want of habitude he feels nervous and is perplexed and talks inarticulately, he does not (like Thales) cause laughter to Thracian maidservants or to any other uneducated person, for they do not perceive his embarrassment; but he does seem ridiculous to all those who are brought up not as slaves, but in the opposite manner." 443 (c) (c) Substantives are used in a sort of apposition, which really involves the main category of the sentence. Thus, when we say (Hom. Il. 11. 673) : Νιρεύς, ὃς κάλλιστος ἀνὴρ ὑπὸ Ἴλιον ἦλθεν, the main point asserted of Nireus is not his having gone to Troy, but his having been the handsomest man among those who went thither. We have an instructive instance of this mode of predication, in connexion with the predicates of time, place and manner, in Soph. Ed. Col. 718: ὁ δ ̓ εὐήρετμος ἔκπαγλ ̓ ἁλία where the construction is ἡ εὐήρετμος (epithet); πλάτη, χερσὶ παραπτομένη (predicate of time); θρώσκει (verb containing the primary predicate); ěкπayλa (adverb of manner); áλía (local predicate, almost equivalent to adverb of place); Tv é. N. ȧróλovlos (noun in apposition, which involves the main category of the whole sentence); i. e. "the well-poised oar, when graspt by the hands, bounds surprisingly in the sea, and keeps pace with the hundred feet of the Nereids." To this class belong the cases of apposition which have been explained above (407, 8), where we have shown how the apposition to the subject passes from the nature of an epithet to that of a predicate1. 444 (d) There are certain pronouns or pronominal words, which are used specially in this sort of predication, and in a different sense from that which they bear as epithets. Such are the 'It was necessary to dwell at some length upon these predicative uses of the adjective and substantive in particular, because the whole doctrine of tertiary predicates depends upon them. Perhaps the first writer who treated this subject accurately was K. O. Müller, in the Gött. Gel. Anz. for 1838, p. 1110, where he has correctly explained the passages from Soph. Aj. 594; Ed. Col. 718, quoted above. adjectival terms which denote (aa) separation, as avτós, μóvos, (bb) local position, as μéσos, čoxатоs, aκρos, and (cc) distinct entirety, as πᾶς, ἄλλος, ὅλος, ἕκαστος. aa. With the article, or as an epithet, autós is idem," the same." Without the article, or as a secondary predicate, avtós is ipse, "self." In the oblique cases, as a mere pronoun without the article, it is equivalent to the oblique cases of is, i. e. "him, her, it." Thus, "the same man," ὁ αὐτὸς ἀνήρ = = ó ávǹp avτós="the man himself,” nyvvη avтoû="his wife" or "the wife of him." γυνὴ Of the use of autós as a mere pronoun of reference, or as indicating the object in the objective sentence, enough has been said above (407, 410, (cc)). The following examples will illustrate the opposition between its use as an epithet and as a predicate. We see tható autós is, in the fullest sense of the term, an epithet or definitive phrase, meaning "the same, "the identical," "the particular," in such a passage as this (Xen. Cyrop. VIII. 7, § 14): οἱ ὑπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς μητρὸς τραφέντες καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐξηθέντες καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν γονέων ἀγαπώμενοι καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν μητέρα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν πατέρα προσαγορεύοντες, πῶς οὐ πάντων οὗτοι οἰκειότατοι; On the other hand, it is equally clear that autós is a secondary predicate, in the first instance denoting locality, whenever it is placed beyond the influence of the article or in apposition to a personal pronoun. Thus Aristoph. Ach. 504: αὐτοὶ γάρ ἐσμεν, οὑπὶ Ληναίῳ 7'ȧywv Kovπw Ęévoi πáρelow, "we are alone (by ourselves), and τ ̓ ἀγὼν κοὔπω ξένοι πάρεισιν, the contest is at the Lenæum, and the foreigners are not yet come" (similarly Thesm. 472; Plat. Leges, p. 836 в); Herod. v. 85: és ö ἐκ πάντων ἕνα λειφθέντα ἀνακομισθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐς Φάληρον, “ until one being left alive of all the number returned alone (by himself) to Phalerum." And this predicative use is especially conspicuous when autós is used with an ordinal, as Thucyd. 11. 13: Περικλῆς στρατηγὸς ὢν Αθηναίων δέκατος αὐτός, " Pericles being general of the Athenians, with nine colleagues" (i. e. himself standing as the tenth). Without the article, μóvos is synonymous with autós, though even more emphatic, in the sense "alone;" as ó Taîs μóvos, "the son alone or by himself;" but with the article povos means "only or unique," as ô μóvos Taîs, "the only son." 66 bb. With the article, or as an epithet, μéoos means that which stands between two other objects. Without the article, or as a secondary predicate, μéσos is a local predicate signifying the middle point or part of a particular object. Thus μéon ayopa is "the middle market-place," that which stands in the midst of several others; but μέση ἡ ἀγορά οι ἡ ἀγορὰ μέση is “ the middle of the market-place, or the market-place at its middle." Similarly μéσos πoxítηs is "a citizen of the middle class" (Thucyd. vi. 54, § 2); τὰ μέσα τῶν πολιτῶν, “the moderate party in the state (Id. 111. 82, fin.); oi dvà μéoov, “the neutral party" (Id. VIII. 75, § 1); pov poŵv ǹ ev μéow, "the middle class" (Eurip. Suppl. 247); but exoμai μéσos, “I am caught by the waist, at the middle of my body" (Arist. Ach. 571; Ran. 469; Eq. 388). In the same way we distinguish ✈ ẻσxáτŋ, “the last island" of a group or cluster; voos éoxárn, "the island at its extremity" or "the end of the island;" ó ăкρos πoλíτηs, "the perfect (tip-top) citizen" ἄκρος (Plat. Leges, p. 823 a); èπ' äкpois тois Kwλois, "at the extremities of the limbs" (Id. Tim. p. 76 E). CC. With the article, râs and aλλos signify the entirety or whole residue of a collection of objects; thus oi Távтes are cuncti, oi ao are reliqui. But without the article, they are merely pronominal words expressing collection and difference. In the same way we may distinguish between such phrases as τns nμépas λns, "the whole day" (Xen. Anab. III. 3, § 11); dử öλns tîs VUKTÓS, "through the whole night" (Ib. iv. 2, § 4); and such as Tò őλOV πρÓσwπоv, "the whole face" (Plat. Protag. p. 329 E); Tò τὸ ὅλον πρόσωπον, őλov yévos, "the whole race" (Id. Crat. p. 392 c); yvvaikòs tŷs öλns, "the whole of the women" (Id. Symp. p. 191 в). "EKAσTOS is either a pronominal word of this kind, or it is a secondary predicate expressive of separate locality (see above, 398, (d), (e)). 445 To this idiom we may at once refer the absolute use of the participle in the nominative (148). This is particularly common in the case of those verbs which are used impersonally; here the participle appears in a sort of causal or concessive sense: as déov amiéval, "since it was necessary to depart;" ovdèv déov, “although it was not at all necessary;" ovdèv πроσĥкov avтoîs, “although it did not concern them;" eipnμévov, "although it has been said;" Sedoyμévov," after it had been resolved;" adúvaтov ov, "since it is impossible;" adnλov ov, "since it is uncertain;" TUXóv, "since it may so happen," i. e. "perhaps;" dó§av тaûтa, "whereas these things had been determined;" and sometimes with us, as in the regular causative sentence (below, 616, Obs. 3); thus, os Tód aiμa χείμαζον πόλιν (Soph. d. Τ. 101) ; ὡς οὐ μετὸν αὐτοῖς Ἐπιδάμνου (Thucyd. 1. 28). The adverbial nature of the participle in this construction is established by the fact that an adverb may be substituted for it. Thus in Thucyd. IV. 20, ȧoapes óπоTéρwv åp§ávτων, the author might have written ἄδηλον ἔν for ἀσαφῶς (above, 437). 446 This adverbial apposition of the nominative of the participle sometimes assumes an appearance of great syntactical laxity, as when a nominative plural is placed by the side of a verb in the singular; thus Herod. II. 133 : ταῦτα δὲ ἐμηχανᾶτο ἵνα οἱ δυώδεκα ἔτη ἀντὶ ἓξ ἐτέων γένηται, αἱ νύκτες ἡμέραι ποιεύμεναι; or where a nominative singular stands by the side of another nominative in the plural; thus, λόγοι δ ̓ ἐν ἀλλήλοισιν ἐῤῥόθουν κακοί, púλağ èλéyxwv púλaka (Soph. Antig. 260) ; or when a participle stands between two verbs; thus, ὁ μὲν στενάζων, ὅσον ἐτύγχανεν πνέων, (B) The Genitive. 447 The genitive signifies that the object referred to is considered as the source from which something proceeds-that it is sustaining a loss-that something is being taken from or out of it. All the meanings of this case in Greek syntax belong to one or other of the three following classes: a. The genitive of ablation, or the ablative case; as áπaλλátteiv Tivà vóσov, liberare aliquem a morbo, "to free some one from a disease." b. The genitive of partition, or the partitive case; as edwкá σoι тŵv Xonμáτwv, dedi tibi de mea pecunia, “I gave you a part of my money." C. The genitive of relation, or the relative case; as ovdèv diapépei тà étepa tŵv étépwv, "as compared with one another, the things do not differ." 448 To the first two classes belong all those usages which are expressed in English by the prepositions "of" or "from." And whenever we wish to express that an object is the starting point from which we set out, the cause of some action, the substance from which we derive a sensation, or the source from which something else proceeds, the material of which it is made, or of which it is full; that it is something from which we desist, from which we are separated or set free, or of which we are deprived; in all these instances we have the Greek genitive as an ablative case. And when we wish to express that an object is a whole, from or out of which we take or give a part, we employ the Greek genitive as a partitive case. 449 The transition from the ideas of ablation and partition to that of relation is immediate. Indeed, the word proportion, which is applied to the latter, refers more literally to the former. And there are many examples in which it would be difficult to say whether the genitive signifies relation or partition. Thus, "to be king of a country," áváσσew Ts yns, may be periphrased into "to be king in regard to the country;" or "to belong to the country as king." There is always this option in the case of possessives, comparatives, and superlatives: for it matters not whether we consider the genitive as a partitive or relative case. We sometimes find in the same sentence two genitives, one of which is partitive and the other relative; and yet the difference between their significations is so slight, that they might be termed both of them partitive or both relative; thus in Plat. Resp. p. 439 A, we have où ToÛTO Onσeis tŵv Tivòs eivai, i.e. "tanquam partem eorum, quæ ad aliud quid referuntur." We might have expressed either genitive in English by the phrase "belonging to "-" as belonging to those things which belong to something else." 450 The genitive case plays such a prominent part in Greek syntax that we must either leave the student to apply these principles to the instances which he meets with in the course of his reading, or endeavour to illustrate the rules with very numerous |