.

EMPHASIS AND AFFIRMATION

229

('Long am I expecting what from there shall befall. And look, I see a man from Jason's servants coming here', E. Med. 1116-9)44 As in (6)-(7), with x:at. 6,; the speaker asks attention for her (interesting) statement; and, in fact, precisely at that moment the event which is being talked about takes place.

4. Concluding remarks In summary, µ,;v in tragedy may be described as follows. In most cases µ,;v functions at the interactional level of discourse, as an attitudinal particle; by the use of µ,;v the speaker insists on the truth of his proposition, in this way anticipating a negative reaction of the addressee, who on the basis of previous infonnation or of the situation in general might not expect this proposition to be true. Not surprisingly, most cases of µ,;v are found in declarative utterances in dialogic contexts. By its strongly affirmative (and corrective) value µriv is especially at home in adversative contexts: it corrects or eliminates the previous statement or its implications. However, in tragedy, µriv never develops into a purely connective adversative particle at the representational level. In all cases it functions at the interactional level. On the other hand, the strongly affirmative value of µ,;v makes it a suitable means to highlight a surprising item, or a climax in enumerations. On the basis of this use we may explain its progressive function at the presentational level, where it serves to introduce a new step in the narrative or argumentation or to mark a sudden turn in the course of the events. In tragedy this use of µriv is found when µ,;v marks the entrance of a new character upon the stage. The attitudinal value does not seem wholly lost, however, as is apparent from a comparison with icat. 6ri in parallel contexts. By the above description of µ,;v I hope to have shown the advantage of using functional criteria such as the level of discourse, type of context, type of utterance, relation speaker - addressee. These criteria made it possible to provide a description of the uses of µ,;v in tragedy which is more consistent than the one presented by Denniston. Moreover these criteria made it possible to distinguish µriv from other particles characterised by Denniston as 'emphatic' and/or 'affirmative'. rE is a scope particle with }imitative value which functions at the representational level. It is thus rather different from µriv both as to value and as to the discourse level with which it is connected. "H primarily functions at the representational level, too; in using ~ the speaker insists on the truth of a proposition in a more or less objective way ('there is no denying'). In other words, in using ~ a speaker forces the truth of his utterance upon the addressee; he presents this truth is inevitable, whether or not speaker and addressee think it unbelievable or undesirable. In using the attitudinal and interactional µ,;v, on the other hand, a speaker as it were personally guarantees 44 Cf. e.g. S. Aj. 544; E. Cyc. 488, Supp. 1114.

230

GERRYWAKKER

the truth of his statement and anticipates a possible negative reaction of the addressee.

L\11 and µiiv, finally, are both interactive particles, but the value of 011 is widely differ-

ent from that of µ11v: 611 asks attention for the (interesting) proposition presented. Since the reasons for doing so may be manifold, 611 figures in many types of contexts, whereas the use of µ11v is much more restricted. On the basis of these (rather) global semantic values it was possible to explain a number of distributional features of the three particles µfiv, ~ and 011 in tragedy (e.g. the fact that~ cipa does and *µ11v cipa does not occur), as well as some differences in nuance when they occur in similar contexts, cf. Kat µ11v and Kat 611 in assenting contexts and their use to mark the entrance of a new character upon the stage. 45

References Abraham (ed.), W. 1986 Tijdschrift voor Tekst- en Taalwetenschap (TIT) 6 no.2 (special issue on particles) Bakker, E.J. 'oCJ1tEp en ei.1tt:p: een aspect van Attische conversatie'. Lampas 19, 142-58 1986 1988 Linguistics and Formulas in Homer. Scalarity and the Description of the Particle per. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjarnins 1993 'Boundaries, Topic and the Structure of Discourse: An Investigation of the Ancient Greek Particle de'. Studies in Language 17, 275-311 Denniston, J.D. 19542 The Greek Particles. Oxford Foolen, A. 1991 'Polyfunctionality and the semantics of adversative conjunctions'. Multilingua 10-1/2, 79-92 De betekenis van partikels: Een dokumentatie van de stand van het onder1993 zoek met bijzondere aandacht voor maar. Nijmegen Halliday, M.A.K. 1985 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland Hellwig, A. 1974 'Zur Funktion und Bedeutung der griechischen Partikeln'. Glotta 52, 14571 de Jong, I.J.F. 1991 Narrative in Drama. The Art of the Euripidean Messenger-Speech. Leiden/New York: Brill Kroon, C.H.M.

45 My thanks are due to Professor A.M. van Erp Taalman Kip, Dr P. Hatlie, Professor S.L. Radt, Dr R.F. Regtuit and Dr A. Rijksbaron for their comments on an earlier version.

EMPHASIS AND AFFIRMATION

231

1992

'Particula perplexa'. In: G. Bakkum, C.H.M. Kroon, R. Risselada (eds), Pentecostalia. Amsterdam: UvA, 53-64 1994 'Discourse Connectives and Discourse Type: the Case of Latin at'. In: J. Herman (ed.), Linguistic Studies on Latin. (Studies in Language Companion Series 28). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 303-17 1995 Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. Amsterdam: Gieben Levinson, S.C. 1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Rijksbaron, A. 1991 Grammatical Observations on Euripides' Bacchae. Amsterdam: Gieben Ruijgh, C.J. 1971 Autour de 're epique'. Etudes sur la syntaxe grecque. Amsterdam: Hakkert Schiffrin, D. 1987 Discourse Markers (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5). Cambridge: CUP Sicking, C.M.J. 1986 'Griekse partikels: definitie en classificatie'. Lampas 19, 125-41 1994 'Taalkundige observaties bij het onderwijs in het Grieks'. Lampas 21, 4-27 Sicking C.M.J. & J.M. van Ophuijsen 1993 Two Studies in Attic Particle Usage. Lysias and Plato. Leiden: Brill Slings, S.R. 1980 "'KAI adversativum"-Some Thoughts on the Semantics of Coordination'. In: D.J. v. Alkemade et al., Linguistic Studies Offered to B. Siertsema. Amsterdam, 101-25 Wakker, G.C. 1994 Conditions and Conditionals. An Investigation of Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: Gieben 1994a 'µav, µfiv.' In: Lexikon desfruhgriechischen Epos 15, 29-30 1995 "'Welaan dan dus nu". Partikels in Sophocles'. Lampas 28, 250-70 1996 'The Discourse Function of Particles. Some Observations on the Use of µav/µfiv in Theocritus'. In: M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Wakker (eds), Hellenistica Groningana II. Theocritus. Groningen: Forsten, 247-63 Weydt, H. (ed.) 1969 Abtonungspartikeln. Berlin Weydt H. & H. Ehlers 1987 Partikel-Bibliographie. Frankfurt am Main: Lang Wolski, W. 1986 Partikellexikographie. Ein Beitrag zur praktischen Lexikologie (Lexicographica. Series 14). Tiibingen: Niemeyer

PARAPLEROMATIC LUCUBRATIONS INEKE SUJITER Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton

Not unlike their modern counterparts, ancient linguists like neat and all-encompassing classifications. Their main theoretical framework, the system of the parts of speech, is designed to accommodate every instance of each and every word in the process called µepiaµ6~ ('parsing'). The partes orationis were defined by a combination of fOimal and semantic considerations, to which essential syntactic infOimation could be added (as in 'adverbs tend to go with verbs'). The latter type of information was considered part of the general semantics of a word class and tended to be confined to observations on the physical combinations of words and their equally physical positions vis-a-vis each other. The main partes were subdivided into numerous subcategories, again mostly on the strength of semantic criteria. Dionysius Thrax, for instance, enumerates 26 different types of adverbs, all of which are purely defined by their meaning, with the likely exception of the emppTJµa'ta µeaO'tJ'l'tO~. It is probable that the primary trait this latter group has in common is a morphological one, namely their ending in -ro~. Similarly, he distinguishes eight (or nine) types of 'conjunctions', 1 all of which are defined by their function or their semantic loadoften the two are hard to distinguish (D. Th. 87. lff.). As with any system descriptive of language, the actual empirical material turned out to be recalcitrant, and to resist complete pigeonholing in terms of the partes that were distinguished. This appears from the elaborate discussions Apollonius Dyscolus devotes to the classification of problematic words, and which he habitually inserts between his discussion of the definition, syntax and semantics of each part of speech and the more detailed discussion of the morphological characteristics of specimina belonging in each part. Such discussions are extant e.g. in his De pronominibus (pron. 26.23 - 35.5) and De adverbiis (adv. 126.24 - 145.25), while a similar section from De coniunctionibus (coni.) got lost in the lacuna after coni. 214.26. 2 However, the framework of the partes orationis itself offered some room to accommodate borderline cases, in that it contained several categories which were capable of absorbing precisely those words whose meristic characteristics were less clear-cut. The adverb is probably the best example. Any word which is used in a way that sets it off from the part of speech to which it would usually be taken to belong, 1 The ancient word-class of the auvoeaµot encompasses both more and less than our term 'conjunctions'. I will use the word in inverted commas to draw attention to this fact. 2 It is announced coni. 213.18 1tpoatn Kat 'ta oo~av foXTJKO'ta auvofoµcov, oi> µiiv OV'ta.

234

INEKE SLUITER

becomes an adverb. 3 For instance, any declinable word which is used in an adverbial way thereby turns into an adverb itself (adv. 120.lff.). As we will see, the subclassification of the 'conjunctions' ((J'l)v5eaµot) contains a potential receptacle for residual cases as well, the sub-set of the (J'l)v5eaµot 1tap01tA.T1proµa-rucoi. 4 In the following I will argue that the theoretical distinction of this group of particles in antiquity develops out of the debate on whether or not 'conjunctions' have meaning, and an interest in the rhetorical and stylistic effects of redundancy. Later grammatical theory adopted the group with traces of its background in stylistic theory shining through, and exploited its potential to function as a port-manteau category in its word-class system. 'Conjunctions' (crov5eaµot) were a recognized linguistic category from Aristotle onwards (Poet. 1456b39ff.), but the subcategory of the 1tapa1tA.T1proµan1eoi was a later addition to linguistic theory. Summarizing the relatively late locus classicus on the topic (Ap. Dysc. coni. 247.22 - 258.26), the group can provisionally be defined as consisting of particles with a wide range of meanings, but sharing the characteristic that they are also (and even predominantly) used without any distinguishable semantic or syntactic impact or purpose, to 'fill out' or embellish metre and style. Their name derives from this common element, because it is more practicable than multiplying the number of types in an inordinate way by naming every one of these 'conjunctions' after their very diverse meanings. It is likely that distinction of this category was facilitated by more general discussions about the question whether or not syndesmoi as a group had meaning. Aristotle had categorically denied this, 5 and traces of the debate can be found in Posidonius (apud Apollonius Dyscolus). 6 Only after a consensus had been established that the 'conjunctions' in general did have meaning, did the need arise for a separate subcategory which could deal with those instances that to all intents and purposes did not. Yet, from the beginning stylistic implications are more important than semanticosyntactic ones. [Ar.] Prob/. XIX 20 (919a), often adduced in discussions of parapleromatic particles, is usually interpreted as an early recognition of the non-necessary character of 'some' syndesmoi, and this is taken to refer to their semanticosyntactic qualities. However, a closer look at the context reveals that this is not its 3 The adverb was called pandectes for that very reason, e.g. Charisius 252.29ff. B.: cum adverbium Stoici ... pandecten vocent. nam omnia in se capit quasi collata per saturam concessa sibi rerum varia potestate; Clemens Ars grammatica (ed. Tolkiehn) 88. I 7ff.: Hoc quoque intuendum, quod haec pars, id est adverbium, duo nomina habet apud Graecos, id est 'epirrhema', quod interpretatur 'adverbium', et 'pandecten' quod interpretatur 'omne dictum' [this is wrong, of course], quia omnis pars orationis cum desinit esse quod est, adverbiumfit. 4 Hellwig (1974: 149f.) considers this category an ad hoc solution like the vague modem class of ~cles'. Schenkeveld (1988) demonstrates that 'particle' is not an ancient concept Poet. 20, 1456b38: auv6t:oµoc; 6t tcmv '(J)VTJ OUTIJlOq, cf. 1457a4. 6 Coni. 214.4ff.: noa£t6covt0c; EV t(9 7tEpi. auv6taµCi>V civnUyc.ov itpoc; touc; ,aaicovtac;, ci>c; ol auv6eaµot O\l 6TJA.OUCJl µtv tl, auto 6t µovov tTIV ,paatv c:ruv6touat [possibly the Stoic 'orthodoxy', cf. D. L. VII 58] ... This is Posidonius the Stoic (135-50 BC), not the grammarian, see Baratin (1989: 25 n. 2); Atherton (1993: 305; 306 n. 77); for the passage, see Belli (1982); Sluiter (1990: 117 n. 293).

PARAPLEROMATIC LUCUBRATIONS

235

primary intention, nor does it seem to envisage only those particles which were later styled parapleromatic. In this 'Problem', [Aristotle] is dealing with music and in particular with the nature of the tone called mese. If this tone is out of tune, the whole melody will sound unpleasant, whereas other tones would just sound unpleasant themselves under the circumstances, but would not affect the whole. The author explains this as follows: Jtopa.v exov al;troµanic,iv 1tapa nvoc; µopiou 7tA.EOvaaµov 1ta9oc; el;ro 7tl7t'tEt 'tOU ytvouc; tCOV al;troµatrov, otov ICOM>c; y' 0 nap8EV(l)V roe; ITptaµi611atv Eµq>Ep'flc;

ft

o~ouic6wc;.

'that which having the form of an axiom falls outside the class of axioms because it exceeds it by an extra word or by emotion, e.g. Beautiful indeed the Parthenon! How does the cowherd resemble Priam's sons!'9 Note that neither the term cruv6eaµoc; nor that of 1tapa1tlflp0>µanic6c; is used in this context. re certainly qualifies as a parapleromatic 'conjunction' in later theory, but roe; is an adverb. Note also that the examples are both poetic. I will return to this passage later. The second instance stems from a period in which a more general overview of grammar was extrapolated from Stoic work on logic, and attempts were being made to provide language descriptions with a claim to exhaustiveness. In that context, we know that the Stoic Chaeremon (a teacher of Nero's), who wrote on 'conjunctions', devoted some attention to the question of the classification of the parapleromatic 'conjunctions' in view of their alleged lack of meaning.1° It would seem that by this period 'conjunctions' as such were agreed to have meaning-the subcategories in Dionysius Thrax are after all semantic or functional in nature. It was the subcategory of the parapleromatic 'conjunctions' that had become the focus for discussion of the problematic notion of absence of meaning. This aspect was then combined with an element inherited from earlier Peripatetic observations on the class of 'conjunctions' as a whole, namely an interest in the rhetorical and stylistic function of these syndesmoi. The earliest attestations of the use of 1tapa1tAflproµanicoi date from the l st cent. BC. We know that both Tyrannio (early 1st cent. BC) and Trypho (contemporary of Augustus) discussed this class. P. Yale 1.25 (1st cent. AD) lists it as one of the classes of the auv6eaµot. The discussions by Tyrannio and Trypho suggest that Dionysius Thrax indeed knew this sub-category, although the part of his. Techne that contains its description amply postdates him. His description does not ascribe any meaning to this category, but neither does it define them by the absence of meaning. Rather, it describes them in functional terms as being used µetpou ft ic6aµou EVEKEv 'for the sake of metre or ornament' (D. Th. 96.3f.). Many ancient interpreters connect this view on the 1tapa1tlflp0>µanicoi with the clause in Dionysius' over-all definition of cruv6eaµot (D. Th. 86.3f.):

9 Cf. Schenkeveld (1984: 303,307,315). IOchaeremon: Ap. Dysc. coni. 248.l.

238

INEKE SLUITER

(l:uv6eaµ6c; eon u~1.c; cruv6fouaa 6uivo1.av µ£'ta 'tci~ecoc;) Kat 'tO 't'TlC9 il cruv6foµq>. Interestingly, these metaphors are picked up and applied to all the lesser parts of speech by Ammonius In Ar. Int., CAG IV 5.12.25ff.: C001t£p yap tiji; VEc.ov nvt'i'Jv xpEiav a1t01tA.1JpOiiul; cf. 13.3ff. Obviously, in none of these cases does the application of the metaphor envisage the parapleromatics.

PARAPLEROMATIC LUCUBRATIONS

243

Undue application of these stylistic devices to produce a fully periodic style at all cost and irrespective of whether the subject-matter lends itself to it can lead to criticism, which Isocrates in particular comes in for (D. H. lsoc. 3.58.18ff.): OU yap ci1ta\l'ta Mxe'tat OU't£ µf\KO~ 'tO aU'tO oum axf\µa 'tO 1tapa1tA.TJv, 1CQ.ta: both are oliv6£oµot a2topptJµatt1Col in D. Th. (94.2f.); Ap. Dysc. coni. 229.19ff. (µ6>v = 6ta2topl]tt1Coi; and contains ouv 2tapa2tA.TJproµatt1Coi;; KQ.ta= used instead of Kai or it is 6ta2topl]tt1Coi;, although there is some discussion about its status. It could also be an adverb, since it contains £ha (so Trypho)). 33 Hipp. In Aratum 156.4; Sf. (ed. Manitius, BT) - 2tpooavµatt1Coi; is not synonymous with these terms, which always denote redundancy in a certain context, i.e. as an accidental feature, while 2tapa2tA.TJpwµatt1Coi; is used as a classificatory term (1971: § 65). The two exceptions where tE is

244

INEKE SLUITER

Elink Sterk has collected all the words whose redundant use has been noted by ancient Greek scholiasts, glossographers and Atticists (II 4lff.). Among the examples we find eha, £1tEi, £7tEt'ta, 6ti1tou, 6fj8ev, as well as numerous other auv&aµot and adverbs, but also a word like aua, singled out by Lucian.35 Again, while there may often be critical overtones in designating the use of a word 'redundant', the terms as such do not exclude the possibility that their effect is to beautify the language.36 Thus, there is a long-standing stylistic awareness of the incidental ornamental, meaningless use of words that do signify in other contexts. If their ornamental effect is doubted, such a use constitutes a stylistic faux-pas. The part of speech in which this phenomenon was observed to occur most frequently was the conjunction. Even after it had been established that conjunctions in general are not meaningless (like Aristotle had contended), but express the relationships-which have a reality of their own-between states of affairs (Stoa), 37 the discussion about meaningless words still naturally gravitated towards this part of speech, but it concentrated on a sub-group, the 1tapa1t).:r1proµanx:oi. Apollonius Dyscolus still feels the necessity of vigorously combating a majority view that these words have no meaning at all. 38 Supporters of that idea may have felt backed up by the very name of the sub-group, but Apollonius explains the name as a simple matter of classificatory convenience. There is no point in endlessly increasing the number of subcategories, each covering a sub-set of possibly one word only. The system of grammar should be kept simple, elegant and easy to memorize. These words have meaning, but they are rarely used for that. Usually, their euphonic function explains their appearance, without their making any contribution to the meaning; even so they are useful, and this is the use they are named for.39 Apollonius' parallel for this terminological solution of convenience is the word u1to'tax:nx:6i; for 'subjunctive': this mode expresses a number of semantic values, but the common formal characteristic of always following a CJUVOEaµoi; determines the name. 40

called 1tapCl1tATJpooµantc6£uyov'tE 128 Kai vv KE 6TJ p' E'tavuaaE J}i.1] 'to 'tE'tap'tOv ave1,,1erov, 0 90 "Enopa· Kai vv KEV iv9' oyeprov 07t0 9uµov OA.ECJCJEV 0

250

PAUL WATHELET

Kai, qui y a en general la valeur d'une conjonction appuyee, peut eventuellement recouvrir un plus ancien Kac;, atteste en arcado-cypriote. 8 Nu est tres probablement un trait acheen de la langue epique.9 II est done tres possible que }'ensemble soit ancien dans la tradition et qu'il remonte a la phase de composition acheenne de l'epopee. L'espace entre Kol vu KE(v) et la coupe mediane est occupe par des mots divers. On y trouve encore des particules comme 6-ti, pa ou des adverbes comme en ou iv8a. Quelques termes sont susceptibles d'etre des eolismes comme E'tcivuaoe (q, 128), i:~Etti.eaaav (A 317), EtpuaaEv (r 373 = l: 165), avec un double -a- conserve ou analogique,10 ou comme dans ~tq,EEaat (H 273 et P 530) et VTJEtKVEOµat: A 122 Eic; oKE 'tO~ aq,iKTJOt, o'i OU foaat 8aA.O ala meme place, mais dans d'autres contextes. 5 Avec £7tT)V irreductible en a 293, y 45, 6 412, £ 348, 363,, 262, 297, A.119, o 36, a 269, ~ 159, X 440.

LES PARTICULES KE(N) ET AN DANS LES FORMULES

257

reprises, 36 si la langue d'Homere est bien l'ionien d'Asie, la phase ionienne de composition a commence peu de temps avant l'epoque du poete lui-meme; l'apport ionien est sans doute beaucoup plus limite que l'apport eolien. 4° J'en viens maintenant amon demier point: y a-t-il une correspondance entre les emplois les plus anciens de KE(v) et son apparition dans des formules qui seraient anciennes, elles aussi ? KE(v) a etc utilise dans des emplois archarques attestes par l'epopee homerique et qui n'ont pas etc conserves dans le grec ulterieur. Parmi les emplois !es plus archaYques, mentionnons celui du subjonctif avec KE dans la principale. A l'origine, le subjonctif avait une double valeur: jussif ou eventuel. Dans le second cas, il se trouvait ainsi proche du futur en voie de formation. La valeur eventuelle du subjonctif dans la principale a etc soulignee par l'addition de la particule KE(v), dont le sens primitif etait a/ors, ace momentfutur. 37 Dans l'ensemble, les emplois de subjonctif avec KE(v) dans la principale sont peu formulaires. Ou bien, le verbe est isole comme en 6 80

av6pcov 6' i\ KEV tl TTOA.UVElKE'i., MlOV ayEiprov· at'\j/a 6e viJa£ht 'and among them', and in one or two compounds. *me+ (complex) *cfi provides the basis for the adjective *me-t/'y-o-s, which is regularly formed by means of the thematic vowel; this adjective survives in Sanskrit madhyaJ:,, Greek µe(o)aoi;, Latin medius, Gothic midjis. *melo is further found in words like Greek µt-XPt(i;) and a-xpt, µe-a-cpa, µe-a-i-e, µe-a-i-a, for which an original meaning 'into the middle of' is not improbable. As I stated elsewhere (Waanders 1994: 430 n. 7), *melo may originally have implied a plural company: this would best account for the old meaning 'among' of Greek µei-a, and for the meaning of *me-dhy-os, viz. 'which is in the middle'. Likewise, it accounts for Mycenaean me-ta-ki-ti-ta µei-a-Ktl i-a:-i; 'immigrant', 'a person who has settled among the resident population', and Classical Greek µei-avaa-TJ'li;, and µE't-OtKoi;.10 Mei-a-l;u seems to combine µei-a and a shorter variant of !;uv, without a final nasal. The etymology of !;uv is disputed. According to Ruijgh, !;uv could be explained as the result of contamination of *kom and *su; 11 to my mind, it could as well be a combination of *k( elo) and *su. Alternatively, the initial velar may be the reflex of the zero grade of the particle *leto. Yet another possibility is to relate l;uv 9 Generally speaking, -N = -m in Latin, the notable exceptions being forms like flamen (m.), inguen, neuters in -men (all of them n-stems!). Even novem 'nine' < *h,new'} has -m (but usually ascribed to influence of decem < *de/err;). The -m of exim etc. may also be inconclusive, after all. lO It seems impossible to connect prohibitive µTj (*meh,), or the first singular pronoun *(h,)me, with *me 'among'. 11 The archaic particle *su (* selo + *welo?) later becomes the dat./loc. plural ending known from Sanskrit; in Greek it has been replaced by -en with -l after the corresponding singular ending.

PARTICULARS OF SOME PROTO-INOO-EUROPEAN PARTICLES

273

to a putative verbal root *les- 'to touch, take up, grab', from which several 'hand'words are derived: Hittite kessar, Greek xetp, Sanskrit hasta~. A neuter noun *losu 'touch', 'proximity' might conceivably become a relator meaning 'near', 'with '-in the process, it lost its (stress-)accent and was reduced to zero grade. For the final nasal of !;uv, we can think of diverse explanations, which I shall not sum up. Mycenaean ku-su, once occurring as a preposition, and a couple of times as first member of a compound, does not inform us on the presence or absence of a final nasal.

6. *nelo 'away', 'down' *nelo seems to indicate 'awayness', non-proximity, absence or separation from the immediate vicinity of interlocutors, or motion down or away. The combination with *y(elo), viz. *ni, with double zero-grade, is the first member of 'nest'-words: Latin nidus, Sanskrit niKoiiv 163 borrowing 49, 50, 67 central discourse units 102 changement de theme 84 classements d'emplois 80 closed class 49 cognitive unit 56 cohesion 62 conglomerates of primitive particles 269 conjunctions 234 contrastive value of 6t 67 coordinateur binaire 79 correction de pose 86 correction de presuppose 85 Cypriot 65 de dicto 104, 109, 116, 120, 125 de re 104, 107, 115, 119, 123 definition de la coordination par au.a 97 denial of expectation 11 I, 114, 115, 118, 120, 125 development in the use of particles 49 development unit 56 dialogic contexts 214

276

INDICES

dialogue 76 Discourse Topic 104, 110, 111, 116, 120, 123, 124 Discourse Topic shift 103 (see also Topic shift) distinctions semantico-pragmatiques 80 ochelles argumentatives 141 eliminatif 142 eliminatif inverse 92 embedded narrative 175 embedded sequence 101, 103, 108 embedding sequence 101, 103, 108 emphasis, emphatic 209,211 epanalepsis 175 epic regression l 77f. euphonic 238 explanatory use of yap 175 frequence des particules 21 ala scene 36 dans Jes oeuvres non sceniques 36 functional meaning 211 grammatical shifts 62 grammatical status of particles 49 grammaticalization 50 grec ocrit 11 grecparle 17,43 grec parle et particules 19 Greek, allegedly rich in particles 49 hiatus 238, 242, 243 hierarchical structure 102 importance quantitative des particules 17 interactional level 211,213,219,226 interconnected questions 161 inverted denial of expectation 123 mais 89, 137 Maxim of Relevance 170 Menandre, particules dans 44 µq)laµ6c; 233, 245 oµotov &c; 239 Xenophon, Banquet, particules dans 25, 47 yes/no questions 157, 166

INDEX OF PARTICLES

ciUci

a).).a yap ciUa µ,;v ciU' oi> ciµ-'°' 269 av ci-vci ci-vE-t> ci-1t6 apa apa ap'o-uv citcip au au8E ai>tcip ycip

"fE 'YE µ,iv

youv

lit

OE 'YE

25,26,28,29,30,36, 37,39,42,51,52,53, 77ff., 105, 106, 110, 111, 116, 113, 141, 145 113ff. 144 92

248,251 271 271 270,271 23,25,31,36,37,39, 42,162,167 23, 25, 29, 31, 36, 37, 162, 164, 166 164, 166 53 25, 26, 31, 36, 37, 39, 42 51 51 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 36, 37, 39, 42, 51, 101, 110, 113, 184 23, 25, 26,28, 29, 31, 36, 37, 39, 42, 211 225,244

36, 38,39 25, 26, 28,29, 31, 36, 37, 39,42,51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62ff., 162, 187, 189, 191 144f.

o,;

25f., 28f., 31, 36f., 39, 42, 167, 172, 211, 216, 239

0Tpt0\) ofjta

36, 37, 39 28,29, 31, 36, 37, 39 250

Eli;o KE(V) EltE EltTlV t-ni E\YtE

n cipa

51 256 270 51 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 36, 39,42, 52 29, 31, 37, 39, 51,210, 218 221

n yap no,; n µ,;v

151, 153 221 218

Tl 1tot> n tcipa

,;ot

221 221 51

,;v

256

Kai

23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 51, 57, 64 195

,;

.

Tl

.

Ka\. ... au

280

INDICES

ical ..• yap ical ... YE

179

µriot

29,37,39

195

µ,iv

ical (...)

187ff.

µ,itE

23, 26, 31, 36, 37, 39, 42,209,211,218,223 29,36,37,39

ical .•. 6£ cixmirtc.oc;

206

ical 6,i ical ... 6ii ical µ,iv

216 195 215ff., 228,244

ical vi> ICE(V) icaltot

249,260

Vqi£0'