Greek Interjections: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics 9783110339444, 9783110339369

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Subject and aim
1.3 Sources
1.4 Theoretical background
1.5 Definitions
1.5.1 Primary interjections
1.5.2 Secondary interjections
1.5.3 Common properties of interjections
1.6 Three categories
1.6.1 Category 1
1.6.2 Category 2
1.6.3 Category 3
1.6.4 Related items
1.7 Previous research
1.7.1 Antiquity and the Middle Ages
1.7.2 Modern linguistics begins
1.7.3 Studies in the early twentieth century
1.7.4 Linguistics from the late 20th century to the present time
1.7.5 Recent studies focusing on Ancient Greek
1.8 Concluding remarks
2. Syntax
2.1 Formal characteristics
2.1.1 The three categories
2.1.2 Morphology
2.1.3 Interjections and word order
2.1.4 Extra metrum
2.1.5 Combinations of interjections
2.2 Syntax—Category 1
2.2.1 Free-standing interjections
2.3 The phrase schema
2.3.1 Head position: INT
2.3.2 Position 1: PRO (dative)
2.3.3 Position 2: NP (nominative or vocative)
2.3.4 Position 3: NP (genitive)
2.3.5 Positions 4–5: NPs (vocative and nominative)
2.3.6 Invocations, formulae and bare exclamative genitives
2.4 Syntax—Category 2
2.4.1 εἶα (εἷα)—eia (heia)
2.5 Syntax—Category 3
2.6 Concluding remarks
3. Semantics
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Core meaning
3.3 Secondary interjections
3.4 Prototypical characteristics
3.4.1 Category 1—expressive interjections
3.4.2 Category 2—conative interjections
3.4.3 Category 3—phatic interjections
3.5 Theoretical background
3.5.1 Semantics of clause type—Primary illocutions
3.5.2 Expressives
3.5.3 Expressives and exclamatives
3.5.4 The semantics of interjections—Ameka
3.5.5 Are interjections words or sentences?
3.5.6 The semantics of interjections—Kaplan
3.5.7 Emotion theory
3.6 Semantics—Category 1
3.6.1 Explicit semantic analysis
3.6.2 Interjections expressive of surprise
3.6.3 Interjections expressive of pain and vexation
3.6.4 Interjections expressive of lamentation
3.6.5 Interjections expressive of joy
3.6.6 Hapax legomena
3.6.7 Rare and special cases
3.6.8 Items occurring only in combinations
3.7 Semantics—Category 2
3.7.1 Explicit semantic analysis
3.7.2 Interjections expressing calls for attention
3.7.3 Interjections expressing exhortation or command
3.8 Semantics—Category 3
3.8.1 Explicit semantic analysis
3.8.2 Interjections expressing agreement
3.8.3 Interjections expressing compliance
3.9 Concluding remarks
3.9.1 Primary illocutions
3.9.2 Core meanings
4. Pragmatics
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 What is pragmatics?
4.1.2 Primary and secondary functions
4.1.3 Hypotheses for primary functions
4.1.4 Questions under study
4.2 Theoretical background
4.2.1 Definitions
4.2.2 Fraser: pragmatic markers
4.2.3 Trillo: Appropriateness
4.3 Felicity conditions
4.3.1 Condition 1
4.3.2 Condition 2
4.3.3 Condition 3 (tentative)
4.4 Secondary functions
4.4.1 Borrowing the core semantics from another category
4.4.2 Functioning as a commentary marker
4.4.3 Functioning as a parallel pragmatic marker
4.4.4 Discourse markers—DMs
4.4.5 Paratragedy
4.5 Concluding remarks
4.5.1 Primary and secondary use
4.5.2 The three categories
5. Lexicon
5.1 Notes on meter
5.2 Abbreviations and legenda
5.3 ἆ—ὤμοι
6. Summary and conclusions
6.1 Summary of introduction
6.2 Syntax
6.3 Semantics
6.4 Pragmatics
6.5 Lexicon
References
Index

Citation preview

Lars Nordgren Greek Interjections

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs

Editor Volker Gast Editorial Board

Walter Bisang Jan Terje Faarlund Hans Henrich Hock Natalia Levshina Heiko Narrog Matthias Schlesewsky Amir Zeldes Niina Ning Zhang Editor Responsible for this volume Hans Henrich Hock

Volume 273

Lars Nordgren

Greek Interjections

Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics

ISBN 978-3-11-033936-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-033944-4 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039400-9 ISSN 1861-4302 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgments First of all, since this work is a revised version of my doctoral thesis, I wish to express my gratitude to my former supervisors, Eva-Carin Gerö, for believing in my idea from the beginning and providing constant support, Dag Haug, for valuable remarks, quick response and continuous enthusiasm, and Arnim von Stechow, for inspirational collaboration. I would like to extend a special thanks to my doctoral examiner, Geoffrey Horrocks, who played an important part in this book’s realization. I also want to thank the series’ editors, in particular Volker Gast and Hans Heinrich Hock, who have shared their comments and helped me improve the content. A heartfelt thanks goes to the staff at De Gruyter Mouton, especially Birgit Sievert, Julie Miess, Nancy Christ and Johannes Parche, for providing support in all stages of the process. I wish to thank Denis Searby, for his incessant support and for invaluable remarks on my English; also, the Greek seminar at Stockholm University, for good advice and fruitful discussions, especially to Per-Erik Malmnäs, who has shown great interest in my work from the start and made valuable suggestions, Claus Oetke, for showing incessant interest and providing valuable perspective, as well as Börje Bydén, for constructive questioning and criticism. A special thank you is reserved for present and former PhD-students at the department— especially Elin Andersson, Niklas Haga, Lisa Heine, Erika Kihlman, Per Sandström and Robin Wahlsten Böckerman—an important source of support. Furthermore, I would like to thank Timothy Janz, for supplying unpublished scholia of Sophocles’ Philoctetes, Brian Møller Jensen, for valuable help with Italian, Barbara Crostini, for proofreading and help, Jan Stolpe, for discussion and support, and finally, Jerker Blomqvist, for encouraging me to choose the topic at an early stage. I am especially grateful to Anna Bonifazi, Annemieke Drummen and Mark de Kreij of the Emmy Noether Nachwuchsgruppe at Heidelberg University, for inviting me to present my work and providing the opportunity to share thoughts and ideas, to Ellen Breitholtz and the linguistics seminar at Gothenburg University, for inviting me to present my material and for sharing their views on my approach and to Jenny Larsson for inviting me to the Fagus linguarum at Stockholm University, where I received valuable references. I am thankful to Fondation Hardt, Vandoeuvres, for their generous grant and the opportunity to work

vi  Acknowledgments there, as well as the Fondazione Famiglia Rausing, for making it possible for me to study the manuscripts of the Laurenziana library in situ. My final thanks are reserved for my family—Anna, Ragnar and Martha—a constant reminder of what matters most. Stockholm, August 2015 Lars Nordgren

Contents Acknowledgments|v   Abbreviations|xi   1     Introduction|1   1.1   Background|1   1.2     Subject and aim|2   1.3     Sources|3   1.4     Theoretical background|4   1.5     Definitions|8   1.5.1   Primary interjections|8   1.5.2     Secondary interjections|12   1.5.3     Common properties of interjections|15   1.6     Three categories|16   1.6.1   Category 1|17   1.6.2   Category 2|19   1.6.3   Category 3|21   1.6.4     Related items|22   1.7     Previous research|23   1.7.1   Antiquity and the Middle Ages|23   1.7.2   Modern linguistics begins|25   1.7.3   Studies in the early twentieth century|28   1.7.4   Linguistics from the late 20th century to the present time|32   1.7.5   Recent studies focusing on Ancient Greek|33   1.8     Concluding remarks|36   2     Syntax|38   2.1   Formal characteristics|38   2.1.1   The three categories|39   2.1.2     Morphology|39   2.1.3     Interjections and word order|44   2.1.4     Extra metrum|45   2.1.5     Combinations of interjections|46   2.2     Syntax—Category 1|48   2.2.1   Free-standing interjections|48   2.3     The phrase schema|51   2.3.1   Head position: INT|52  

viii | Contents 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.4   2.4.1 2.5   2.6  

     

           

Position 1: PRO (dative)|53   Position 2: NP (nominative or vocative)|56   Position 3: NP (genitive)|58   Positions 4–5: NPs (vocative and nominative)|65   Invocations, formulae and bare exclamative genitives|67   Syntax—Category 2|68   εἶα (εἷα)—eia (heia)|69   Syntax—Category 3|71   Concluding remarks|72  

3     Semantics|74   3.1   Introduction|74   3.2     Core meaning|76   3.3     Secondary interjections|78   3.4     Prototypical characteristics|79   3.4.1   Category 1—expressive interjections|79   3.4.2   Category 2—conative interjections|80   3.4.3     Category 3—phatic interjections|80   3.5     Theoretical background|80   3.5.1   Semantics of clause type—Primary illocutions|80   3.5.2   Expressives|82   3.5.3     Expressives and exclamatives|83   3.5.4     The semantics of interjections—Ameka|84   3.5.5     Are interjections words or sentences?|86   3.5.6     The semantics of interjections—Kaplan|87   3.5.7     Emotion theory|89   3.6     Semantics—Category 1|93   3.6.1   Explicit semantic analysis|93   3.6.2   Interjections expressive of surprise|95   3.6.3     Interjections expressive of pain and vexation|107   3.6.4     Interjections expressive of lamentation|129   3.6.5     Interjections expressive of joy|147   3.6.6     Hapax legomena|152   3.6.7     Rare and special cases|156   3.6.8     Items occurring only in combinations|161   3.7     Semantics—Category 2|164   3.7.1   Explicit semantic analysis|165   3.7.2   Interjections expressing calls for attention|166   3.7.3   Interjections expressing exhortation or command|169  

Contents | ix

3.8   3.8.1 3.8.2 3.8.3 3.9   3.9.1 3.9.2

 

 

         

Semantics—Category 3|174   Explicit semantic analysis|175   Interjections expressing agreement|175   Interjections expressing compliance|180   Concluding remarks|185   Primary illocutions|185   Core meanings|186  

4     Pragmatics|188   4.1   Introduction|188   4.1.1   What is pragmatics?|188   4.1.2   Primary and secondary functions|189   4.1.3   Hypotheses for primary functions|190   4.1.4   Questions under study|190   4.2     Theoretical background|191   4.2.1   Definitions|191   4.2.2   Fraser: pragmatic markers|193   4.2.3     Trillo: Appropriateness|197   4.3     Felicity conditions|198   4.3.1   Condition 1|198   4.3.2   Condition 2|199   4.3.3   Condition 3 (tentative)|200   4.4     Secondary functions|200   4.4.1   Borrowing the core semantics from another category|201   4.4.2   Functioning as a commentary marker|203   4.4.3   Functioning as a parallel pragmatic marker|204   4.4.4   Discourse markers—DMs|205   4.4.5   Paratragedy|206   4.5     Concluding remarks|206   4.5.1     Primary and secondary use|207   4.5.2     The three categories|208   5     5.1   5.2   5.3  

     

Lexicon|210   Notes on meter|210   Abbreviations and legenda|210   ἆ—ὤμοι|211  

6   6.1

 

Summary and conclusions|246   Summary of introduction|246  

 

x | Contents 6.2 6.3   6.4   6.5  

       

Syntax|247   Semantics|247   Pragmatics|249   Lexicon|249  

References|250   Index|263  

Abbreviations Ancient authors and works A.

Aeschylus

Ag.

Agamemnon

Agamemnon

Ch.

Choephoroe

Libation-Bearers

Eu.

Eumenides

Eumenides

Fr.

Fragmenta

Fragments

Pers.

Persae

Persians

PV

Prometheus vinctus

Prometheus Bound

Sept.

Septem contra Thebas

Seven Against Thebes

Supp.

Supplices

Suppliant Women

Ar.

Aristophanes

Ach.

Acharnenses

Acharnians

Av.

Aves

Birds

Ec.

Ecclesiazusae

Assemblywomen

Eq.

Equites

Knights

Fr.

Fragmenta

Fragments

Lys.

Lysistrata

Lysistrata

Nu.

Nubes

Clouds

Pax

Pax

Peace

Pl.

Plutus

Wealth

Ra.

Ranae

Frogs

Th.

Thesmophoriazusae

Women at the Thesmophoria

V.

Vespae

Wasps

E.

Euripides

Alc.

Alcestis

Alcestis

And.

Andromacha

Andromache

Ba.

Bacchae

Bacchae

Cyc.

Cyclops

Cyclops

El.

Electra

Electra

Fr.

Fragmenta

Fragments

Hec.

Hecuba

Hecuba

Hel.

Helena

Helen

xii | Abbreviations

Hcl.

Heraclidae

Children of Heracles

Her.

Hercules

Hercules

Hipp.

Hippolytus

Hippolytus

Ion

Ion

Ion

IA

Iphigenia Aulidensis

Iphigenia at Aulis

IT

Iphigenia Taurica

Iphigenia among the Taurians

Med.

Medea

Medea

Or.

Orestes

Orestes

Ph.

Phoenissae

Phoenician Women

Rh.

Rhesus

Rhesus

Supp.

Supplices

Suppliant Women

Tro.

Troiades

Trojan Women

S.

Sophocles

Aj.

Ajax

Ajax

Ant.

Antigone

Antigone

El.

Electra

Electra

Fr.

Fragmenta

Fragments

OC

Oedipus Coloneus

Oedipus at Colonus

OT

Oedipus Tyrannus

Oedipus Tyrannus

Ph.

Philoctetes

Philoctetes

Tr.

Trachiniae

Women of Trachis

Abbreviations of other works ELL LSJ OED

Brown, Keith (ed.). 2006. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier Liddell, Henry George & Robert Scott. 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press Oxford English Dictionary. Online version, June 2015.

1 Introduction 1.1 Background This study focuses on the part of speech traditionally known as interjections. As for most parts of speech, the classification of its members is problematic in several ways, but unlike the other word classes, research in the field of interjections has been relatively scant. Not until recently has it become a real area of interest for linguists in general—and only in the last twenty years has there been a remarkable growth in research on various aspects pertaining to interjections. Research specifically on the interjections of Ancient Greek is limited, however, and most studies are either out of date, based on antiquated text editions, or works of a smaller scope than the present one. The lack of treatment in both older and newer grammars, which tend not to view interjections as relevant to the study of language, has had a substantial impact. Grammars, moreover, often do not mention interjections at all, while the various lexica generally treat them in a very limited fashion. Troubles presented by interjections have vexed scholars, readers and translators of all languages for a long time, at least since the first commentaries on the Ancient Greek texts, the scholia. However, serious attempts at methodical examinations on the peculiar part of language that interjections form were not made until during the twentieth century. Interjections have frequently had the bad luck of being treated as a marginal phenomenon, bordering on nonlanguage. This is surprising, since these words (or non-words) occur so frequently in highly studied texts, that they ought to be considered a part of language, although in many aspects an odd one. Earlier researchers found it adequate to label interjections “artikulierte Empfindungslaute [articulate sounds of sensation]” and “Elementarschöpfungen [primeval creations]”, and it seems they were on the track of something. Interjections are almost always constructed of very small, easily pronounced parts. One may speculate whether reactions of bodily movements, vocal mimicry or various sounds are instinctive. There are probably quite a few of us who have cried “Ouch!” or “Oops!”, even though we were all alone. It is difficult to determine to what extent it is a question of acquired behavior—nevertheless it is obvious that it comes easy to us. It is also obvious that uttering certain interjections also involves an intention to convey a message of some kind. And if we agree that these messages have meaning, it is difficult to deny interjections a proper investigation. Consequently, this has been my goal.

2 | Introduction It is my firm belief that this aspect of the Greek language as transmitted from Antiquity deserves as reasonable an amount of investigation as the other aspects have received. Such an investigation would make an important and useful contribution to the general linguistic study of interjections, in addition to the fact that it would also aid a better understanding of the individual passages where interjections occur, and consequently of their surrounding context. Therefore, apart from the obvious benefits for scholars, readers and translators of Greek drama, a better understanding of the interjections in Ancient Greek will also be profitable to general linguists. The present study is offered as a contribution to such research.

1.2 Subject and aim The primary subject and aim of the study is the description and analysis of the interjections found in Ancient Greek drama of the fifth century BCE, i.e. in the tragedies and satyric drama of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, and the comedies of Aristophanes. The study is divided into three main parts, dealing in turn with form, meaning and function. The present study provides a theoretically based aid for linguists interested in interjections in general, showing what the interjections in Ancient Greek look like, analyzing what they mean and describing how they are used. The universal definition and classification of interjections proposed by Ameka (1992a) is used as a starting point. Since Ameka's definition and classification are primarily based on spoken material, it is uncertain whether they are applicable to the ancient, written material as well. Ameka’s view may be expected to be in need of supplementation, and possibly also of detauked revision, especially in the area of pragmatics, since this area has received quite some attention in recent times. Another aim of the study is to describe and analyze the groups, or categories formed by the individual items. The main focus is especially on one group of words, the expressive interjections, which are also referred to as category 1. Consequently, the items found in other categories do not receive an equal amount of attention, which is motivated partly by the obviously much higher frequency of these words, partly by the fact that they are considered the most typical examples of interjections, i.e. the items in this category are what most people will expect to be investigated in a study with this title. However, the study is wide-ranging in scope, and all items considered to be primary interjections will receive mention.

Sources | 3

1.3 Sources Recent studies on language, especially on spoken language, e.g. in Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999), have shown that the grammatical category “interjections” is a lot more complex and in need of a lot more study than previously acknowledged. The definition presented by the Longman grammar is however too language-specific for the present work—which, strictly speaking, does not deal with actual spoken language, but, at best, with a highly stylized form of it. It cannot be stressed enough that the material under study by no means is to be confused with how Ancient Greek was actually spoken—this is not a spoken language corpus. Instead, what we do have is a literary language that follows strict formal rules for its composition. The texts moreover represent at least two very different stylistic levels (tragedy and comedy / satyr-play). It is also reasonable to expect some internal variation in the material for other reasons, such as the relatively long (at least compared to modern standards) timeframe covered by the corpus, which contains Attic drama of the fifth century BC. The aim of the study is to be as synchronic as possible. However, the span between the oldest and youngest work in the corpus is nearly one hundred years; Aeschylus’ Persians was first performed in 472 and Aristophanes’ Wealth in 388. The primary source material is limited to the dramatic works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes. This choice was primarily made since virtually all occurrences of interjections in the whole Ancient Greek corpus of this time are found in these four authors, and the choice of these texts therefore seems valid for a study that aims at saying something general about these items. There is naturally also room for references to other authors’ use of them, such as authors of roughly the same time period, like Plato and Xenophon, as well as earlier and later poets, such as Homer and Menander. It must however be stressed again that of the total number of occurrences, the overwhelming majority is found in tragedy, comedy and satyr-play. As primary text sources, the current Oxford Classical Texts (OCT) editions are used: Aeschylus (Page), Sophocles (Lloyd-Jones and Wilson), Euripides (Diggle) and Aristophanes (Wilson). The fragments are cited from Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (TrGF) and Poetae Comici Graeci (PCG). Apart from the fragments, these are the texts used in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae database, which has been used for corpus searches. They also provide the most recent editions in all but one author; only West’s edition of Aeschylus in the Teubner series is of a later date.

4 | Introduction Overview of authors, works and editions Aeschylus

Sophocles

Euripides

Aristophanes

7 plays

Page OCT 1972

Fragments

Radt TrGF 1985

7 plays

Lloyd-Jones and Wilson OCT 1990

Fragments

Radt TrGF 1999

19 plays

Diggle OCT 1981–1994

Fragments

Kannicht TrGF 2004

11 plays

Wilson OCT 2007

Fragments

Kassel and Austin PCG 1984

Unless otherwise noted, all translations from Ancient Greek are quoted from the Loeb-series: Aeschylus (Sommerstein), Sophocles (Lloyd-Jones), Euripides (Kovacs; Collard and Cropp: Fragments) and Aristophanes (Henderson). Among the primary sources, the Grammatici Graeci et Latini, i.e. the Ancient Greek and Latin grammarians, the lexica and scholia of late antiquity as well as the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae of Stephanus (first printed in 1572) have also been used. The secondary source material, which can be said to begin with the dissertation by Schinck from 1873, also provides a number of valuable observations. Several editors of modern editions with commentaries have often done a remarkable job researching individual interjections and provide detailed information on individual words, e.g. Fraenkel (especially ἔα and εἶα), Dodds (ἆ), Mastronarde (εἷα and φεῦ), Dover (ἀπαπαῖ) and MacDowell (αἰβοῖ). Naturally, these works form an important source for the present study. However, until the recent work of Biraud, which is presented in more detail in the section on previous research, no one has attempted to make a systematic and comprehensive overview of all interjections occurring in Greek drama.

1.4 Theoretical background Only very few researchers have aimed at dealing with the class of interjections in its entirety; previous scholars have either made studies on some or most words, providing a more or less superficial description lacking adequate definitions of basic terms, or detailed analyses, but limited their studies to a single

Theoretical background | 5

word or group of words. In the special edition of Journal of Pragmatics in 1992, Ameka broke new ground by providing a broad-ranging attempt at classifying all interjections, with detailed definitions of terms. The method of this study is therefore to examine the class of interjections in Ancient Greek aided by Ameka’s definition: Primary interjections are little words or non-words which in terms of their distribution can constitute an utterance by themselves and do not normally enter into construction with other word classes, for example, Ouch!, Wow!, Gee!, Oho!, Oops!, etc. They could be uttered as co-utterances with other units. (Ameka 1992a: 105)

Ameka also proposes a classification, which is based on “the specific communicative functions they fulfil and according to the types of meaning they predicate”.1 Thus, his classification is based on semantics as well as pragmatics. Ameka himself notes that his definition and classification are by no means final, and these are consequently improved through development, modification or supplementation. The contribution of this study thus consists in the description and analysis of all available instances of interjections in the four authors under study, aided by a modified and supplemented theoretical approach. Ameka’s definition of interjections is essentially structural-semantic, and his unitary semantic analysis employs the “Natural semantic metalanguage” based on English, as presented by Wierzbicka (1987). Yet, as was previously mentioned, his classification is based on the functions as well as the meaning of the items, which creates a certain confusion of what he considers to belong to semantics and what he considers to belong to pragmatics. And, since the level of detail of Ameka’s semantic analysis is too high to be practical for the present study, and since his classification partly overlaps with what I understand as belonging to pragmatics, I have found it necessary to modify Ameka’s approach in terms of both semantics and pragmatics. As a means for determining the semantics of the individual items, Kaplan’s concept of informational equivalence is used, and Allan’s concept of primary illocution is applied to the analysis on the sentence level. Ameka never explicitly states how his findings relate to pragmatics. Instead he points readers interested in this area to the works of Fraser. This advice has proved fruitful, especially since Fraser has also continued his research on the issue.

|| 1 Ameka (1992a: 113).

6 | Introduction Because interjections and particles have several characteristics in common, it has been profitable to look for inspiration in recent research on particles, an area where Kroon (1995) and Mosegaard Hansen (1998) have made significant contributions. Mosegaard Hansen describes the two traditional approaches on particle research as the “meaning maximalist” and the “meaning minimalist” approaches: It is an undeniable fact that particles tend to have a range of uses which to the naked eye do not always seem to have much in common. A strict maximalist will attribute this variation to the semantics of the individual particle, and will specify a sometimes very large number of different senses directly in the lexicon. Meaning maximalism is thus essentially a radically semantic “homonymy” approach. At the other extreme, a strict minimalist will attempt to isolate a unitary core meaning, usually of a highly abstract and schematic nature, from which all uses of a given item can be derived. Any observable variations in the meaning and use of a given particle will then be attributed to its interaction with context. (Mosegaard Hansen 1998: 86)

A strict minimalism is unsuitable, Mosegaard Hansen argues, since one might end up with far too abstract and general descriptions to be of significant practical value, “especially, we might add, if a unitary analysis of cross-categorial items is attempted”. Kroon and Mosegaard Hansen instead advocate a third alternative, which may be called the moderate minimalist approach. The views of its adherents are summarized thus by Kroon: While admitting that forms usually have more than one meaning, they argue at the same time that these meanings are related to one another in a motivated way. The number of meaning distinctions are however kept to a minimum. (Kroon 1995: 44)

In following this moderate minimalist approach, the present study attempts to point out a single core meaning for each item, which is the common denominator for the different contextually determined meanings or functions, as far as this is possible. Kroon, again, states: Characteristic of such a moderate approach is that one aims at maintaining a minimalist position as long as possible, without however excluding the possibility of a restricted number of distinct (though related) meanings or functions operating under the same form. (Kroon 1995: 98)

This means that, in the present study, a single core meaning for each item will be specified as far as possible, while certain senses of the items described in the semantics chapter will be understood as uses which can only be explained by pragmatics, depending on the contextual features, rather than as features of the

Theoretical background | 7

interjections themselves. Nevertheless, it is also worth noticing that frequently occurring senses may in time become inherent features of a given interjection. Yet, because interjections are not entirely the same as particles, especially as regards their potential sentence equivalence, a somewhat different method has been found necessary. Therefore, the conceptual tools needed for supplementing and developing Ameka’s theory are mainly collected from Kaplan (2004) and Allan (2006) for semantics, alongside Fraser (1996) and Trillo (2006) for pragmatics. Their notions and concepts will all be duly presented when they are put to work. The main difficulty of Ameka’s definition and classification for the present study is that his study is based on modern languages spoken today, a circumstance that gives him next to unlimited access to new data from a wide range of linguistic levels. By contrast, the ancient source material for the present study is highly restricted, consisting of dramatic works of fiction that have come down to us in written, not spoken, form, and which follow genre-specific standards, inter alia regarding form and level of language. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the distribution between the categories is unequal, since the source material is relatively homogenous, consisting exclusively of dramatic texts. A brief comment is needed about the level at which this study is located. It is strictly language-oriented, insofar as matters such as why and under what circumstances the texts were produced, which may be considered as their broader context, are not taken into consideration. Furthermore, genretheoretical matters are only rarely commented upon; there are of course important basic differences between tragedy, satyr-play and comedy, and such differences are discussed further in the pragmatics chapter, primarily as factors pertaining to levels of register. However, the study does not go further into these matters; such a path may be pursued in a later study. The fact that the study makes use of a closed corpus means that all forms can be found and accounted for, as has indeed been done; this in turn provides as as well-founded an overview as possible of the objects under study. A quantitative description and analysis of this material is accompanied by a qualitative counterpart, consisting of a description and evaluation of the expressions, followed by an analysis of the various forms, meanings and functions of the different interjections. Furthermore, with regard to the textual transmission, quite a number of passages in the corpus of Greek texts have variant readings or other textual problems. Consequently, one might expect quite a few variant readings in passages containing interjections as well, and scholars using different editions of

8 | Introduction the same text might therefore come to different conclusions. For transparency, all notes from the critical apparatuses in the lexicon chapter are provided.

1.5 Definitions 1.5.1 Primary interjections Let us return to Ameka’s definition of interjections that forms the starting point for my work. This definition can be seen as ambiguous, due to the heterogeneous nature of the source material. Primary interjections are little words or non-words which in terms of their distribution can constitute an utterance by themselves and do not normally enter into construction with other word classes, for example, Ouch!, Wow!, Gee!, Oho!, Oops!, etc. They could be uttered as co-utterances with other units. (Ameka 1992a: 105)

To what extent are interjections in Ancient Greek such isolated elements of language? Interjections are said to conventionally constitute non-elliptical utterances by themselves, a term which is understood as being roughly equivalent to “full sentences”. We should therefore be able to find examples of interjections which form complete turns in the corpus, and we do indeed; I call these free-standing interjections. In comparison with the total number of occurrences, however, such free-standing interjections are a relatively rare phenomenon. Another recurrent feature of interjections is parenthetical insertion, i.e. the feature indicated by their Latin name, interiectio. Since certain constructions occur frequently with interjections in modern languages, it seems reasonable to look for similar examples in Ancient Greek as well. The following passage, from Sophocles’ Women of Trachis, may serve as an example of the co-occurrence of interjections and other parts of speech: Υλ. οἴμοι ἐγὼ σοῦ, πάτερ, ὢ μέλεος, τί πάθω; τί δὲ μήσομαι; οἴμοι. HYLLUS Alas for you, father! Unhappy am I! What will become of me? What shall I do? Alas! S. Tr. 971–972

Two interjections, ὤ and οἴμοι, are used in the example; οἴμοι is used twice, the first holding an initial position, while the second is final. The position of ὤ μέλεος is inserted, or interjected. Four noun phrases (NPs) (ἐγώ, σοῦ, πάτερ and μέλεος) and two verb phrases (VPs) (τί πάθω; and τί δὲ μήσομαι;) are apparently

Definitions | 9

related to the interjections, at least to some extent. It seems, therefore, that Ameka’s view is in need of reconsideration. We have seen the first formal criteria in Ameka’s definition. As will be clear, the various parts of his definition will exclude different groups of words, an exclusion we need to take into consideration. His formal criteria continue: “Morphologically, interjections do not normally take inflections or derivations in those languages that make use of such forms.”2 It is clear that Ancient Greek interjections belong to the class of indeclinabilia, since they do not follow any conventional rules of inflection, e.g. of tense, gender or number. However, we will find examples of Ancient Greek interjections that change their form in order to change their meaning, although in a different way than we perhaps are used to. The semantic definition revolves around the expression of a speaker’s mental state: Interjections are relatively conventionalised vocal gestures (or more generally, linguistic gestures) which express a speaker’s mental state, action or attitude or reaction to a situation … . It must be emphasised that the broad description of interjections as forms that express a speaker’s mental state is meant to avoid the common claim that interjections are only emotive. After all there are different mental states and the emotive is but one of them … . (Ameka 1992a: 106)

Thus, Ameka excludes imitative words from the class of interjections, basing his decision on the opinion that “onomatopoeic words form a phonological class whose members may belong to different grammatical classes.”3 Nevertheless, he immediately states that “interjections do display a fair amount of sound symbolism and from that point of view some interjections could be onomatopoeic”. His main arguments for drawing such a sharp line between interjections and onomatopoeic words and ideophones, which are added without further comment4, are the following two: 1. Onomatopoeic words, etc. tend to be descriptive, rather than expressive of a mental state as interjections are.

|| 2 Ameka (1992a: 106). 3 Ameka (1992a: 112). 4 Dingemanse (2011: 78) suggests a working-definition, as well as an elaboration, of ideophones: “Ideophones are marked words that depict sensory imagery such as English hippetyhoppety ‘in a hopping-bouncing manner’ and shilly-shally ‘vacillating,’ or Siwu mukumuku ‘mouth movements of a toothless person eating’”.

10 | Introduction 2. Ideophones, etc. may not be able to stand on their own as utterances without being elliptical. (Ameka 1992a: 113) [emphasis mine]

I agree with Ameka’s view of onomatopoeic items as being “descriptive, rather than expressive”. Yet, there are onomatopoeic items which fulfil all formal criteria set up for interjections, and which are not used otherwise, i.e. they are not secondary interjections. The argument for excluding ideophones, on the other hand, is sufficient, inasmuch as Ameka’s study aims at a universal characterization, covering all languages in the world. It has however been shown by Childs (1994) that ideophones share several of the formal characteristics common to interjections.5 Nevertheless, although there is a rather large number of such items in the corpus that are in need of further investigation, I have found it justified not to include onomatopoeic or imitative interjections in the present study, since they clearly differ from the other interjections, especially with respect to their semantics. I have therefore employed a theory-driven approach to the material, which means that all the items which fulfil the requirements, formal as well as semantic, are studied. In the pragmatic definition, Ameka adds the encoding of the speaker’s “communicative intentions” to that of the speaker’s attitude: From a pragmatic point of view, interjections may be defined as a subset of items that encode speaker attitudes and communicative intentions and are context-bound. In this approach interjections are a sub-class of a larger class of pragmatic markers (cf. Fraser 1990). … Since interjections can constitute utterances by themselves they may be viewed as a subclass of routines but not of particles … . (Ameka 1992a: 107)

In this part of the definition, we find the important delimitation of interjections from particles; interjections are able to form complete, non-elliptical utterances by themselves, whereas particles always are dependent on a host utterance of some sort. We are also informed of pragmatic markers. Interjections are generally viewed as an isolated linguistic phenomenon, and indeed we do find several occurrences of individual, free-standing interjections. However, interjections most often occur in combination with other linguistic items, and quite often seem to have a close relation to these, as is shown || 5 Kilian-Hatz (2006: 509) refers to an interesting study by Childs, who lists the following properties of ideophones: “sound symbolism, possible phonetic anomalies and violations of phonological rules, the lack of morphology except for reduplication and vowel lengthening, the fact that they are apart from syntax of the surrounding sentence … and finally, their close connection to gestures.” (Childs 1994: 182).

Definitions | 11

in the example from Sophocles above. It is also clear that there is more to these combinations than mere juxtaposition or parenthetical insertion, and therefore it is necessary to examine more closely how these combinations function. The semantic and structural criteria employed by Ameka are summarized in the following general definition: Interjections are little words or “non-words” which (syntactically) can occur by themselves non-elliptically as one-word utterances, (semantically) refer to mental acts, expressing the speaker’s mental state, action or attitude or reaction to a situation and (pragmatically) encode speaker attitudes and communicative intentions and are contextbound.

There is need for a delimitation between interjections, particles and formulae already at this stage; but how do these items differ from one another? Ameka draws a sharp boundary between interjections and particles. A particle, according to Ameka’s definition, is “syntactically dependent on other elements in the clause and is well integrated into the clause in which it occurs”. Furthermore, particles typically “do not have propositional content in terms of speech act theory” and “cannot occur on their own as utterances”. 6 The examples Ameka gives include modal particles, as “hoor” = you hear in Dutch, and scalar and focus particles, for example English “even”, “only” and “almost”. Examples in Ancient Greek might be the modal particle ἄν and the particles γέ and οὖν. As regards formulae, the case is more difficult. Ameka considers formulae and routines to refer to the same phenomenon. He quotes the definition of Coulmas (1981: 2–3), who labels routines “highly conventionalised prepatterned expressions whose occurrence is tied to more or less standard communication situations” and adds that they are “produced automatically (or semiautomatically)”.7 They can also occur on their own as utterances. Ameka lists some further commonalities shared by interejctions and formulae: … both are forms of language that are found in most if not all languages, yet they encode culture specific meanings in these languages; both forms are indexical … . It is traditional for both types of words to be described as interjections, but such a use of the term interjection is too broad, in my view … . (Ameka 1992a: 110)

He concludes that interjections in fact may be considered a subcategory of formulae, with some subtle differences: “interjections are spontaneous immediate || 6 Ameka (1992a: 107). 7 Ameka (1992a: 108).

12 | Introduction responses to situations while the formulae are intentional and (socially) expected reactions to situations”.8 The difference between “spontaneous immediate responses” on the one hand and “intentional and (socially) expected reactions to situations” on the other is, however, not always obvious. Interjections in the Greek material can definitely be used in both ways. Prototypical examples of interjections and formulae in English could be Ouch! and thank-you; in Ancient Greek perhaps φεῦ and χαῖρε. It is easy to think of a situation when φεῦ is used as an intentional reaction to a situation, but more difficult to think of a thank-you or χαῖρε as a spontaneous and immediate response. Another difference between interjections and formulae noted by Ameka is that “primary interjections do not have addressees, but formulae have addressees”; in the case of conative interjections, Ameka argues that they may be directed at people, but not addressed to people, whereas formulae are addressed to specific people.9

1.5.2 Secondary interjections Again, I turn to Ameka for my point of departure: … secondary interjections are forms that belong to other word classes based on their semantics and are interjections only because they can occur by themselves non-elliptically as one-word utterances and in this usage refer to mental acts. (Ameka 1992a: 105)

Secondary interjections are words that originally belong to another part of speech semantically. Thus, quite a number of items normally considered interjections can be characterized as secondary, in modern English e.g. shit, damn, geez; even oops might be a secondary interjection, depending on the etymology.10 In Ancient Greek, we find almost no examples of secondary interjections belonging in category 1. However, in another category there is quite a large amount of words that fit in this description. If we admit a liberal application of the criteria (only requiring Familienähnlichkeit, and not requiring evidence for absolute use, as for example with εἶα), we find some very common items: ἄγε, ἰδού, ἴθι and φέρε, alongside some less common, such as δεῦρο. || 8 Ameka (1992a: 109). 9 Ameka (1992a: 109–110). 10 OED s.v. “oops int. and n.”: “Etymology: Perhaps shortened < UPSIDAISY int. …, or perhaps a natural exclamation which has become confused with UPSIDAISY int.”

Definitions | 13

Since the aim of the study is to provide a description and analysis of interjections based primarily on their semantics, it does not follow as a matter of course that the secondary items should receive treatment alongside their primary counterparts. Thus, I have chosen to focus on the primary interjections in the present study.11 The matter is discussed further below, in 3.3. Sound patterns of interjections can be said to be partly arbitrary, partly motivated by the human physique. There is a limit to the number of possible short combinations of sounds, especially vowel sounds, which in turn may explain the fact that most languages seem to share the interjections [au] and [ai], (regardless of their meaning in individual languages). Such interjections may be described as belonging somewhere between spoken language and gestures.12 Therefore, it is uncontroversial to claim that primary interjections have some relation to sound symbolism, i.e. show some resemblance between form and meaning; we find examples of onomatopoeia, at least to some degree, among all kinds of interjections. It seems that there are non-arbitrary elements in such a large amount of the items, that an element of iconicity may be considered a unifying trait of the class of interjections as a whole. For example, as regards the meaning of the interjections, it is not arbitrary whether a vowel is long, short or a diphthong (ἆ vs. ἒ ἔ and ἠή), whether the item itself is long or short (παπαῖ vs. παπαῖ παπαῖ and παπᾶ παπᾶ παπᾶ παπαῖ).13 In conclusion, it seems that interjections can be placed along a continuum of increasingly word-like forms, similar to the continuum proposed by Schourup.14 There are also interjections that resemble normal words, i.e. they never occur in repetition or reduplication or have any variant forms. Some words, however, seem to be, to some extent, formed in imitation of the actual sounds or

|| 11 Some valuable observations on the differences between primary and secondary interjections are offered by Lepre (2001), presented below in section 1.7.5. For example, verbs cannot be derived from secondary, but only from primary items (e.g. ἔφευξας, οἰμώξεται etc.); primary items are also easily made into nouns (τὸ φεῦ, τὸ βαβαῖ), whereas this does not seem to be possible with secondary items (†τὸ ἄγε, †τὸ δεῦρο). 12 Cf. Knapp and Hall (2006: 384–388). 13 This borders on the phenomenon called phonaesthesia, which is the clustering of iconic phonemes or phoneme clusters within the word, cf. Nänny and Fischer (2006: 462). 14 Schourup (2001: 1049) proposes a continuum of increasingly word-like gestural forms: “At the near end of this continuum are nonce emotive interjections (iiyaii!). One step removed are conventionalized, quasi-linguistic expressive interjections like yuck, eek, and wow. Even more word-like in one respect is a form like oh … . Well and its cousin why in my view represent the far end of the same continuum: they border on full lexicality … , but nevertheless lend themselves to gestural interpretation.”

14 | Introduction events they refer to, or, in some cases, representations of these events themselves. This has the result that they, in theory, could take on just about any form. In practice, however, interjections do not exploit this possibility much. Most items follow the traditional rules of orthography closely. Among the few exceptions, we find ὠόπ (ὄπ) and ἰόφ (hapax legomenon), which violate the constraints on word-final sounds, as well as the peculiar εὐοἷ and εἶἑν, which have internal aspiration. There are cases when interjections form a phonological unit with a juxtaposed word, which always stands in postposition. Two common examples of this phenomenon are οἴμοι and ὤμοι (οἴ and ὤ + μοι), which are considered words in their own right by most contemporary scholars. The equally common ἰώ μοι is, however, never printed as a single word, *ἰώμοι. A related phenomenon is elision, with the notable case of -οι being elided in the combination οἴμ’ ὡς, e.g. in S. Aj. 587 or Ar. Nu. 773. It might be significant that a similar elision never occurs with ὤμοι.15 The less common combination οἲ ’γώ, where the initial ἐ- of ἐγώ has been elided, occurs in all three tragedians, and is only paralleled by two occurrences without elision.16 As becomes clear from these examples, interjections have a strong phonological integrity. Ameka states that interjections are “always separated by a pause from the other utterances with which they may co-occur”, claiming that they “always constitute an intonation unit by themselves.”17 It should therefore follow that interjections in co-occurrence with other words should always be interpreted as independent units, uttered alongside other linguistic items. The claim that interjections always constitute an intonation unit by themselves is partly supported by West’s observations on hiatus in tragedy, that it “occurs only before and after exclamations, urgent imperatives, and the like”, which ought to include interjections.18 The actual sound patterns of interjections probably had an immense importance for their interpretation—much as is the case today. Factors such as modulation, tone height and pitch are important and necessary for the full interpretation of spoken interjections. These factors are used as the base for Biraud’s study (2010); however, since we have only written material to deal with, I have chosen not to delve further into this matter.

|| 15 Cf. Scholia in Nubes 773b: οἴμ’] ἐπὶ χαρᾶς ChisPaChalc (hic ὤμ’]), “οἴμοι” ἐπὶ χαρᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ λύπης λέγεται h(mrg.), φεῦ Va. 16 Total number of occurrences of οἲ ’γώ: A. 7, S. 3, E. 18. οἲ ἐγώ: A. 1, S. 0, E. 1. 17 Ameka (1992a: 108). 18 West (1982a: 14–15).

Definitions | 15

1.5.3 Common properties of interjections It has become clear that some characteristics are common for all sorts of interjections, and these characteristics taken as a whole may serve to define the class of interjections, although none of them may do so on its own. There seems to be a series of features, none of which is shared by all items in the class. This characteristic is also shared by particles, e.g. modal particles in Germanic languages. Morphologically, interjections are invariable. In the Greek material, repetition is a common feature.19 There are also examples of reduplication, tri-, and even quadruplication, of parts of words as well as of entire words. Yet, such words may not always be considered variant forms of one and the same word, but sometimes as new words with a (perhaps only slightly) different sense. Phonological deviation from what is normally permitted in a language is expected.20 Since many interjections are described by commentators as ‘inarticulate’, it would be normal to find more deviant spellings. In the Greek material, however, the majority of all items follow the general rules of Greek orthography. Syntactically, interjections can constitute complete, non-elliptical utterances, and therefore may be considered as clause-equivalents. They rarely enter into construction with other word-classes. In the Greek material, we find οἴμοι among the few exceptions, which is the result of the unification of the interjection οἴ and μοι, most likely the dative of the first person singular personal pronoun. The matter seems to be the same with ὤμοι.21 Semantically, interjections are understood as being expressive of the speaker’s mental state, action or attitude or reaction to a situation. They are firstperson oriented, refer to the present time, and act as complete utterances, possibly equivalent to sentences. Pragmatically, interjections act as context-bound utterances encoding speaker attitudes or communicative intentions, which in some way are related to the ongoing discourse. Certain items in the material is also shown to act as auxiliary additions to other expressions, e.g. with an intensifying function. The Greek interjections can also be used figuratively, i.e. in some way which alters

|| 19 Repetition is a better term than “gemination”, which consists in the lengthening of words through doubling (or more) of some element of the word, e.g. br > brr, or pst > psst. The repetition of whole words might also be called “epizeuxis” or “palilogy”. 20 This supports the hypothesis that several, if not all, interjections were pronounced quite differently from how they are actually spelled. 21 Apart from these two interjections, only ἰώ occurs with this dative.

16 | Introduction its basic semantics. The case is especially clear in comedy, where words are often used outside their regular context—e.g. with the intention of making a joke. This can, inter alia, be achieved by violating certain felicity conditions.

1.6 Three categories Since the earliest attempts at a systematic approach to grammar, collective terms on various parts of speech have been used. Among the oldest examples of such categorizations are the ones by the Grammatici Graeci, where we find what modern grammarians label interjections interspersed among the epirrhemata, the adverbs, i.e. they are members of a common group, albeit together with other parts of speech. As regards the class of interjections, even today there is no general consensus on what belongs to it and what does not. Unlike more well-defined parts of speech, such as nouns or prepositions, the group of words generally referred to as interjections is by no means homogenous, but rather quite disparate. A quick look at the Ancient Greek material clearly shows that there are items that do not follow the general pattern of normal, written language. A closer examination shows a large individual variation among the words, such as emotional cries, stylized exhortations and response words. However, there also seem to exist some common features among the words, such as the possibility of occurring on their own (forming complete sentences), and perhaps also a certain degree of iconicity. Many words are also typically oriented from the first person (singular). I use the formal criterion, stating that interjections have to be able to constitute non-elliptical utterances by themselves, as the first and most important step to delimit these items from other parts of speech. In a second step, since the items at this point present great variation, it is desirable to place them in various categories. I have chosen to base this categorization on what I perceive to be the most salient semantic property of each item. In the Greek material, I have found at least three readily discernible categories: (1) expressive, (2) conative and (3) phatic interjections, and the following parts of this section will present the three categories in greater detail. Following the guidelines of each category, I also present three lists of the items, which I have formed on the basis of my own readings of the source material, and with the aid of the lists in Schwentner (1924) and Lepre (2000), as well as the examples given in the grammar by Schwyzer (1950). What I consider to be variant forms of the same item have been supplied in smaller script after each headword. The numerals indicate the total amount of Interjection Phrases (IntPs, i.e. single or combined occurrences of the same item) in the works of all four au-

Three categories | 17

thors used for the present study, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes, including the fragments of their works. In previous literature, the various labels used to describe interjections have been manifold. Words such as interjection, cry, exclamation, even ejaculation, have been used alongside Greek terms such as ἐπίρρημα, ἐπίφθεγμα and ἐπιφώνημα (epirrhēma, epiphthegma and epiphōnēma). I use “interjection” as an umbrella term for words in all three categories, while the terms expressive, conative and phatic (interjection) are used to describe the core semantics of each category. I understand words such as “cry”, “exclamation” and the like as referring to a mode of expression, which is by no means restricted to interjections.22

1.6.1 Category 1 This category includes what may be called the prototypical interjections, exclamation words expressing a conventionalized mental reaction, state or attitude, which in turn is caused by some event or situation; e.g. αἰαῖ, οἴμοι, φεῦ.23 This category is also by far the most frequent one, with a total of 36 members and 1496 occurrences. These words are normally speaker-oriented, i.e. their perspective is that of the first person, and they can be directed either back at the speaker, or at one or more addressees. Syntactically, regarding their position in an utterance, they are either used free-standing (infrequent), initially (most frequent), interjected within the utterance (infrequent), or at the very end (most infrequent). Common characteristics of items in category 1 – Expressive of the speaker’s mental state, action or attitude, or reaction to linguistic or extra-linguistic event – Similar in function to the expressive clause – May be used as conatives – Elements of iconicity

|| 22 As far as basic linguistic terminology (e.g. clause, expression, sentence, utterance) is concerned, I follow the definitions in the ELL glossary. 23 “Emotion” is used in its widest possible sense, including “any strong mental or instinctive feeling, … deriving esp. from one’s circumstances, mood, or relationship with others” (OED s.v. “emotion, n.”).

18 | Introduction Tab. 1: List of all items in category 1 Lemma

IntPs

Transcription

ἆ

42

a

ἆἆ

aa

ἆἆἆ

aaa

ἆἆἆἆ

aaaa

αἰαῖ

128

aiai

αἰβοῖ

16

aiboi

ἰαιβοῖ

iaiboi

αἰβοιβοῖ

aiboiboi

ἀλαλαί

3

alalai

ἀτταταῖ

11

attatai

ἰατταταί

iattatai

ἰατταταιάξ

iattataiax

βαβαῖ

10

babai

βαβαιάξ

babaiax

δᾶ

8

da

ἒἔ

44

ee

ἔα

62

ea

εὐαί

5

euai

εὐάν

1

euan

εὐοῖ

6

euoi

ἠέ

10

ēe

ἠὴ ἠή

2

ēē ēē

ἰαί

4

iai

ἰαυοῖ

1

iauoi

ἰή

18

iē

ἰοὺ ἰού

43

iou iou

ἰόφ

1

ioph

ἰώ

294

iō

όόό

2

ooo

ὀᾶ

7

oa

45

oi

οἴ οἰοῖ

oioi

οἰοιοῖ οἴμοι

oioioi 307

oimoi

Three categories | 19

οἴμοι μοι

oimoi moi

ὀπποποῖ

1

oppopoi

ὀτοτοῖ

22

ototoi

ὀτοτοτοῖ

otototoi

ὀτοτοτοτοῖ

ototototoi

ὀτοτοτοτοτοτοῖ

ototototototoi

ὀττοτοτοτοῖ

ottotototoi

παπαῖ

35

papai

ἀπαπαῖ

apapai

ἀπαππαπαῖ, παπᾶ παπᾶ παπᾶ παπαῖ

apappapai, papa papa papa papai

ἀπαπαπαῖ

apapapai

ἀπαπαπ[

apapap[

παπαιάξ

papaiax

παπαπαῖ

papapai

παπαπαπαῖ

papapapai

πόποι

10

popoi

πόπαξ

1

popax

τοτοῖ

3

totoi

τοτοτοῖ

tototoi

ὕὗὕὗ

1

hu hu hu hu

ὗ ὗ ὗ, ψ ψ, ἆ ἆ

1

hu hu hu, ps ps, a a

φεῦ

169

pheu

φῦ

2

phu

ὤ (ὦ)

101

ō (ō)

ὤμοι

80

ōmoi

ὤμοι μοι Total

ōmoi moi 1496

1.6.2 Category 2 This category consists of words expressing commands, monitions and exhortations, i.e. the desire or wish of the speaker that someone performs a certain action. Typical members include εἶα/εἷα, ἤν, ὠή. This category is considerably smaller than category 1, with a total of six members and 82 occurrences.

20 | Introduction The main argument for separating these words from category 1 and 3 is that they express the will or desire of the speaker, and not his or her mental state. There is also typically an (implicit) reference to an addressee or auditor (or several), even an absent entity. Therefore, category 2 interjections have certain features in common with the imperative mood of the verb, and unsurprisingly several secondary members of the category are fossilized verb forms, viz. former imperatives.24 The term fossilized has a twofold meaning: (1) fossilized elements have the same form irrespective of whether they are addressed to one or several persons, and (2) they seem to have lost their original meaning. For example, ἴθι used as an interjection does not necessarily refer to movement of any kind. There are also non-verbal members of this category. For example, there may be reason to believe that items beginning with εἰ- (εἰ, εἶα, εἶἑν, εἴθε) have a common origin. An important aspect is that there is a high degree of functional similarity between the actual verb forms and the secondary items in the category. The three words ἄγε, ἴθι, φέρε are obviously verb forms, but they are frequently used as interjections. The fact that these words are repeatedly used in moments of high emotional strain, such as enthusiasm or haste, also adds on to their expressive qualities, making them similar to the items in category 1. Common characteristics for items in category 2 – Express the wish of the speaker for someone to do something – Directed at auditor – Elements of iconicity (ὦ εἷα and ὢ ὄπ are perhaps depictive of the desired actions) Tab. 2: List of all items in category 2 Lemma

IntPs

Transcription

εἶα / εἷα

58

eia / heia

ἤ

3

ē

ἤν

5

ēn

ψύττ’(α)

1

psytt’(a)

ὠή

11

ōē

|| 24 The most common secondary interjections in category 2 are ἄγε, ἴθι and φέρε.

Three categories | 21

ὢ ὄπ

4

Total

82

ō op

1.6.3 Category 3 This category consists of words expressing the speaker’s mental state towards the on-going discourse, and consists primarily of back-channeling or feedback signaling vocalizations. There are only three extant members: εἶἑν, ἰαῦ and ναί. The amount of occurrences is also considerably smaller than in category 1, with a total of 100. The main argument for separating these words from category 1 is that the speaker’s mental state is oriented at the discourse itself, rather than some language-external entity. They have no reference to any addressee or auditor. However, unlike the items in category 1, category 3 items are frequently used as formulaic words, similar or equal to discourse markers. Common characteristics for items in category 3 – Response words – Implicit reference to the speaker – May replace whole sentences – Frequently used as formulaic words, such as discourse markers Tab. 3: List of all items in category 3 Lemma

IntPs

Transcription

εἶἑν

43

eihen

ἰαῦ

1

iau

56

nai

ναί ναίκι

naiki

ναίχι Total

naichi 100

22 | Introduction 1.6.4 Related items Apart from the items in the three main categories, there are items that do not quite fit into any of these, although they are sometimes counted among interjections, since they fulfil some or all formal, but not the semantic, criteria. The number of items is very small, with the exception for the imitative items. Related items Onomatopoeia Particles Routines or Formulae

e.g. αὖ αὖ, βῆ, παππάξ (au au, bē, pappax) e.g. νὴ (Δία), μὰ (Δία) (nē (Dia), ma (Dia)) e.g. ἰδού, πρὸς θεῶν, χαῖρε (idou, pros theōn, chaire)

Imitative items are understood by Ameka as “onomatopoeic words and iconic depictives”, and they are characterized as being descriptive, which is a rough yet sufficient and useful definition. Thus, they do not qualify as interjections if Ameka’s semantic analysis is followed strictly. They do however fulfil three formal criteria: (1) they are not used otherwise, (2) they can occur independently as non-elliptical utterances by themselves, and (3) they are indeclinable. Their relatively high frequency in comedy, as well as in everyday speech, has perhaps motivated their frequent inclusion in overviews of interjections. The total number of imitative items is 27, with 66 occurrences. Moreover, we find routines or formulae, words or sets of words used in specific events and often socially expected, e.g. ἰδοῦ, used at presenting an object or χαῖρε, used in greeting, or insults and expletives, such as ἐς κόρακας (which however may be considered elliptical). An obvious trait these items share is that they are secondary interjections or collocations of several words, thereby effectively excluding them from the class of primary interjections. Finally, among the frequent particles in Ancient Greek, we find two items that form informal oaths, such as νὴ Δία, μὰ (πρὸς) τῶν θεῶν.25 These oaths function similarly to interjections in category 3 since they regularly express affirmation; they are also frequently used to add an element of emphasis or intensification. Secondary items, which would fit into the proposed categories, but which are not treated in this study, include the very common ἄγε, ἴθι and φέρε, which

|| 25 Cf. Sommerstein’s (2014: 315) definition of an “informal oath”: “The sole linguistic marker is the presence of a phrase consisting of an affirmative or negative particle (in Attic ναὶ μά, νή, οὐ μά, or μά; …) followed by the name of a god, hero or Eideshort in the accusative case (with or without the definitive article)”.

Previous research | 23

semantically are roughly equivalent to εἶα (εἷα), as well as ἰδού look or there, δεῦρο hither, εἰπέ μοι do tell and καλῶς well—all fitting into category 2.

1.7 Previous research The phenomenon of interjections poses problems for anyone who attempts to define it linguistically. In the history of research on interjections, the main concern has always, at least to some extent, been how to divide this word group into relevant categories. This has different reasons, one being that this word class obviously has members with highly divergent properties, another that the group was not actively formed from the start, but rather seems to have been formed as a result of what remained after all other words were successfully categorized, which seems to be the case with the adverb class found in Dionysius Thrax (cf. below). Whichever criteria you choose, either formal, semantic or pragmatic, you will find that these words in fact rather frequently do not have much in common. The single characteristic that scholars through the ages seem to have agreed upon is that interjections elude classification, at least when approached with the tools of traditional grammar. The European history of linguistics, up to a certain point, coincides with the history of Greek and Latin grammar; apart from notable exceptions, such as Port Royal for French and Dante Alighieri for Italian, it is not until the nineteenth or twentieth century that studies of “modern” languages appear in larger numbers, thus initiating modern linguistics, and no longer primarily being an internal affair of classical scholars. Studies in comparative historical linguistics have also played an important part in providing space for its modern counterpart.26

1.7.1 Antiquity and the Middle Ages Already in the Grammatici Graeci, indeclinable words were sorted out from the others, and then classified in various subcategories. It is therefore unsurprising to find the first classification of the Greek interjections among the adverbs (ἐπιρρήματα). This categorization was chosen in the second century BC by Dionysius Thrax.

|| 26 Cf. Hale (2007).

24 | Introduction Ἐπίρρημά ἐστι μέρος λόγου ἄκλιτον, κατὰ ῥήματος λεγόμενον ἢ ἐπιλεγόμενον ῥήματι. The adverb is an indeclinable part of speech, which is either spoken upon, or in addition to, a verb. Ars Grammatica 1.1 (72: 4–5)

Dionysius Thrax enumerates no less than 26 different categories, most of which are still uncontroversially considered to be adverbs. The items identified as interjections in this study are sorted into five of these sub-categories. We also find groups of words that do not easily fit in among adverbs, such as words denoting a wish (nr 7) and “verbal adjectives” (nr 25), as well as most of the items we today generally understand as interjections. The expressive interjections are found in three categories, nr 8 (τὰ δὲ σχετλιαστικά, “of misery”), nr 13 (τὰ δὲ θαυμαστικά, “of marvel or admiration”) and nr 26 (τὰ δὲ θειασμοῦ, “of divination”). Conative and phatic interjections are found in one category each: nr 17 (τὰ δὲ παρακελεύσεως, “of exhortation or address”) and nr 10 (τὰ δὲ συγκαταθέσεως, “of approval or assent”).27 There is no sign of imitative items; perhaps they were not considered part of language at all. There is a noticeable problem with Dionysius’ classification, though; frequently, interjections are not uttered in combination with a verb, but rather act as utterances in their own right. Apollonius Dyscolus, who in the second century AD wrote a treatise specifically on adverbs, tried to sort out the matter by assuming that there either was an explicit or an implicit verb connected to every interjection. Like Dionysius, Apollonius found no reason to categorize these words as a separate group. οὐ μόνον δὲ ῥητοῖς οὖσι τοῖς ῥήμασι κατὰ τὴν σύνταξιν τοῦ λόγου τὸ ἐπίρρημα προσφέρεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ σιγωμένοις, εἴγε καὶ αἱ ἐπιφωνήσεις οὐδὲν ἄλλο εἰσὶν ἢ ἐπιρρήματα τῶν ῥημάτων ἐπιγινομένων. The adverb is not used only with verbs that are spoken according to the syntax of speech, but also with tacit [verbs], if really interjections (epiphōnēseis) are nothing more than adverbs belonging to verbs that follow. Περὶ ἐπιρρημάτων [On Adverbs] 121, 14–16

|| 27 Ars Grammatica 1.1 p. 75 (my translation): 8 τὰ δὲ σχετλιαστικὰ, οἷον παπαῖ ἰού φεῦ· “(adverbs) of misery, like papaî, ioú, pheû” 10 τὰ δὲ ϲυγκαταθέϲεωϲ, οἷον ναί ναίχι. “of approval or assent, like nai, naichi” 13 τὰ δὲ θαυμαστικά, οἷον βαβαῖ· “of marvel or admiration, like babaî” 17 τὰ δὲ παρακελεύσεως, οἷον εἶα ἄγε φέρε· “of exhortation or address, like eîa, áge, phére” 26 τὰ δὲ θειασμοῦ, οἷον εὐοἵ εὔἁν· “of divination, like euhoí, eúhan” We also find two more items similar to interjections in this group: 22 τὰ δὲ ἀπωμοτικά, οἷον μά· “of abjuration, like má” and 23 τὰ δὲ κατωμοτικά, οἷον νή· “of confirmation by oath, like nē”.

Previous research | 25

Later, the Grammatici Latini made a further division of these by creating the concept of interiectiones. Interiectio is the Latin noun for “something interposed or interjected”, coined by Priscian.28 The need of the Grammatici Latini for a new name has, by some, been explained by the fact that there was one empty slot in the Latin grammar compared with Greek grammar, since Latin does not have the article. Therefore the so-called “interjections” were sorted out from the adverbs.29 In the work by Q. Remmius Palaemon (first century AD), as described by Charisius in the fifth century AD,30 interjections were considered to be a pars orationis, although in the Augustini Regulae31 (fourth–fifth century) they were not. This last opinion seems to have been predominant for more than a thousand years thereafter; it was not until the nineteenth century that studies on the subject were once again taken up.32 During the Middle Ages the works of Dionysus Thrax apparently still took pride of place among scholars of Greek, and they were partly copied, partly imitated, even in such relatively late grammars as that of Constantine Lascaris in 1476.33

1.7.2 Modern linguistics begins Among the earliest definitions of interjections from this period, we find J. Grimm’s classification. His division of interjections in German consists of at least 11 different categories, such as vocantis, dolentis, ridentis, admirantis etc.34 || 28 On parts of speech in Charisius, cf. H. Keil (ed.), Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis Grammaticae Libri III (Grammatici Latini, 1) (Leipzig: Teubner, 1857), p. 152ff.; in Priscian, H. Keil (ed.), Prisciani Grammatici Caesariensis Institutionum Grammaticarum Libri XVIII (Grammatici Latini, 2–3) (Leipzig: Teubner, 1855–59), I p. 54ff. For Priscian’s discussion of the term interiectio, see Priscian: in Keil (1855–59) 11.1.6. 29 Adverbs are in themselves a highly problematic part of speech, cf. ELL glossary s.v. and De La Villa (2006). 30 Charisius 1, 238, 23–25: “interiectiones sunt quae nihil docibile habent, significant tamen adfectum animi, uelut heu eheu hem ehem eho hoe pop papae at attatae.” 31 Augustini Regulae 5, 524, 9–10: “Interiectio non pars orationis est, sed adfectum erumpentis animi in uocem, et significat aut laetitiam, ut euax, aut amaritudinem, ut heu, apud Graecos.” 32 The problems the ancient grammarians had in deciding on how many parts of speech there should be are treated in Graffi (1996), who also discusses the relations between the Latin and the Greek grammarians thoroughly. Cf. Lepre (2000: 13–16). 33 Lascaris (1966). 34 The list provided by Schwentner (1924: 5–6) includes: of calling, exclaiming; of sorrow; of pain, inflammation; of joy; of laughter; of admiration, approval, flattery, encouragement; of

26 | Introduction However practically useful and convenient, this division is unsatisfactory inasmuch as the actual use of interjections is left unanalyzed. Such lists have a long history, beginning with Aristotle’s pathē in the Rhetoric.35 In 1924, Schwentner’s phonetically oriented division seems to have put an end to this mode of description. The earliest modern studies in the field are German dissertations from the late nineteenth century. W. Wackernagel’s Voces variae animantium (1869), dealing with the genre of lists of animals and their cries in Latin, Greek and German, might be viewed as a first step towards modern studies on interjections. At the end of the nineteenth century, however, linguistics was still intimately bound to psychology, and, since there was no common terminology, every scholar had to make up his or her own. Since the area of interjections never quite made it to the top notch among linguistic topics during this important first period, this might in fact be the reason that such a terminology was never agreed upon. Now, it seems, since the community never agreed on a basic distinction, every scholar facing the issue had to “re-invent the wheel”; i.e. first, to make a general study on interjections, then apply this general view to one’s own material. This was especially evident in the 1980s, when several partly generic, partly language specific studies were published. As for scholarship on Greek linguistics specifically, the late nineteenth century saw two especially important works in our field of study.36 Two German scholars each published a dissertation on the interjections of the Greek dramatists: Schinck (1873) on Aristophanes, and Müller (1885) on Sophocles and Euripides. To my knowledge, the first study solely dedicated to interjections in Ancient Greek is the one by Schinck (1873), and it is also surprisingly thorough, compared to other contemporary work on interjections.37 The purpose of the study is to explain more fully the matter of “interjections and similar words” in Aristophanes, since this had been done only in part before. Schinck’s hope is, apart from attaining a better understanding of Aristophanes’ language, to learn more of the “habits of the people of Attica” in addition to “the fashion of Everyman’s || wish; of doubt; of preventing; of driving away; of abuse. Cf. Grimm (1822: 288ff.) 3. (Neudruck 3, 279ff.) as referred by Schwentner (1924: 5, n. 2). 35 Cf. Rosenwein (2006: 32). 36 Among the studies in the field of Latin, the following scholars might be mentioned: Hirth (1869), Flickinger (1908), Rohde (1911). This may also be the proper place to mention some current research on interjections in Latin: Pugliarello (1996), Del Vecchio (2000) and Sauciuc (2004). 37 Cf. Hirth (1869) and Rohde (1911).

Previous research | 27

speech, as found in the streets and in the market”. Schinck mainly gets his help from the scholia, which he regards as his primary source of information, perhaps because he considers them to be the most recent scholarly work in the field. He also makes use of the ancient grammarians, with Apollonius Dyscolus and Aelianus Herodianus (Technicus) as the most central.38 Schinck explicates each word, in alphabetical order, with regard to its meaning and use. At the beginning of each article, every known occurrence of the word under consideration is identified, and, if these are not too many, a few words of context are also given. The various senses of the word are mentioned and any ambiguity that might be at hand is discussed. In the same fashion as previous scholars have done, these are consistently illustrated with a label in Greek or Latin, in the manner of the scholia and Stephanus’ Thesaurus: θαυμαστικόν, μετ’ ἐκπλήξεως, σχετλιαστικόν, dolentis vel metuentis, gaudentis vel laetantis etc. (cf. above 1.7.1). Since the study is limited to commenting on isolated cases, and consequently avoids determining a system and drawing any conclusions from it, it is difficult to make any further use of his material than for understanding Aristophanes alone. Müller’s article on the interjections in two tragedians, Sophocles and Euripides, appeared in 1885. Each interjection is here dealt with in an individual article, in which, after a brief exposé on morphosyntactic remarks, brief accounts are given on what the ancient grammarians, the scholiasts, Suda, Hesychius etc. have said on the matter. The author then goes on to argue for what might be the interjection’s propria significatio (i.e. “particular sense”), provides examples and concludes by giving examples of other possible senses, if any. For example, the propria significatio of the interjection φεῦ is said to be anger (“indignatio”); however, this sense gradually faded and changed into that of pain or sorrow (“dolor vel maeror”).39 Müller’s identification of different semantic as well as functional categories makes his study an important pioneer work. However, like Schinck, he does not summarize his results and conclusions.40 The aims of the two works therefore seems to have been essentially practical. Since there were few or no scholars in their time who recognized the problems that interjections pose for linguistics, it seems that, consequently, they did not feel

|| 38 Schinck (1873: 189). Schneider and Uhlig’s edition of the Grammatici Graeci was not published until 1878, and I assume that he did not have access to any other edition. 39 Müller (1885: 27–28). 40 It is also surprising that none of them make any reference to Stephanus. They would be acquainted with the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, no doubt. Possibly, their research was inspired by its often rather extensive articles on the interjections.

28 | Introduction any need to elaborate further on them. There is no evidence for this kind of concern before Bourdon’s L'expression des émotions et des tendances dans le langage, which appeared in 1892.41 In what is probably the largest modern work on Greek grammar in existence, Kühner’s grammar (1892), interjections are in the morphological part deemed insignificant, since they are considered “blosse Empfindungslaute und … daher für die Grammatik bedeutungslos”.42 There is a short section on interjections, but no specific definition is found. Under the heading “Eigentliche Interjektionen” a list of the most common examples is presented, alongside some less common. The words are classified according to the emotion they are understood to convey: e.g. “ἔα (auch verdoppelt ἔα ἔα), Ausr. der Überraschung” (“of surprise”), “ἰού (ἰοῦ), Ausr. des Schmerzes u. der Freude” (“of pain and joy”), etc. There is no categorization or grouping of the various emotions, and the examples are listed in no obvious order. Furthermore, it is observed that quite a few verb forms and “other expressions”, such as ἄγε, φέρε, ἴθι, ἄγρει and δεῦρο, δεῦτε, ἰδού, ἄληθες, are commonly counted among the interjections, “doch mit Unrecht” (“but wrongly”); these are not to be understood as “Empfindungslaute”, but rather as either complete or elliptical utterances. In the syntax part (1898–1904), Kühner makes a distinction between “Stoffwörter”, or “Begriffswörter”, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, and “Formwörter”, where pronouns, certain adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and numerals are found. The interjections are not considered to belong to either Stoffwörter or Formwörter; again they are described as “blosse artikulierte Empfindungslaute”, which does not motivate further inquiry. 43

1.7.3 Studies in the early twentieth century Since the ensuing period was highly influenced by the emerging field of IndoEuropean studies, the early twentieth century saw a few studies also in the present field of interest.44 The most important of these is Schwentner’s work from

|| 41 The most influential work in the first half of the twentieth century was probably Wundt’s Völkerpsychologie (1900). 42 Kühner (1892): “[they are] merely sounds of emotion and … therefore of no importance for grammar”. § 326, p. 253: “Von den Interjektionen”. 43 § 345.12, p. 7: “Entwickelung [sic] der Redeteile und ihre Formen aus dem Satze.” 44 Hermann (1913) “Über die primären Interjektionen”, Schulze (1916) “Indogermanische Interjektionen”, Löwe (1927) “Die indogermanischen Interjektionen ā, ē, ō.”

Previous research | 29

1924. Schwentner aimed at providing a full account on interjections from an Indo-European perspective.45 This included examples from the Greek, and his work can be viewed as the first which aims at treating not just a selection, but all interjections from all authors. Hence, the span of words which may be classified as interjections is far wider than that of his predecessors. In contrast, Schwentner bases his division of the interjections on phonology, rather than on semantics. This is motivated by the fact that some interjections seem to have several, often quite different, senses. Apart from the more obvious categories, viz. vocalic, consonantal and various combinations of the two, he adds the categories lautmalenden und schallnachahmenden (i.e. onomatopoeic) as well as Lock-, Scheuch- und Fuhrmannsrufe (i.e. words of calling, mostly directed at animals). This is interesting, since these are equally possible to analyze phonetically as the aforementioned, but their origins obviously motivate this special treatment. Consequently, it might be said that Schwentner assumes certain intrinsic qualities in the group that he has indirectly formed through his primary division. The fact that they cannot be derived from any known sources adds to the special qualities of this “first group”. The special treatment of words for calling and shooing is based on use and function, rather than phonology or semantics.46 In 1928, the work by Ideforss on interjections in general (and Swedish interjections in particular) appears highly unusual and inventive. Starting from the idea that the term interjection is unsound, he nonetheless keeps it as a collective term, “only”, as he says, “for practical reasons”.47 Ideforss mentions what he calls the “genetical” division (into primary and secondary interjections), but rejects it in favor of the “semologic” division, i.e. based on semantics. Thus his division consists of three main categories: impulsions, imitations and imperations, embracing the primary as well as the secondary interjections. Impulsions

|| 45 Cf. Schulze (1916). 46 It might additionally be noted, that during this period, a few very important pieces of work were published, which indirectly relate to our field of interest. The articles on the individual interjections in the lexica of Dindorf, Ellendt and Liddell & Scott (Lexicon Aeschyleum, Lexicon Sophocleum, A Greek-English Lexicon) provide very useful observations, and are often quite extensive, identifying every known passage of the word. Among the earliest purely linguistical studies we find Granger (1915), who attempts to define a primitive sentence type as consisting of an imperative or a vocative, and that these in turn derive from the interjection. 47 Ideforss (1928: 2). The distinction had previously been made by Noreen (1903–1924) and Heyse (1908), although with different labels; it is now refined by Ideforss. Among others, he rejects the use of the term onomatopoeic, and supplies imitations instead, since they, rather than aspiring to constitute the course of events itself, constitute a parallel to it.

30 | Introduction have an emotional emphasis, and the subjective element is predominant (e.g. woe, ouch, wow); imitations have a conceptual emphasis, mimicking a course of events (e.g. pow, crash, splash); imperations have an emphasis on intention (e.g. heave-ho, shoo, ahoy). Ideforss emphasizes that the boundaries between the three categories are often dynamic, i.e. the different senses often coincide. The organization of the impulsions is phonological, and the imperations are in turn divided according to their semantics.48 In 1930, Brun-Laloire was the first to identify several of the shared traits of interjections; they do not function like other parts of speech, but can constitute an entire sentence on their own, thus forming a part of speech beside the ordinary ones.49 Karcevskij (1941) is often cited by later scholars as an important contributor to the studies on interjections, although he mainly focuses on onomatopoeic items. During this period, most scholars in Ancient Greek linguistics seem to focus on the so-called Anredeforschung, research on address. We find works like Wendel (1929) “Die Gesprächsanrede im griechischen Epos und Drama der Blütezeit.”, Zilliacus (1949) “Untersuchungen zu den abstrakten Anredeformen und Höflichkeitstiteln im Griechischen” and Brioso Sánchez (1971) “El vocativo y la interjección ὦ”.50 Brunius-Nilsson’s dissertation (1955) on the special addressing word δαιμόνιε borders in part on this study, since the word does have some resemblance to various interjections, e.g. it often stands alongside words like σχέτλιε, δεῖλοι, βέλτιστε. Above all, we find the influential grammars of Smyth and Schwyzer, which are still in use in numerous universities world-wide. Despite being one of the most influential Greek grammars, Smyth’s grammar (1920) offers no definition of interjections; they are only mentioned in passing, in the manner of his predecessors. Following the division of sentences into complete and incomplete (where it is specified that a complete sentence must contain two members: the subject and the predicate), interjections are placed as the first example of incomplete sentences, followed by asseverations, headings, vocatives and exclamations without a verb. In the same manner as previous grammarians, Smyth deals with the aspects relevant for exclamations at the applicable location, e.g. “exclamative” genitive is dealt with alongside other genitives. One noteworthy rarity is the indication of the exclamative infinitive,

|| 48 This gives reason to believe that he was inspired by Schwentner (1924). Ideforss was also in dialogue with Noreen (1904) and Belfrage (1909). 49 Cf. Tesnière (1936). 50 Note also the re-emergence of this “genre” in Dickey (1996).

Previous research | 31

which is “often used in exclamations of surprise or indignation.”51 The most original contribution made by Smyth is the division of exclamative clauses into direct and indirect (dependent) ones.52 There is also a special note on the construction οἴμ’ ὡς, characterized as “common in expressions of impatience, anger, pity, grief, or fear”.53 In the Greek grammar of Schwyzer (1950), interjections are sorted in the fifth and last category under the main heading Inflexibilia.54 Where there ought to be a definition, however, we are offered only a very short introductory description; interjections are “die lautlichen Reflexe von Empfindungen, z. B. von Lust und Schmerz, von Verwunderung und Abscheu” (“the phonetic reflexes of emotions, e.g. of joy and pain, of wonder and disgust”). Direct references to Kühner’s grammar as well as to Schwentner (1924) are offered. A short overview of the distribution of interjections in the texts is followed by a characterization of their morphology and phonology. It is noted, inter alia, that Greek interjections, as opposed to the case in “other languages”, more or less seem to follow sound laws and spelling conventions. The interjections are then divided into groups based on their morphology, and each item or group of items is given a translation of sorts. The “meaning” of interjections is claimed to be “stark situationsbedingt” (“particularly dependent on context”), and all who want answers on the lexical meaning of individual items are referred to dictionaries. The mainly morphologically oriented part ends here and is followed by a presentation of some syntactical aspects of interjections: “Syntaktisch hat die Interjektion von Haus aus Satzgeltung, zunächst als Ausruf, dann als Aufforderung, Wunsch, Warnung, Drohung”.55 The independence of these clauses is to some extent limited by the subsequent statement that they often are combined with a clause “of another sort”, which it (the interjectional clause) can either begin or end. The possibility that the interjectional clause can show up just about anywhere in the middle of another clause (which explains the origin of its Latin label) further limits its role as an independent clause. The different Greek names of interjections (ἐπιρρήματα θαυμαστικά, κλητικά, σχετλιαστικά, and later ἐπιφωνήματα) are || 51 The Infinitive not in Indirect Discourse. § 2015, p. 448: “F. Infinitive in Commands, Wishes, and Exclamations”. 52 Exclamatory Sentences. §§ 2681–2687, pp. 606–608. The three specially treated sentence types are interrogative, exclamatory and negative. 53 Exclamatory Sentences. § 2682. I d, p. 607. 54 The other four are prepositions, conjunctions, particles and negations. 55 “Regarding their syntax, interjections are from the beginning clause-equivalent, primarily as calls, then as orders, wishes, warnings and threats.” Schwyzer (1950: 601).

32 | Introduction listed in a footnote. It is observed that single interjections can be used without regard of metrical constraints in Greek verse. Interjections are claimed to often enter into close combination with words from other parts of speech: ὦ and ἆ combine with nominal vocatives; αἰαῖ, φεῦ and ὦ (including combinations such as ὤμοι) combine with the genitive (“of emotion”); οἴ with the dative μοι is considered a subject, referring to a previously given example: “weh (werde) mir: ὤμοι”.56 Finally, ὦ, ὠή and οἶ (although the examples use ἆ) combine in various ways with the imperative. The study concludes with the declaration that “weakened” imperatives, such as ἄγε and φέρε, are counted among the interjections “by some”. These are, together with vocatives like Ζεῦ and the pronominal words ἤν and τῆ, labeled “secondary interjections” and it is stated that these were still formally clear for the speakers of Ancient Greek.

1.7.4 Linguistics from the late 20th century to the present time The 1970s saw a renewed interest in the field of interjections. In 1973, D. James’ dissertation examined a selection of interjections in English by means of generative semantics, which had provided a completely new set of instruments. The beginning of the 1980s saw several works, articles as well as monographs, many of which had the now familiar arrangement of an introductory, general part followed by a language specific special part. The most noteworthy monographs among these are Poggi (1981), Almela (1982) and Ehlich (1986), the latter especially because of the pioneering use of spectrum analysis, providing acoustic spectrograms in an attempt to include tone and intonation in the study. Among the articles one may note a rather significant variation in approach for the first time. Linguistics as a discipline had now become large enough a subject to allow a considerably larger scope of approaches. Thus, during the 1980s we find such different works as Coseriu’s “Partikeln und Sprachtypus. Zur strukturell-funktionellen Fragestellung in der Sprachtypologie” (1980), Haegeman’s “Interjections and Phrase Structure” (1984), Greenberg’s “Left Dislocation, Topicalization, and Interjections” (1984) and Cohen’s “Interjections as a source of standard morphological elements” (1988). The early 1990’s saw the definite breakthrough of interjection studies with the publication of the Journal of Pragmatics special issue on interjections (1992). || 56 Schwyzer (1950: 143): “B. Wortarten und Wortformen. I. Nomen: 4. Kasus. f) ‘Dativ’. I. (Echter) Dativ. 2. Der Dativ der Beteiligung, a) α) 2. Zuteilwerden, zufallen und (sein =) gehören”.

Previous research | 33

The volume’s editor, F. Ameka, can still be regarded as an authority in the field, and it is in this volume that we find the article which the present study uses as starting point. Ameka’s 1994 article on interjections in the ELL is influential; however, in the revised edition of 2006, the article has not been altered since the 1994 edition. In another article from 1994, Lepre pointed out that studies in the twentieth century often only treat interjections from a single perspective, such as semantics or pragmatics, when it should be acknowledged that several other perspectives are possible to use (or even ought to be used), in order to give these items a proper treatment. The article is thorough in its scope, and provides a good overview of the general linguistic studies made on interjections up to that point in time. The juxtaposition of contemporary theory with the Grammatici Latini also provides an interesting perspective. In 1999, the philosopher David Kaplan first brought forward his theory on the semantics of interjections, a theory which he has subsequently refined and modified. His theory is presented in chapter 3. Wharton’s two articles from around 2000 on interjections and their relation to language in a relevance-theoretical framework, were later followed up by a monograph on the subject published in 2009. More recent years have seen a continued interest and activity in the field. In 2004, the Zeitschrift für Semiotik published a special issue on interjections, which, for instance, contains Nübling’s comprehensive Definitionsvorschlag; a comparison between the written forms of German and Chinese interjections; a phonetic study as well as a study on interjections in second language acquisition.57 This special edition was followed by “L’interjection—jeux et enjeux”, a thematic edition of the French journal Langages in 2006. Studies of interest include a study on the semantic functions of interjections; a comparison between French and Spanish on interjections emanating from verbs of movement and arguments for the contextual independency of interjections.58

1.7.5 Recent studies focusing on Ancient Greek During this period, a number of studies have been published with special focus on Ancient Greek. Among these, the most important include the monographs by Lepre (1979), Labiano Ilundain (2000) and Biraud (2010), as well as the articles || 57 Kowal and O’Connell (2004). 58 Buridant (2006).

34 | Introduction by Martínez Hernández (1978), Lepre (2000 and 2001) and PerdicoyianniPaléologue (2002).59 Martínez Hernández (1978) is an alphabetically arranged, dictionary-like study of each word found in the Sophoclean corpus. Each article starts with a “bibliografía”, referring to what previous scholars have said concerning this word. The different possible senses of each word are given, compared to the senses available in other languages, particularly Latin. Textual problems, if any, are listed, and examples of the various usages are given, e.g. possible combinations with other words. Lepre’s study from 1979 is written as a response to the opinion put forward by Scott, that ὦ uttered in combination with a vocative “denotes a throwing off of reserve”, which “gives it a familiar tone, which often becomes angry, coarse or impatient”.60 Lepre instead divides the vocatives into different groups, based on what kind of word they are—e.g. “vocatives implying a certain emotional participation on the part of the speaker”, such as δαιμόνιε and δείλε, “vocatives of the familiar type”, such as πάτερ and μῆτερ etc.61 The results, following the synchronic analysis, show that the use of ὦ + vocative has two basic functions: the primary use, which marks intensity of the address, and the “technicalmetrical” use, which essentially means that it is entirely a metrical phenomenon, bearing no meaning at all, but serving the purpose of filling out the line. Labiano Ilundain’s study from 2000, which provides an overview of the interjections in Aristophanes, consists of three main parts: a linguistically orientated introduction, a walk through the material in the form of a lexicon, and a summing up of the results. The point of departure is described as the “philological method”, which in effect means that Labiano Ilundain leaves any further theoretical discussion to others, and he directs the linguistically interested reader to the works of Ehlich (1986), Poggi (1981) and Almela (1985), to avoid the repetition of the matters they have already exhausted, as he puts it. The study can principally be described as a collection of commentaries on the individual passages. The main problem with this approach is that Labiano Ilundain avoids drawing any conclusions on the general meaning or use of interjections. The recapitulation at the end adds a few new aspects; brief comparisons with the use in the tragic authors is made, some notes on sociolinguistics as well as at-

|| 59 Of lesser importance for the present study, we find Martín de Lucas (1995), Dickey (1996), Bakker (1997), Boegehold (1999), and Lloyd (1999). 60 J. A. Scott published three articles in the early 1900’s on the subject: Scott (1903) (quoted 195–196), (1904) and (1905). 61 Lepre (1979: 26–27).

Previous research | 35

tempts at defining the “interjectional” prefix ἰ- as well as the suffix -άξ. The study ends with various indexes on the interjections, the passages and the different uses. Lepre’s article from 2000 provides a clear, yet selective account of previous research in the field, as well as a brief introduction into the present research situation. Remarkably, this study contains the very first discussion of the definitions of the various terms used to describe interjections. The author takes her time to sort out the questions on terminology carefully; there is reason to believe that various scholars in the field have not been equally careful in their use of the words interjection, exclamation, epiphonema, onomatopoeic, among others.62 Lepre’s subsequent article (2001) is presented as a continuation of the 2000 study; it proposes an analogous relationship between, on the one hand, the opportunity of the primary interjections and, on the other, the tendency of the secondary ones, regarding their morphosyntactics. Primary interjections, but not secondary ones, have a lexical productivity, covering their formation as well as their integration into the sentence, above all their ability to create new lexical items, i.e. verbs, such as αἰάζω from αἰαῖ and ὀτοτύζω from ὀτοτοῖ63. This is a trait unique to primary interjections; the secondary, in turn, are mostly derived from verbs (or adverbs or nouns) that have lost their original morphosyntactic function and become interjections, e.g. ἄγε and ἴθι. In the discussion of the particular qualities of these, the essential difference between the two main classes of secondary interjections is pointed out. One mainly has a conative, and the other an affective function. Interjections with conative function are primarily derived from verbs (in imperative) while those with affective function mainly have their origin in nouns (in vocative). Perdicoyianni-Paléologue’s study from 2002 gives a detailed presentation of the research history, as well as a comprehensive examination of the phenomenon. The main part of the study consists of the investigation of the primary interjections. Among the observations we find etymology, phonetics, semantics and pragmatics, and a large amount of instances are commented upon. Most of the interpretations are based on the author’s own observations, but some are also inspired or proposed by commentators on the texts.64

|| 62 The varying use in LSJ of interjection and exclamation respectively is shown to be typical. There seems to be no real difference intended between the two words, but they are merely employed as a form of variation. Lepre (2000: 13–15). 63 This was also pointed out by Schwentner (1924: 49). 64 The study suffers from inconsistencies, such as lack of connection between the theoretical part and the actual study, as well as ungrounded assumptions, e.g. that ἰ is an interjection in

36 | Introduction To my knowledge, Biraud’s study from 2010 is the first attempt at providing a denotation of all items, as well as at examining how the class of interjections in Ancient Greek may be organized. It is also the first attempt at consciously using linguistic models from semantic as well as pragmatic theory to explain the items under study. Biraud also argues that the spelling of interjections does not reveal their various possible intonations, and that it is in fact intonation that is crucial for understanding the possible meanings of interjections. Phonology is therefore emphasized, as well as intonation and pronunciation, particularly relevant for the items formed by a single vowel, ἆ and ὤ. This approach does come across as a bit speculative, since there is no way for us to either verify or dismiss such claims. What is especially useful in the study is the display of all items’ illocutionary values, arranged by declarative, promissive, directive and expressive meaning. The study does not make a difference between primary and secondary items; thus, ναί and εἶἑν are treated alongside εὖ (γε) and καλῶς (γε) in the examination of the expression of assertive illocutionary speech acts. 65

1.8 Concluding remarks In the study of interjections, the main efforts have been to divide them into different categories. The Grammatici Graeci show the first attempts by sorting them among adverbs, partly according to which emotion they expressed, partly also according to certain functions. Scholars in modern times have either followed this example or made new attempts at dividing them. It seems that this part of speech has often had the role of being a gathering place for words that did not fit in elsewhere. This, in turn, might explain the low level of attention, relatively speaking, that interjections have traditionally received. It is however noteworthy that most modern scholars show no evidence of knowledge of the efforts of others. I have the impression that they all seem to think that there is so little work done that an exhaustive search for previous research would turn out to be fruitless. The title of Lepre's article from 2000 is symptomatic: interjections in Ancient Greek are labeled “un capitolo dimenticato [a forgotten chapter]”, something that may also describe the scholars themselves. For example, Perdicoyianni-Paléologue lists “Ehlich 1986; Hermann 1913; Schwentner 1924” as evidence of the small amount of previous research

|| its own right. The idea may perhaps be inspired by Schwentner (1924: 8): “Im Griechischen ist ἰ allein nicht belegt, wohl aber in zahlreichen Verbindungen mit anderen Vokalen”. 65 Biraud (2010: 187–217).

Concluding remarks | 37

“in Greek and Latin linguistic and grammarian work”.66 As has been shown, this is highly incorrect. Another explanation might be that the marginalized character of the field is in turn a result of the character of the research carried out in the sense that, since interjections have been of marginal interest, the studies done on them have also been seen as marginal. The history of research in this area does however show that interest arose relatively late, in any case compared to other linguistically oriented studies. The first studies on interjections were published in the late nineteenth century, but it was not until the late 1970s that interest increased substantially, and the 1980s saw several influential monographs, as well as articles. The last fifteen years have seen a further increase, not least because of the extended conception of linguistics and the newly found interest in the study of spoken language, e.g. discourse analysis. Noteworthy are the three special issues on interjections. This survey has shown that the items traditionally collected under the label “interjections” have a varying amount of features in common, depending on what perspective has been taken and what is actually compared. It is clear that there are groups of words that pose individual difficulties of explanation and analysis, all requiring their own mode of explanation, since they are of such various natures. The most distinct division is one based on semantic criteria, comprising three main groups: 1. Interjections expressing a shift in the speaker’s emotional state, an action or reaction; βαβαί, οἴμοι, φεῦ 2. Interjections expressing a wish or command from the speaker, directed at an auditor; εἶα, ἤν, ὠή 3. Interjections expressing the speaker’s mental attitude towards the on-going discourse; εἶἑν, ἰαῦ, ναί

|| 66 Perdicoyianni-Paléologue (2002: 49, n. 1).

2 Syntax In this chapter, I first recapitulate Ameka’s formal definition. Then, some special morphological properties peculiar for interjections are presented, alongside an overview of the issue of word order. The main section of the chapter consists of a detailed account of the syntactic relations that interjections in category 1 have to adjacent words. The items in category 1 are found to follow a certain pattern, a phrase schema, which is analyzed in detail. The three categories are found to behave significantly differently as regards their relation to adjacent words and co-utterances. Any subdivision of each category is however unnecessary at this stage. The items in category 1 receive the most attention in this chapter, owing to the fact that they, apart from constituting the vast majority of the source material, display the largest variation with regards to morphology and syntax. As regards the other two categories, there are short remarks as well as references to other accounts.

2.1 Formal characteristics Ameka’s formal criteria for interjections are used as a starting point for the chapter. Formally, the three most significant characteristics for linguistical items to qualify as interjections are that: (1) they are not used otherwise, (2) they can occur by themselves non-elliptically as one-word utterances, and (3) they do not normally take inflections or derivations in those languages that make use of such forms. These characteristics are shared by interjections in all categories. Ameka also gives a few remarks on morphology: “Morphologically, interjections do not normally take inflections or derivations in those languages that make use of such forms. This is one of the reasons why they have been classified together with particles and other uninflected words like adverbs.”67 It is clear already at this early point, that the class of interjections as a whole is not a homogenous group. The wording “not normally” in the example above is significant, and points to the fact that items to be considered interjec|| 67 Ameka (1992a: 106). He goes on to argue that some items, like modern French “tiens”, do not obey the rules of agreement of the language in question, and therefore are to be considered “completely new word[s]”. I am of a different opinion, and consider these words, like the ancient Greek items ἄγε, ἴθι and φέρε, to be secondary interjections, following Ameka’s own definition, cf. 1.5.2 above.

Formal characteristics | 39

tions will only fulfill some, and only rarely all, of the criteria that are set up. One of the typical characteristics of interjections seems to be a great deal of flexibility.

2.1.1 The three categories Following Ameka’s criteria, the items found in category 1 are clearly typical members of the interjections class. This category is also where we find the overwhelming majority of primary items. It is clear that most of these items can occur free-standing, but also that they frequently are uttered as co-utterances. The items in this category also have alternative means of “inflection” and “derivation”—characteristics closely related to those of ideophones. A possible connection to verbs is perhaps shown syntactically by the relatively frequent combination with NPs in the genitive case, in the same function (causal/origin) as verbs with verba affectuum. The items in category 2 may occur free-standing, but in almost all cases they occur as co-utterances to other expressions. We find words whose use is primarily verbal (with typical verbal functions). The most frequent words in this category are also in one way or another connected to verbs and often seem to function as “introductions” or “intensifications” to these. The items in category 3 may occur free-standing, or at least extra metrum, but in most cases occur as co-utterances to other expressions.

2.1.2 Morphology The basic morphological structure of interjections is systematically accounted for in Schwyzer (1950) and Perdicoyianni-Paléologue (1999). I have chosen not to go into the basic matter further, but instead focus on some features which are peculiar for interjections. For example, some of the items in category 1 are able to add a prefix and a suffix, while the items in the other categories cannot. Interjections also rarely have variant forms. For example, the category 3 item ναί has a variant form ναίχι, which seems to be morphologically parallel to the variant form of the negative, οὐ(κ) and οὔχι. The following schema is a slightly revised version of the table by Perdicoyianni-Paléologue (2002: 54).

40 | Syntax

Vowel(s) only Single syllable

Long vowel

Diphthong

a

ἆ

e

ἤ

o

ὦ

ai

αἴ, αἶ

ei oi

οἴ

eu Two syllables

Two long vowels

Reduplication

Combination

a

ἆἆ

e

ἒ ἔ68, ἢ ἤ

o

ὢὤ

y

ὓὕ

e+x

ἔα

o+x

ὠή

i+x Two diphthongs

Reduplication

ἰή, ἰώ, ἰού/ἰοῦ αἰαῖ, οἰοῖ

Combination

εὐοἷ

Diphthong+vowel

ei+a

Vowel+diphthong

a+x

εἶα

e+x Consonant+vowel Consonant+vowel One syllable Two syllables Vowel+consonant One syllable

ph

φεῦ

b

βαβαί

p

παπαῖ, ποποῖ

m s

Two syllables Reduplication

Vowel+diphthong

m/n

εἶἑν

l

ἐλελεῦ

t

ἀτταταῖ, ὀττοτοῖ

The core of interjections can be said to always be kept intact. Following this view, all variant forms and modifications consist of additions and/or repetitions. || 68 Perdicoyianni-Paléologue (2002: 54, note 24): “Ἔ ἔ, comprised of two brief vowels, is an exceptional case.”

Formal characteristics | 41

Repetition can either consist of the simple repetition of the whole word (e.g. οἴ, οἰοῖ, οἰοιοῖ; ἀτταταῖ ἀτταταῖ), or the more complex repetition of one part of the word. For example, the word παπαῖ (which in turn may be assumed to be based on the simple παπᾶ) repeats elements of varying length in ἀπαπαῖ, παπαπαῖ, ἀπαππαπαῖ and παπαπαπαῖ, as well as the extreme παππαπαππαπαῖ. Another case, with only one example, is αἰβοῖ, which may have its final syllable repeated, αἰβοιβοῖ. The ending in diphthong is characteristic of category 1 interjections. It has also been proposed that the word in fact is a compound, consisting of the interjections αἶ and the otherwise unattested *βοῖ.69 Addition mainly consists of the prefix ἰ- and the suffix -άξ, which are dealt with under the following headings.

2.1.2.1 The prefix ἰTwo items in category 1, αἰβοῖ and ἀτταταῖ, have variant forms, where an initial iota is added, forming ἰαιβοῖ and ἰατταταῖ. The textual evidence for these variant forms is often problematic. There are only two extant occurrences of the form ἰαιβοῖ, Eq. 891 (on its own) and V. 1338 (combined ἰαιβοῖ αἰβοῖ). The former occurrence is a conjecture by Dindorf, retained by Wilson, for the manuscript reading αἰβοῖ. As for the latter, two manuscripts (R and L) have the reading ἰαιβοῖ, while some others (the Vatican manuscripts and Γ) do not. The addition of ἰ- does not add any obvious change in meaning, cf. Th. 223 and 1005: ἀτταταῖ ἰατταταῖ. Another similar example is the first line in Eq., where there also is an addition of the suffix -άξ: ἰατταταιὰξ τῶν κακῶν, ἰατταταῖ. In Ar. Th. 945, we find a free standing example of ἀτταταῖ with the addition of both ἰ- and -άξ, ἰατταταιάξ. This might not be a coincidence, but the addition of ἰ- can perhaps be explained, at least in part, by its occurrence in combination with another interjection of the same kind—an example of “double exclamation both with and without the initial ι” (Austin and Olson 2004: v. 223).70 The addition of ἰ- to αἰβοῖ does therefore not seem to make any difference in meaning, and its main purpose seems only to vary the form, e.g. when it occurs doubled. || 69 Schwentner (1924: 46), who thus divides Ar. Pax 1066 αἰβοῖ βοῖ to make his case. 70 Dindorf’s conjecture at Eq. 891 is thus highly questionable, since this αἰβοῖ stands alone. The line could equally well run: προσαμφιῶ τοδί· σὺ δ’ οἴμωζ’, ὦ πονήρε. αἰβοῖ, with neither any change in meaning nor corruption of meter. Furthermore, in L there is a clearly written ε above πονήρ, a manner of writing also used in another vocative on the same page, ὦ Δῆμε, line 905; if the ε at line 891 is a later addition, I do not know. On the other hand, it is clear enough that L has αἰβοῖ, and not ἰαιβοῖ, which is also the case with Γ (= Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana 31.15).

42 | Syntax Is this ἰ- the same as we find in ἰή, ἰού and ἰώ, as well as in ἰαί, ἰαῦ, ἰαυοῖ, ἰηῦ and ἰόφ? There are indeed items without the ἰ- (which however not all are interjections), e.g. (αἰ)αῖ, ἤ, οὐ and ὤ, but it remains unclear if these in fact constitute the basis for combined forms, as αἰβοῖ and ἀτταταῖ do for ἰαιβοῖ and ἰατταταῖ.71 It has been suggested that *ἴ was an interjection in its own right, e.g. by Schwentner and Perdicoyianni (see above p. 35). I have found only one etymological dictionary that treats *ἴ as a potential item of its own; normally, there are only articles on the deictic -ι.72 One remarkable thing is that if ἰ- is not used as an interjection, it would be the only vowel which is not. There are examples, albeit few, and two with probable initial aspiration, of all other vowels as such: ἆ, ἔ (ἕ), ἤ, ὄ, ὗ, ὤ; if we include the diphthongal interjections as well, the number becomes fairly large: αἶ, οἴ, ᾤ. Out of the 36 extant interjections in category 1, only 8 are consonantinitial; this gives reason to draw the conclusion that a common characteristic of interjections in category 1 is that they are vowel-initial. All items in category 2 are vowel-initial. Common for all words which can have the initial ἰ- is that they already have an initial vowel. We might therefore expect variant forms of some other interjections: *ἰᾶ, *ἰαλαλαί, *ἰαπ(π)απαῖ, *ἰέ, *ἰέα, *ἰελελεῦ, *ἰευοῖ, *ἰηέ, *ἰό, *ἰοᾶ, *ἰοῖ (and *ἰοίμοι?), *ἰοτοτοῖ, *ἰωή and perhaps *ἰώμοι.73 Except for the words from

|| 71 The other items perhaps need some explanation: ἰηῦ (ἰη ἰηῦ) is a (conjectured) hapax legomenon from Aristophanes (V. 1335), where the speaker is supposed to be drunk, which may rule out the possibility that an “unprefigated” form ever existed; the ἰόφ from Aeschylus, another hapax occurring in the infamous passage in Supplices 825–835, is far from certain. ἰοῦ might be explained as being based on the negation, οὐ, and ἰαῦ might be modelled on the particle αὖ (not the onomatopoeic αὖ αὖ). This leaves us with *ἀτταταιάξ and *αὐοῖ, and since ἰαυοῖ is probably not Greek in the first place, we have all the less reason to find more forms of it. The absence of *ἀτταταιάξ might be explained by our corpus simply not being large enough. The so-called “comic” ending, -άξ (discussed below), implies that *ἀτταταιάξ would occur only in comedy and satyr-play. 72 Frisk (1954–1972) mentions the matter s.v. “ἰύζω”: “Das anlautende ἰ- (Quantität schwankend) war wohl ursprünglich Halbvokal wie in lat. iūbilō, mhd. jū u.a., s. Schwyzer 313.” (“The initial ἰ- (fluctuating quantity) was probably originally a semivowel like iūbilō in Latin, Middle High German jū, cf. Schwyzer 313.”) Frisk also raises the question whether the ἰ- in this item may trace its origins from a digamma, cf. *ϝιύζω. 73 It might seem to be the case that words that already are compounds are less prone to be prefigated, which would be a way of discerning which words actually are compounds. Items like οἴμοι and ὤμοι are fairly certainly compounds, but there is a single manuscript with a variant reading ἰώμοι μοι (Cr[emonensis 130], E. Pho. 1493–1494). Herodian (De prosodia catholica 3,1 481.11) also gives the variant form ἰωή.

Formal characteristics | 43

ritual, which most probably are loans from foreign languages, the same explanation as for *ἀτταταιάξ and *αὐοῖ might be put forth, although this does not really seem likely.74

2.1.2.2 The suffix -άξ Certain interjections in category 1 may have an alternative form, ending in -άξ. This feature has sparked some interest in previous scholarship. The four items that occur all belong in cat. 1: βαβαιάξ (5 occurrences), ἰατταταιάξ (2), παπαιάξ (3) and πόπαξ (1). As becomes clear from the numbers, these words are used very infrequently by the dramatists under study. The numbers do not change significantly if we include all other contemporary authors, not even if we take into account all Greek from Homer to the Second Sophistic.75 Peppler argues that -άξ is added to the stem of a word “simply to make a more vulgar word”.76 He later explains this as “due in part to the feeling in antiquity that ξ was a harsh and ugly sound”.77 Neil noted that the Greeks “no doubt … felt the ξ sound to be clumsy”, quoting a few examples of use in Roman comedy as well.78 The similarity of the construction -άξ with adverbial construc|| 74 Wilamowitz pointed out certain items as of foreign origin: “Ungriechisch sind auch die zugehörigen Rufe, εὐοἷ, εὐάν, αἴλινον, ὑμήναον; man hat es auch von παιάν vermutet. Und wenn Pratinas den Gott θρίαμβε διθύραμβε anredet, so mag da auch ein Zuruf zugrunde liegen wie das triumpe des Arvalliedes. Die Epiphoneme werden entstellte Wörter fremder Sprachen sein, wie Kyrieleis, Halleluja; ich glaube sogar an die Fortdauer fremdsprachlicher ritueller Verse und Formeln. Ob das ἐλελεῦ und ἀλαλά der stürmenden Krieger, die rituelle ὀλολυγή der Weiber auch aus der Fremde stammen, wie unser Hurra, ist mir nicht sicher.” (Wilamowitz 1921: 28–29). West (1997: 262) also makes some interesting remarks regarding etymology: “It is therefore entirely possible in principle that some Greek interjections should show correspondences with Semitic ones, whether because they came into Greek from a Semitic language or because both derived them from an East Mediterranean substrate. And as certain Greek interjections such as euhoe and io appear in Latin only at the literary level, mainly reflecting cult usage, it is possible that some which are found only at the literary level in Greek may have a similar status in relation to an oriental language.” 75 Yet, I have found two further items outside the scope of the corpus: πάξ (LSJ s.v.: “an exclamation to end a discussion, enough!”), which is found in Diphilus, Menander, Asclepiades, Herondas and Athenaeus, and euax, (Glare (1982) = Oxford Latin Dictionary: “int. [app. Grk.] (expr. joy, triumph, etc.) Hurrah!”, which is found in Plautus only. 76 Peppler (1902: 44). 77 Peppler (1921: 158). 78 Neil on Ar. Eq. 1. The expression πάξ, similar to that of modern Italian basta!, does not appear until in Menander and will therefore not be discussed here; cf. note 75 above.

44 | Syntax tions used by Homer, such as λάξ (“with the foot”) and πύξ (“with the fist”), also deserves to be noted.79 The words that speak in favor of the view that this is an “interjectional” suffix are, apart from the interjections themselves, the hapax πόπαξ80 (possibly formed on πόποι, which is plausible since the word occurs only in Aeschylus, who alone uses these two words without the preceding ὤ) and εὐάξ (which is only attested in Plautus, but among quite many words obviously borrowed into Latin from Greek).81 Photius (β 325) reports that Aristophanes uses the variant βῶμαξ for βωμός (altar) “ὑποκοριστικῶς”, i.e. “endearingly”. This points in the direction that this -αξ may have been employed as a diminutive suffix.82

2.1.3 Interjections and word order I have previously stated the possible positions of interjections in the clause: initial, interjected and final. If the interjection does not constitute a complete utterance, as a free-standing interjection, it will hold one of these three positions. The most frequent position for all categories is the initial; most examples of free-standing items are found in category 1. Of interjected items we find several

|| 79 The obscure βομβάξ and βομβαλοβομβάξ in Aristophanes’ Women at the Thesmophoria (45, 48) might best be explained as a “blend” of βόμβος (buzz etc.) and the “interjectional” suffix, -άξ, which form a phonestheme (cf. ELL s.v. “phonaesthesia”), similar in meaning and use to German Quatsch! and modern English rubbish!. The two items are variously interpreted by translators and lexicographers as “blah (blah blah)” (Henderson), “prodigious!” (LSJ) and simply transcribed (O’Neill). Peppler (1921: 158–159) understands βομβάξ as a word “coined in imitation of the sound of the servant’s solemn and pretentious utterance, for the purpose of riduculing it.” He continues with βομβαλοβομβάξ: “It is with the even more derisive ejaculation βομβαλοβομβάξ, a kind of reduplication of the mock-majestic βομβάξ, that Mnesilochus interrupts the recitation of Agathon’s servant again in vs. 48. Bombax is found in Plautus in Pseud. 365.” 80 The word is also used in combination with another interjection: ἰοὺ ἰοὺ πόπαξ (A. Eu. 145). 81 Cf. Sauciuc (2004). 82 The aggressive expression εὐρὰξ πατάξ (Ar. Av. 1258), however, is in light of this less understandable. The first word, the adverb εὐράξ, is fairly common in Homer, roughly equivalent to “sideways”, whereas the second word, πατάξ, is a hapax legomenon. If we understand πατάξ as formed with the suffix -άξ together with the stem of the verb πατάσσω, we get something like (again a rough translation) “sideways strike”, again uttered expressively. The reports in Suda and the scholion, that this is a sexual insult, are viable with this view also. Cf. Henderson (1975: 172).

Formal characteristics | 45

examples in categories 1 (e.g. ἰώ in A. Sept. 481 and ἰαί and εὐαί in Ar. Ec. 1180), but only rarely in category 2 (uniquely ὠή in A. Eum. 94). In category 3, only ναί combined with μὰ Δία occurs interjected (e.g. Ar. Pl. 890). The final position is very rare, and is mostly employed by words in category 1, alongside the exceptional ναί ναί (yes, yes!) in A. Pers. 1072, and ἔχω, ναί (Yes, I have her) in E. Alc. 1119. With a terminology inspired by Denniston’s work on particles, three main cases of co-occurrence of interjections may be distinguished: apart from freestanding occurrences, we find collocation, in which two or more interjections happen to stand next to each other in a clause, but still keep their individual functions, and combination, in which two or more interjections are juxtaposed and together have a different function than the individual words (sometimes understood as stable enough as to be printed as one word in modern editions).

2.1.4 Extra metrum The most frequent type of interjection is one uttered in combination with a major sentence type, i.e. normally a sentence with a finite verb. These interjections are always separated from the following sentence by a pause of varying length, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter. If it is a shorter pause, it is indicated by editors either with a full stop, a comma or a semicolon. If the pause is meant to be longer, the interjection is placed extra metrum, i.e. on a line of its own, outside the metrical pattern of the text; in these cases the editor of the text has separated the interjection from the following words, either by a semicolon or a full stop. The words standing extra metrum (also frequently referred to as extra versum) amount to a total of 244 in category 1, in all four authors.83 There is only one example in category 2, ὢ ὄπ (Ar. Ra. 208). In category 3, only a handful of the items occur extra metrum: εἶἑν seven times (E. 5, Ar. 2) and ναί five times (S. 1, E. 4). The extrametrical position therefore seems to be characteristic mainly for interjections in category 1.84

|| 83 38 in Aeschylus, 35 in Sophocles, 141 in Euripides and 30 in Aristophanes. 84 Linguistic items other than interjections also occur extra metrum. This is particularly common in Sophocles.

46 | Syntax 2.1.5 Combinations of interjections When an interjection is doubled, i.e. uttered in combination with another of its own kind, it is most often attached asyndetically, such as the example mentioned above, E. Ph. 127, ἒ ἔ. I have chosen to follow the punctuation of the editors, simply to be as “fair” as possible to the texts. Asyndeton is generally employed if interjections are uttered in collocation e.g. ἒ ἔ, παπαῖ παπαῖ (A. Ag. 1114); αἰαῖ, φεῦ (S. OC 1670); ἰώ μοι, φεῦ φεῦ (E. Hipp. 365); ἀπαπαῖ φεῦ (Ar. V. 309). A feature exclusive to comedy is the use of a slight variation of the word, e.g. βαβαὶ βαβαιάξ (Ar. Pax 248), ἀτταταῖ ἰατταταῖ (Th. 223).85 If, however, the exact same interjection is repeated in a response, it is not uncommon that an adverb is used, such as δῆτα or μάλα, possibly adding further emphasis to the word: Αμ. αἰαῖ κακῶν. Χο. αἰαῖ δῆτα τὸν γεραιὸν ὡς στένω πατέρα. AMPHITRYON Alas for the ruin! CHORUS Yes, alas! How I groan for his aged father... Ε. Her. 899–900

There are also examples of when a connective is used, e.g. δέ in οἲ ’γὼ πόλεως, οἴμοι δὲ σέθεν· (E. Tro. 795–796). A rare specimen is the exclamation in Ar. Pax 280: οἴμοι τάλας, οἴμοι γε κἄτ’ οἴμοι μάλα Oh me oh my! Oh me oh my again!86 The adverb μάλα is also used in the formulaic expression μάλ’ αὖθις, which occurs in all four authors, and almost exclusively in combination with interjections, e.g. S. Ph. 792–793: φεῦ, παπαῖ. παπαῖ μάλ’ αὖθις. Ah, ah, alas! Alas once more!87 Another variant consists of simply collocated words (Noun Phrases) which are cried out similarly to the preceding interjections, e.g. A. Pers. 1039 αἰαῖ αἰαῖ, δύα δύα Alas, alas, woe, woe! In contrast to the vocative, the nominative does

|| 85 The prefix ἰ- and the suffix -άξ are discussed above, 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2. 86 This is indeed an exceptionally rare occurrence, which I have decided to count as three consecutive IntPs. 87 The total amount of examples is 14: A. Ag. 1345, Cho. 876; S. El. 1416, OT 1317, Tr. 1206, Ph. 793; E. Med. 1009, Hec. 1037, Tro. 629, Pho. 1069, Or. 1020; Ar. Nu. 670, Pax 5, Pl. 935. The three remaining occurrences include two vocatives at A. Cho. 654, an eager question at S. OC 1731, and a simple repetition of words at Ar. Av. 1415. These occurences are the only examples of μάλ’ αὖθις until Cassius Dio in the second century AD.

Formal characteristics | 47

not invoke, but rather evokes that which is desired; the act of naming something is perhaps thought to facilitate its coming into being.

2.1.5.1 Examples Interjections as nouns Ξε. παπαῖ παπαῖ· Χο. καὶ πλέον ἢ παπαῖ μὲν οὖν. Ξε. δίδυμα γάρ ἐστι καὶ τριπλᾶ— CHORUS Papai papai! XERXES No, “papai” is too mild!88

CHORUS Yes, the disaster was twice and thrice as great.

A. Pers. 1031

Strengthened with adverb: μάλα ἔα μάλα· Good gracious! S. Fr. 314.117 παπαῖ, φεῦ. παπαῖ μάλ’, ὦ πούς, οἷα μ’ ἐργάσῃ κακά. [PHILOCTETES] Ah me, alas! Ah me indeed, my foot, what pains you are causing me! S. Ph. 785–786 Κυ. οἴμοι τάλας, οἴμοι γε κἄτ’ οἴμοι μάλα. HUBBUB Oh me oh my! Oh me oh my again! Ar. Pax 280 Addition of adverb combination: μάλ’ αὖθις φεῦ, παπαῖ. παπαῖ μάλ’ αὖθις. [PHILOCTETES] Ah, ah, alas! Alas once more! S. Ph. 792–793 Χο. ἔα ἔα, ἰδοὺ μάλ’ αὖθις

CHORUS Ah, ah! See once more!

S. OC 1477

οἲ ἐγὼ μάλ’ αὖθις, [ELECTRA] Αh, ah yet again! E. Or. 1020–1021

|| 88 Sommerstein’s (2008a) note 149: “lit. ‘on the contrary, even more than ‘papai’!’”.

48 | Syntax Addition of emphasis with particle: δῆτ(α) Ηλ. φεῦ. Χο. φεῦ δῆτ’·89

ELECTRA Alas! CHORUS Alas indeed!

S. El. 844

παις ὤμοι μοι, τί πάθω; τάλας δῆτ’ ἐγὼ σύ τε, μᾶτερ. BOY Ah me! What will become of me? Unhappy are we, you and I, mother! E. And. 514 Εκ. οἴμοι. Χο. οἴμοι δῆτα σῶν ἀλάστων κακῶν. HECUBA Alas! CHORUS Yes, alas for your miseries none may forget! E. Tro. 1230–1231

2.2 Syntax—Category 1 With the aim of bringing order to the material, I have introduced the concept IntP (Interjection Phrase), which consists of the syntactical unit formed by an interjection and interconnected NPs (noun phrases).90 An IntP basically consists of one or more interjections of the same kind, which is regarded as one single phrase. Accordingly, the occurrence of ἒ ἔ (E. Ph. 127) contains two interjections, but only forms one IntP. In the previously mentioned passage in Sophocles’ Women of Thracis (971–972)—οἴμοι ἐγὼ σοῦ, πάτερ, ὢ μέλεος, | τί πάθω; τί δὲ μήσομαι; οἴμοι.—I consider there to be three interjections as well as three IntPs, with the headwords οἴμοι, ὤ and οἴμοι. Following this division, a preliminary calculation of the total amount of category 1 IntPs in the corpus amounts to 1496, divided in a total of 36 words. Out of these, 1196 are occurrences of single words, 286 are double, six triple and eight quadruple occurrences. The total number of single words thus amounts to 1818.

2.2.1 Free-standing interjections There is a total of about 90 IntPs which serve as complete utterances and form complete turns, i.e. they constitute all a speaker says in response to another

|| 89 Denniston (1975: 276), s.v. “δῆτα” II. Emphatic: “(3) In affirmative answers, echoing a word, or words, of the previous speaker.” 90 I use this term, in spite of Ameka’s proposed term “Interjectional Phrase”, which refers to “phrases which behave like interjections” (Ameka 1992a: 104).

Syntax—Category 1 | 49

speaker, or before someone else speaks.91 And when they constitute a complete turn, any possibility that they are combined or in any way dependent on other speech is eliminated. Occurrences standing extra metrum are further examples of independent interjections, while the status of interjections uttered in collocation or combination is more difficult to determine. The following examples are mostly from category 1, i.e. expressive interjections; these are found in all four authors. There are also a few examples from category 2, i.e. εἶα in Aristophanes’ Peace. It is therefore safe to affirm that interjections have the ability to function as complete utterances syntactically.

2.2.1.1 Examples (sorted after author and work) Α. Pers. Ag.

Ch. PV S. Fr. Aj.

El.

Tr. OC

1004 ἰὴ ἰὴ ἰὼ ἰώ Alas, alas! 1031 παπαῖ παπαῖ. Papai, papai! 1072 (= 1076) ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ· ὤπολλον ὤπολλον. Ototototoi, popoi, dah! Apollo! Apollo! 1307 869 742 980 314.131 333 336 339 891 893 937 939 974 77 826 830 840 845 862 198 220 224

φεῦ φεῦ.92 Ugh, ugh! ἒ ἒ ὀτοτοτοῖ. Ah-ah! Otototoi! ἰώ μοί μοι· ἓ ἕ. Ió, oh, oh! ah, me! ὤμοι. Ah me! ὓ ὓ ὓ ὕ. Ow! ow! ow! ow! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me, ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me, ah me! ἰὼ παῖ παῖ. Boy, boy! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me! ἰὼ τλήμων. Alas for me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me, ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι δύστανος. Ah me, ah me, alas! ἒ ἔ, αἰαῖ. Woe, woe, ah me! φεῦ. Alas! ἒ ἔ, ἰώ. Woe, woe, ah me! φεῦ. Alas! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me! ὤ· ἰοὺ ἰού. Oh! Ah, ah! ἰὼ ὢ ὤ. Ah! Oh, oh!

|| 91 The total number of occurrences consisting only of interjections from category 1 is 51: A. 5, S. 12, E. 8, Ar. 26. 92 Sommerstein follows Heyse’s emendation φῦ φῦ, which explains his choice of translation, Ugh, ugh!

50 | Syntax

Ε. Fr. Alc.

Med. Hipp. Hec. Supp. El. Her.

Tro.

Ion Pho. Ar. Ach. Nu. V. Pax Av.

Lys. Th.

224 519 519 781.75

ὢ ὤ. Oh, oh! ὤμοι. Alas! φεῦ φεῦ. Woe, woe! (ἔσωθεν) ἰώ μοί μοι. (inside the palace) Alas, alas for me! 781.77 (ἔσωθεν) ἰὼ τέκνον. O-oh! My child! 872 αἰαῖ. Alas! 873 ἒ ἔ O pain! 874 φεῦ φεῦ. O grief! 875 ἰώ μοί μοι Alas! 889 αἰαῖ. Alas! 890 ἒ ἔ. The pain! 891 φεῦ φεῦ. O grief! 892 ἰώ μοί μοι. Alas! 1270a ἰώ μοι. Help! 1313 οἴμοι. O woe! 180 οἴμοι τέκνον. Alas, my child! 805 ἰὼ ἰώ. Alas, alas! 806 αἰαῖ. Ah me! 1167 ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me, ah me! 886 ἰώ μοι μέλεος. Ah, woe is me! 888 ἰὼ στέγαι. Alas for the house! 891 ἰὼ δόμοι. Alas for my home! 899 αἰαῖ κακῶν. Alas for the ruin! 913 αἰαῖ. Alas! 579 αἰαῖ … Alas! 584 φεῦ φεῦ... Alas! 1229 αἰαῖ. Ah me! 1230 οἴμοι. Alas! 1303 ἒ ἔ. Alas! 1318 ἒ ἔ. Alas! 752 ἰὼ δαῖμον. Ah, miserable fate! 754 ἰὼ τλάμον. Ah, poor lady! 1560 αἰαῖ. Ah me! 67 οἴμοι τῶν δραχμῶν. Oh dear, the drachmas! 1018 οἴμοι τάλας. O woe is me! 707 ἀτταταῖ ἀτταταῖ. Ouch, ouch! 1493 ἰοὺ ἰού. Help, help! 137 οἴμοι. Uh oh. 750 ἰώ μοί μοι. What misery! 459–463, 467–468, 486–489, 494–495, 517–519; variations of ὤ and εἶα in combination 12 οἴμοι. Damn! 990 οἴμοι δείλαιος. Oh mercy me! 1019 οἴμοι κακοδαίμων. Heaven help me! 1170 ἰοὺ ἰού, ἰοὺ ἰού, ἰοὺ ἰού. S.O.S! S.O.S! S.O.S! 1466 οἴμοι τάλας. Good grief! 382 οἴμοι τάλας. Wooh, damn! 716 ἰὼ Ζεῦ. Ah, Zeus! 222 οἴμοι. Oh no!

The phrase schema | 51

Ra.

223 653 657 759 935 926

ἀτταταῖ ἰατταταῖ. Ayeeee! ἰοὺ ἰού. Hi yo! οἴμοι. Ahh! ἆ Aha. οἴμοι μάλ’ αὖθις. Dear me, I say! οἴμοι τάλας. Good grief!

2.3 The phrase schema The turn has now come to the various types of syntactical constructions that occur between category 1 interjections and NPs. What kinds of phrases occur in connection with interjections, and to what extent can these be said to have entered into construction with each other? A systematic examination of the material reveals that words concurring with interjections seem to follow certain syntactical regularities, and observations of these regularities, which are presented in the following, in turn may provide a more detailed account of the IntP. An IntP can have a varying amount of components, but its internal syntactic structure is regular, and consists of different NPs, which follow a fairly strict system. I have chosen to present this model as a phrase schema, inspired by the sentence schema of the Danish grammarian Diderichsen. 93 Serving as a starting point, I have found one single occurrence in Homer, where a particularly long sequence of NPs follows an interjection: ὤ μοι ἐγὼ σέο, τέκνον, ἀμήχανος. Ah, woe is me child, since I can do nothing.94 Hom. Od. 19.363

This unique sequence gives reason to believe that a similar sequence may be found in fifth century Attic Greek, as well. Unfortunately, I have not found any example of all positions being occupied in my corpus. There are however passages that come close, the closest perhaps being the aforementioned S. Tr. 971, especially in the manuscript reading ὤμοι ἐγὼ σοῦ μέλεος, where only one position is empty. For the moment, the phrase schema is therefore a purely theoretical model, functioning primarily as a means to illuminate the general syntactic structure of other linguistical items following interjections in category 1.

|| 93 Diderichsen (1971[1962]: 162). 94 Translation by Murray (1995).

52 | Syntax The phrase schema Head

1

2

3

4

INT

PRO

NP

NP

NP

5 NP

DAT

NOM/VOC

GEN

VOC

NOM

In the head position the interjection governing the IntP is found. The first position following the head word may be occupied only by one particular word, μοι, which is most probably the dative case of the 1st person singular pronoun, ἐγώ. The second position consists of a NP in either the nominative or the vocative; the NP in the nominative can either consist of a noun or the 1st person pronoun ἐγώ, whereas the vocative can be a noun or an adjective. The NP in position three is always in the genitive case, and may consist of nouns, adjectives and pronouns alike; this genitive NP can in turn include words in other cases, but can never refer to the speaker. The fourth position holds a vocative, and the fifth position another nominative NP, either ἐγώ again or an adjective; the nominative in position five is always in gender agreement with the speaker. In the following, the six positions will be given a closer presentation.

2.3.1 Head position: INT The head position may consist of one or more interjections, as well as other combinations of certain words. The position can only be held by an item belonging in category 1, whereas interjections in the other two categories follow patterns of their own. However, interjections normally occur on their own, without any words following after them, which may be the main reason why it is commonly held that interjections do not combine with other parts of speech. There is however ample evidence for the opposite case. There are also expressions which are similar in function to interjections, e.g. invocations and characterizing nominatives, which seem to take the place of the interjection in the head position. It remains to be investigated to what extent these constructions also follow the clause scheme. Significant similarities will be noted. However, since the main scope of this study is on the word group interjections, these other expressive utterances will only receive limited attention.

The phrase schema | 53

2.3.2 Position 1: PRO (dative) Only three interjections, ἰώ, οἴ and ὤ, are combined with μοι, which most likely is the first person personal pronoun in the dative case.95 The occurrences are even so frequent, that editors often consider the two latter forms to be lexical items in their own right, οἴμοι and ὤμοι. One may argue that these words should still be considered compounds, since their original forms, οἴ and ὤ, occur in addition, alongside them. In the case of ἰώ μοι (μοι) however, all modern editors prefer to keep a certain distance between interjection and pronoun. If a μοι follows an interjection, it is always positioned directly after the interjection in question, and never in any other position. This feature is similar to Wackernagel’s law, which states that unstressed clitic particles tend to appear second in their clause after the first stressed element, e.g. ἔν γε ταῖς Θήβαις “in Thebes” (S. OT 1380).96 According to Fortson, the mechanisms behind Wackernagel’s law have been examined further by Hale, who divided such clitics into three groups: 1. word-level clitics, which emphasize a single word; 2. sentenceconnective clitics, such as τε; and 3. sentential clitics, whose scope is a whole clause or sentence, including “the unstressed personal pronouns as well as a variety of sentential adverbs that serve expressive functions”. The members of group 3 occur “not infrequently” in strings or chains, such as Hom. Il. 4.93 ἦ ῥά νύ μοί τι πίθοιο, may you indeed now trust me somewhat.97 The feature that μοι seems to take the final position in such chains might possibly explain the connection it has to the beginning of an utterance or phrase.98

2.3.2.1 Examples ἰώ μοι and ἰώ μοί μοι (tragedy 48, comedy 2) A. Pers. 97499 ἰὼ ἰώ μοί μοι, Ió, ió, ah me!

|| 95 It may be objected, that μοι in fact is not the pronoun. Since it ends in a diphthong, similarly to παῖ, which also occurs in exclamations, it does resemble an interjection itself. 96 Wackernagel (1953). Cf. Hom. Od. 1.1: ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτροπον. 97 As referred to by Fortson (2004: 146–147). The translation is also by Fortson (bold face formatting removed). 98 This use of μοι could perhaps also be that of a disjunctive pronoun, a stressed form of a personal pronoun reserved for use in isolation or in certain syntactic contexts, such as the moi in the French expression c’est moi; here English may use the nominative: It is I. Cf. Cardinaletti and Starke (1999). 99 μοι bis MQP

54 | Syntax PV S. Aj.

El. Tr. OC E. Fr.

Alc. Med. Hipp. And. Supp. El.

Her. Tro. Pho. Or. Ar. Nu. V.

742 333 336 385 891 937 939 974 77 862 198 62c.7 223.50 781.65 781.75 393 862 875 97 115 1270 365 569 1384 825 1175 275 828 114 129 159 1167 1198 1208 750 886 1031 281 1237 1290 1492 1508

ἰώ μοί μοι· ἓ ἕ. Ah me, ah me, alas! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me, ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me, ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me, ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι δύστηνος. Ah me, ah me, alas! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me! ἀλλ̣[’ ο]ὐ̣κ̣ — ἰώ μοι — δ[ But ... not—woe is me! ... ἰώ μοί μοι. (shouting from inside) Oh me, no! ἰώ μοί μοι. Alas, alas for me! (ἔσωθεν) ἰώ μοί μοι. (inside the palace) Alas, alas for me! ἰώ μοι τύχας. Alas for my fate! ἰώ μοί μοι, αἰαῖ . Ah, woe is me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Alas! ἰώ μοί μοι, πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμαν; Ah ah, how I wish I could die! ἰώ μοί μοι, ἰὼ τλήμων. Oh, woe is me! (ἔσωθεν) ἰώ μοι. (within) Help! ἰώ μοι, φεῦ φεῦ· Ah me! Alas! ἰώ μοι, αἰαῖ· Oh, alas, alas! ἰώ μοί μοι. | τί φῶ; Alas! What am I to say? ἰώ μοί μοι· O alas, alas! ἰώ μοί μοι, αἰαῖ· Oh, alas! [ἰώ μοι·] [Ah me!] ἰὼ ἰώ μοί μοι· Ah me, ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me! ἰώ μοι μοι Ah, me, ah, me, ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me, ah me! ἰὼ ἰώ μοι. Ah me, ah me! ἰώ μοι, Ah, (ἔσωθεν) ἰώ μοί μοι. (within) O misery! (ἔσωθεν) ἰώ μοι μέλεος. (within) Ah, woe is me! ἰώ μοι· Ah, ah! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me, ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι. Ah me! ἰώ μοι πόνων, ἰὼ Ζεῦ, ἰὼ Γᾶ (alas for my woes, alas Zeus and Earth) αἰαῖ, ἰώ μοι. alas, ah me! ἰώ μοί μοι· Ah me, ah me,

1465100 Ἰώ μοί μοι. “Ah, ah me!” 1259 ἰώ μοί μοι. Oh me, oh my! 750 ἰώ μοί μοι. What misery!

|| 100 1465 ἰώ μοί μοι FPr et Aa: ὤμοι μοι Ω̣XZTt3: ὤμοι Wilamowitz

The phrase schema | 55

οἴμοι μοι (tragedy 8, comedy 1; 3 conjectures) S. El. 1160–1163 οἴμοι μοι. | ὦ δέμας οἰκτρόν. φεῦ φεῦ. ὦ δεινοτάτας, οἴμοι μοι, πεμφθεὶς κελεύθους, φίλταθ’, ὥς μ’ ἀπώλεσας· Alas! Pitiable corpse, alack! You who have travelled on a terrible path, dearest one, how you have destroyed me! 986101 788 1122

E. Hipp. IT Ion

1350 155 902102

οἴμοι ἐγὼ τλάμων· Alas for me in my misery! οἴμοι μοι τάλας. Alas for me, poor wretch! οἴμοι μοι, καί που πολιᾶς | πόντου θινὸς ἐφήμενος, Alas for me, somewhere by the shore of the gray sea… ἀπόλωλα τάλας, οἴμοι μοι. I am gone, alas alas! οἴμοι φροῦδος γέννα. Ah, ah, my family is gone! οἴμοι μοι· Ah me!

Ar. Pax

257103

οἴμοι τάλας, ὦ δέσποτα. Ouch, oh my! Master!

Tr. Ph.

ὤμοι μοι and ὤμοι μοί μοι (tragedy 15, comedy 0) A. Ag. 1494 ὤμοι μοι ah me, ah me! 1518 = 1494 S. Aj. 610 ὤμοι μοι, alas Ant. 1317 ὤμοι μοι, τάδ’ οὐκ ἐπ’ ἄλλον βροτῶν ἐμᾶς ἁρμόσει ποτ’ ἐξ αἰτίας. Ah me, this can never be transferred to any other mortal, acquitting me! Ph. 796 ὤμοι μοι. Ah me! 1086 ὤμοι μοί μοι. Alas, alas! OC 982 ἔτικτε γάρ μ’ ἔτικτεν, ὤμοι μοι κακῶν, Yes, she bore me, she bore me, alas for my sorrows! E. Hipp. 844 ὤμοι μοι < > σέθεν, Ah me, And. 513 ὤμοι μοι, τί πάθω; Ah me! What will become of me? 535 ὤμοι μοι, τί δ’ ἐγὼ κακῶν | μῆχος ἐξανύσωμαι; O alas! How long must I suffer pain? 1070 ὤμοι μοι· Ah me! 1206 [ὤμοι μοι, ταλαίπωρον ἐμὲ] [oh, alas, unhappy me,] Hec. 158 ὤμοι μοι. Ah me! Tro. 251 ὤμοι μοι. Oh, the pain! Or. 1381 Ἴλιον Ἴλιον, ὤμοι μοι, Ilium, Ilium, ah me, ah me!

Considering that ἰώ is one of the most common interjections in category 1, with 295 IntPs, the form combined with a single μοι is surprisingly uncommon, with only 12 occurrences. The expanded combination ἰώ μοί μοι is slightly more common, with 31 occurrences. There are also examples of some divergent forms, such as ἰὼ ἰώ μοί μοι (A. Pers. 974, E. Supp. 828) and ἰὼ ἰώ μοι (E. El. 1198).

|| 101 suppl. Brunck 102 οἴμοι Willink: οἴμοι μοι L 103 μοι L: om. cett.

56 | Syntax The interjection οἴ is relatively frequent, with a total number of 45 IntPs, yet the combined form οἴμοι is, quite unpredictably, by far the most common combined form, with 191 occurrences in tragedy (with only four in Aeschylus, including the hapax legomenon οἴμοι πανοίμοι Ah me, ah me indeed, Cho. 875) and 118 in Aristophanes alone, making a total number of 308 IntPs. The expanded form οἴμοι μοι, conversely, has only nine occurrences, three of which are conjectures, and the only example in comedy is one of these. There is also another possible compound, οἴ ’γώ (or οἲ ἐγώ), which is used nine times by Aeschylus and 22 by Euripides. There are divergent examples outside of the corpus, but I have not deemed these relevant for the present study, primarily based on their uncertain dating.104 The equally fairly common interjection ὤ, with 85 IntPs, provides material for the second most common compound, ὤμοι, with a total number of 83 occurrences, out of which six are found in Aristophanes. The form expanded with another μοι has 15 occurrences, none in Aristophanes. In Homer, the pronoun μοι frequently occurs following the interjection ὤ.105 The “doubled” variant ὤμοι μοι occurs in all three tragedians, most prominently in Euripides. A diachronic survey on the addition of μοι may reveal that in the oldest times the interjection ὤ was used on its own; later, it was combined with the enclitic μοι, ὤ μοι; subsequently, when ὤμοι is considered a phonological unit, yet another μοι was added, producing ὤμοι μοι; finally the process is repeated once again, giving the most extreme form, the tripled ὤμοι μοί μοι in S. Ph. 1086.106

2.3.3 Position 2: NP (nominative or vocative) Only one of the following cases can hold the second position at the same time. However, one NP can of course consist of more than one word (as well as take arguments of its own). It seems also that there is a restriction as to which words can be used in this position, since the same words are recurrent in the four au-

|| 104 Notably, there are several examples in Aesopus (or the Aesopica) of οἴμοι with the dative of NPs: οἴμοι τῷ ταλαιπώρῳ, τῇ ξένῃ, τῇ δυστήνῳ, τῇ ταλαιπώρῳ, τῷ παναθλίῳ, τῇ παναθλίᾳ, τῷ πτωχῷ καὶ ξένῳ καὶ δυστήνῳ. Until now, these are the only examples of this sort I have found. 105 In Homer ὤ never occurs alone, but always stands in combination either with μοι (30 occurrences) or with the etymologically challenging πόποι (49 occurrences). Homer never uses ἰώ or οἴ. 106 The only textual contradiction being the a family which has οἴμοι instead of ὤμοι.

The phrase schema | 57

thors (δύστηνος, κακοδαίμων, τλήμων etc.). There are also two surprising examples of interjections which are followed by an accusative NP: ἆ and αἰαῖ .107

2.3.3.1 Nominative NP The most common variety is the combination of an interjection and one or more words in the nominative case, which often characterizes the speaker at the moment of the utterance, formally as an appositional phrase. A typical, and very common expression is οἴμοι τάλας, Woe is me!. The NP can also consist of a personal pronoun, ἐγώ, which (alongside μοι, see above) clearly shows the close relation to the first person. The masculine τάλας is replaced by the feminine τάλαινα if the speaker is a woman, which shows that gender agreement is fully functioning. There are also combinations of both pronoun and adjective, e.g. οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα (A. Th. 808 = S. El. 674, E. Hec. 676), as well as adjective and pronoun, ὢ τάλας ἐγώ, τάλας (S. Aj. 981). The nominative in position 2 regularly refers to the speaker, but there are also cases when another entity is intended, e.g. ὢ μακάριος μὲν δῆμος, εὐδαίμων δὲ γῆ, Blessed citizenry! Favored land! (Ar. Ec. 1112).

2.3.3.2 Vocative NP The vocative case shares a significant characteristic with interjections: the ability of standing outside the syntax of the regular sentence without being ungrammatical. Therefore it is unsurprising that vocatives are frequently used in combination with interjections. The vocative is most often used as a form of address or invocation, i.e. it is directed at another entity, present or distant (real or fictitious). The most common position of a vocative, addressing NP is the fourth, but there are certain interjections (predominantly ἆ, ἰώ and φεῦ) which are often || 107 An NP in the accusative case occurs with the interjection αἰαῖ (Ar. Lys. 393), only in one single occurrence in the quotation “αἰαῖ Ἄδωνιν”, a cry which probably is of cultic origin. Cf. the Epitaphius Adonis (second century BCE), where we find αἰαῖ Ἄδωνιν alongside other cries also containing Ἄδωνιν. Outside the corpus, there is an older example of another possible interjection with the accusative, which also happens to contain Adonis: ὦ τὸν Ἄδωνιν (Sappho fr. 168). The accusative in exclamations is moreover a most infrequent construction, if it is at all to be considered as such. Kühner (1898, § 412.2) gives Ar. Av. 1269 as the only example (“des Unwillens”), but he seems to doubt it and gives anacoluthon as an alternative explanation. There is also an uncertain example of ἆ followed by an accusative: ἆ Ζήν, Ἰοῦς † ἰὼ μῆνις (A. Supp. 162). Cf. 3.6.2.1 (ἆ).

58 | Syntax followed by vocatives in the second position. The word ὦ holds a particular status; since it never occurs on its own, but rather is always combined with a vocative, it does not qualify as an interjection, and will not be treated in the present study. Vocatives in position 2 are seldom tightly connected to the interjection, but sometimes rather seem to be “interjected” themselves. It is therefore at times unclear whether the vocative following an interjection is to be considered being in combination with it at all. It might be argued that the vocative in fact belongs to another part of the utterance, and that the utterances are collocated, e.g. E. Med. 1393 φεῦ φεῦ, μυσαρὰ καὶ παιδολέτορ. Pah! Unclean wretch! Childmurderer! Some occurrences are however less ambiguous, such as S. Ant. 1300 φεῦ μᾶτερ ἀθλία, φεῦ τέκνον. Ah, ah, unhappy mother, ah, my son!; A. PV 66 αἰαῖ, Προμηθεῦ, σῶν ὑπερστένω πόνων. Alas, Prometheus, I groan over thy pangs; S. OT 1071 ἰοὺ ἰοὺ δύστηνε· Ah, ah, unhappy one!

2.3.4 Position 3: NP (genitive) Since NPs in the genitive case make the most prominent and syntactically perhaps most closely connected combinations with interjections, they require special attention. Therefore, I first give a background to what kind of genitive this is. Then I will move on to order and list all occurrences, as well as suggest alternative classifications. Finally, I will propose a definition of the meaning of these combinations, with respect to which category of interjections is in question, as well as which words are in the NP. It is most often clear that the genitives that co-occur with interjections stand in some sort of relation with them, and since this combination is relatively common, they have often motivated commentators and grammarians to give additional explanation to them. Accordingly, this construction has been given many names, but is mainly referred to as the “genitive of exclamation”. In the following, we shall try to characterize this special construction. Ancient and medieval, and even nineteenth-century commentators and grammarians have explained the genitive by the ellipsis of a word such as ἕνεκα, so forming a standard way of expressing cause.108 Goodwin’s (1900) main || 108 Devarius on οἴμοι (Klotz 1835: 148): “Cum autem genitivus additur, ἐλλειπτικῶς dicitur”. On φεῦ (Klotz 1835: 210): “… advertendum est, genitivum dici ἐλλειπτικῶς, subaudirique ἕνεκα, a quo regitur genitivus, non a φεῦ”. Ellendt (1872) s.v. “οἴ” (on S. El. 1179): “τάλαιναν enim συμφοράν dici minime convenit, ut genitivus potius causae reddendae videatur, quem

The phrase schema | 59

theory is that the chief use of the genitive is to limit nouns, as the accusative limits verbs; the expression θαυμάζω τῆς τόλμης would, according to Goodwin, be equal to θαῦμα ἐστὶ τῆς τόλμης. He lists the use of the genitive, with verbs expressing various emotions, as the genitive of “cause and source”, and notes that the genitive sometimes is used in exclamations as well.109 However, there seems to be small or no grounds for these explanations of the phenomenon. Gildersleeve briefly notes that the genitive in exclamations “[implies] the source or sphere of emotion”.110 Kühner files this construction under the label “Genitiv zugleich als Vertreter des Ablativs”, in connection with verbs denoting pain and pity.111 Smyth sorts it under the genitive of cause, saying that it is “partly a true genitive, partly ablatival”.112 Later grammarians have also connected this construction with verbs of affection and “their expression”, like Schwyzer, who states that the genitive after interjections and asseverations originally belonged to a tacit verb.113 In a study on colloquialism in Euripides, Stevens claims that the genitive with an interjection is “an Attic usage”, whereas “the genitive alone seems to be colloquial”.114 Willi (2007: 252) simply states that it is colloquial and also that it “may be old”.115 Since the Greek genitive also serves as the Indo-European ablative, it is unclear whether this genitive was an ablative or a genitive originally. The nature of the ablative case is to express origin, and consequently cause, and there are examples of preposition-free use of genitives with this meaning.116 The genitive functions as an ablative mostly in connection with certain verbs that require a complement with ablatival value: in practice, the ablatival meaning is part of the meaning of the verb, rather than the meaning of the genitive as a plain case. … Some verbs that

|| vulgo adiiciendo ἕνεκα explicant”. Cf. Parkhurst (1809: 70): “ἑνεκα [sic] on account of being in such expressions understood before the Genitive.” 109 Goodwin (1900) §§ 1102, 1126, 1129. 110 Gildersleeve (1900) § 11. 111 Kühner (1898) § 420. 112 Smyth (1920) § 1405: “With verbs of emotion the genitive denotes the cause.” 113 Schwyzer (1950) II. B. 4. IV. 4. c: “Der Gen. nach Interjektionen und Beteuerungen gehört ursprünglich zu einem verschwiegenen Verb”. (“The Genitive after interjections and affirmations originally belongs to a hidden verb.”) 114 Stevens (1976: 61). 115 The remark on “exclamatory genitives” follows an example of a partitive genitive after a negative substantive verb, where a nominative would have been expected, Ar. V. 352: “οὐκ ἔστιν ὀπῆς ‘there isn’t enough of a hole’”. 116 Kells (on S. El. 78–79) states that “the simple genitive of source is sometimes used without a preposition in verse”. Cf. E. Med. 1051.

60 | Syntax denote emotions can take a second argument in the genitive. Although there is no variation with such verbs, one can connect the occurrence of the genitive with its ablatival value: the second argument of verbs of emotion denotes the cause of emotion, and Cause is a SR [semantic role] frequently associated with the ablative in the Indo-European languages that preserve this case. (Luraghi 2003: 58–59) [emphasis mine]

I agree with this view, and therefore I also find it probable that the ablative is the original case. These verba affectuum, occurring with genitives, include words such as θαυμάζω and φθονέω, e.g. Lys. 25.1: τῶν δὲ κατηγόρων θαυμάζω I am surprised at my accusers.117

2.3.4.1 Examples Several interjections enter into close construction with a NP in the genitive case. There is a total amount of 88 such occurrences in the material; the following list is sorted by the interjection they are combined with. αἰαῖ Α. Pers. Cho. Ε. Hipp. Ηec. Supp. Her. Tro. Hel. ἀτταταῖ Ar. Ach.

928 1007 814 182 1147 899 628

αἰαῖ κεδνᾶς ἀλκᾶς· Aiai, aiai, for our brave defenders! αἰαῖ αἰαῖ μελέων ἔργων· Aiai, aiai, for these sorrowful deeds! αἰαῖ τόλμας, What hardihood was yours: αἰαῖ σᾶς ψυχᾶς. Alas for your life! αἰαῖ τύχας· Alas for my lot! αἰαῖ κακῶν. Alas for the ruin! αἰαῖ, τέκνον, σῶν ἀνοσίων προσφαγμάτων· Alas, my child, for your unhallowed slaughter! 211–212 αἰαῖ δαίμονος πολυστόνου μοίρας τε σᾶς, γύναι. O what a sorrowful lot, what sorrowful fortunes are yours, lady! 1198

ἰατταταιάξ Ar. Eq. 1 ἰοὺ ἰού Ar. Αv.

305

Lys.

295

Th.

245

ἀτταταῖ ἀτταταῖ, τῶν τιτθίων. Oh oh! Ah ah! What titties!

ἰατταταιὰξ τῶν κακῶν, ἰατταταί. Yow, ow ow ow! Damn it all! Yow ow ow!

ἰοὺ ἰού, τῶν ὀρνέων. ἰοὺ ἰού, τῶν κοψίχων. Whooee, all the birds! Whooee, all the peckers! ἰοὺ ἰοὺ τοῦ καπνοῦ. Ouch, ugh! The smoke! 305 = 295 φεῦ, ἰοὺ τῆς ἀσβόλου. Yuk! Oh, the soot!

|| 117 Cf. Smyth (1920) § 1406: “With the above verbs the person stands in the accusative or dative. Some of these verbs take the dative or ἐπί and the dative (e.g. ἀλγεῖν, στένειν, ἄχθεσθαι, φθονεῖν) to express the cause of the emotion.”

The phrase schema | 61

ἰώ A. Sept. Ag.

998 1305

E. Alc. Hipp. Supp.

393 844 805

El. Pho. Ar. Ach.

1185 1290 1205

οἲ ’γω E. Tro. Hel. IA

795 1223 1277

οἴμοι A. Cho.

875

S. Aj. El.

Tr. OC E. Fr. Hcl. Hipp. And. Hec. El.

Her. Tro.

IT Pho.

ἰὼ δυστόνων κακῶν, ἄναξ. Oh, oh, my prince, your lamentable sufferings! ἰὼ πάτερ σοῦ σῶν τε γενναίων τέκνων. Ió, my father, for you and your noble sons! ἰώ μοι τύχας, Alas for my fate! ὤμοι μοι Ah me, Αδ. ἰὼ ἰώ. Χο. τῶν γ’ ἐμῶν κακῶν ἐγώ, ADMETUS Alas, alas! Yes, alas for my own woes! ἰὼ τύχας † σᾶς τύχας μᾶτερ τεκοῦσ’†, O what a cruel fate was yours! –ἰώ μοι πόνων, ἰὼ Ζεῦ, ἰὼ Γᾶ– (Alas for my woes, alas Zeus and Earth) ἰὼ ἰὼ τραυμάτων ἐπωδύνων. Ah, ah, my afflictive wounds!

οἲ ’γὼ πόλεως, (οἴμοι δὲ σέθεν) Alas for my city, (alas for you!) οἲ ’γὼ τῶν ἐμῶν τλήμων κακῶν, Oh what woe is mine! οἲ ’γὼ θανάτου σοῦ μελέα. Ah me, how miserable your death makes me!

οἴμοι πανοίμοι δεσπότου , Ah me, ah me indeed, for my master who has been struck down! 367 οἴμοι γέλωτος, Ah, the mockery! 1143 οἴμοι τάλαινα τῆς ἐμῆς πάλαι τροφῆς ἀνωφελήτου, Alas for my care for you long ago, gone for nothing. 1179 οἴμοι ταλαίνης ἆρα τῆσδε συμφορᾶς. Alas, then, for this miserable disaster! 971 οἴμοι ἐγὼ σοῦ, πάτερ, Alas for you, father! 1399–1400 οἴμοι κελεύθου τῆς τ’ ἐμῆς δυσπραξίας, οἴμοι δ’ ἑταίρων· Alas for my coming and for my disaster, and alas for my companions! 759a.1609 οἴμοι κακῶν σῶν Alas for your hardships— 224 οἴμοι κακῶν, alas for the pain 1454 οἴμοι φρενὸς σῆς εὐσεβοῦς τε κἀγαθῆς. Oh, what a noble, godly heart is lost! 846 οἴμοι πότμου, Alas for my fate! 1255 οἴμοι τέκνων τῶνδ’ ὀμμάτων τ’ ἐμῶν τάλας, Ah me, how I suffer for my children here and my eyes! 201 οἴμοι τοῦ καταφθιμένου τοῦ τε ζῶντος ἀλάτα, Alas for him who is slain and for him who lives as an exile! 1109 οἴμοι τάλαινα τῶν ἐμῶν βουλευμάτων, Ah, how wretched my plotting has made me! 1374–1375 οἴμοι δάμαρτος καὶ τέκνων, οἴμοι δ’ ἐμοῦ, Alas for my wife and my children, but alas for myself…! 115 οἴμοι κεφαλῆς, οἴμοι κροτάφων πλευρῶν θ’, Alas for the temples of my head and for my sides! 796 (οἲ ’γὼ πόλεως,) οἴμοι δὲ σέθεν, (Alas for my city,) alas for you! 1231 Εκ. οἴμοι. Χο. οἴμοι δῆτα σῶν ἀλάστων κακῶν, HECUBA Alas! CHORUS Yes, alas for your miseries none may forget! 186 οἴμοι τῶν Ἀτρειδᾶν οἴκων. 373 οἴμοι τῶν ἐμῶν ἐγὼ κακῶν. What misery for me!

62 | Syntax

Ba. Ar. Fr. Ach.

Eq. Nu. Pl.

ὀτοτοῖ A. Pers.

1345–1346 οἴμοι ξυμφορᾶς βαρυποτμωτάτας, | οἴμοι κακῶν δύστηνος, Alas for calamity most grievous, alas for disaster 1248 οἴμοι κακῶν μὲν πρῶτα σῶν, ἔπειτ’ ἐμῶν· O misery, yours first and then my own! 591.66 οἴμοι τοῦ χείλους· Ouch, my lip: 67 οἴμοι τῶν δραχμῶν, Oh dear, the drachmas! 210 οἴμοι τάλας τῶν ἐτῶν τῶν ἐμῶν· Damn and blast these years of mine! 1036 οἴμοι κακοδαίμων τοῖν γεωργοῖν βοιδίοιν. Ah, poor me! My little beasts of burden! 1218 οἴμοι, τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὅσων πλέα. My goodness, it’s crammed; look at all the goodies! 1324 οἴμοι κακοδαίμων τῆς κεφαλῆς καὶ τῆς γνάθου. Oh dear, my unlucky head! My jaw! 1476 οἴμοι παρανοίας. Dear me, what lunacy! 389 οἴμοι τῶν κακῶν, ἀπολεῖς. Damn it all, you’ll be the death of me! 1125–1126 οἴμοι τάλας, οἴμοι πλακοῦντος τοῦ ’ν τετράδι πεπεμμένου. What grief, grief for the cake that’s baked on the fourth of the month! 1128 οἴμοι δὲ κώλης ἣν ἐγὼ κατήσθιον– Grief for the ham that I used to eat! 1130 σπλάγχνων τε θερμῶν ὧν ἐγὼ κατήσθιον. And for the hot innards that I used to eat! 1132 οἴμοι δὲ κύλικος ἴσον ἴσῳ κεκραμένης. What grief for the tankard mixed one to one! 918

φεῦ A. Sept.

ὀτοτοῖ, βασιλεῦ, στρατιᾶς ἀγαθῆς καὶ περσονόμου τιμῆς μεγάλης κόσμου τ’ ἀνδρῶν, οὓς νῦν δαίμων ἐπέκειρεν. Otototoi, my King, for that fine army, and for the great honour of Persian empire and the men who adorned it, whom now the god has scythed away!

597

S. El.

920

φεῦ τοῦ ξυναλλάσσοντος ὄρνιθος βροτοῖς δίκαιον ἄνδρα τοῖσι δυσσεβεστέροις. Alas for the fate that visits mortals and links a righteous man with his impious inferiors! φεῦ, τῆς ἀνοίας ὥς σ’ ἐποικτίρω πάλαι. Alas, how I have been pitying you for your folly all this while! φεῦ τῆς ἀνύμφου δυσμόρου τε σῆς τροφῆς. Alas for your unmarried, miserable way of life! φεῦ φεῦ, μελέα τῶν σῶν ἀχέων, O dear, crushed by your misfortunes! φεῦ τῆς βροτείας—ποῖ προβήσεται;—φρενός. Oh, the heart of mortals, how far will it go? φεῦ φεῦ σχετλίων πόνων καὶ στυγερᾶς ζόας, Alas for my cruel toil, alas for my hateful life! Αν. φεῦ φεῦ Εκ. φεῦ δῆτ’ ἐμῶν Αν. κακῶν. 118 ANDROMACHE Alas! HECUBA Yes, alas for my misfortunes! φεῦ φεῦ τῶν Ἀργει μόχθων, Oh the troubles in Argos!

1183 E. Med. Hipp.

358 936

El.

120

Tro.

584

IT

156

|| 118 Kovacs does not ascribe the final word κακῶν to Hecuba in his translation, as Diggle does in his edition.

The phrase schema | 63

Pho. Or.

861 1425

Ar. Av. Lys.

161 327 1723 312

ὤ A. Pers. S. El.

985 1209

ὤμοι S. Aj. OC E. Hipp. Hec. Hel. Pho. Rh. Ar. Fr. Nu. ὢ πόποι A. Pers.

φεῦ χερνιβῶν ἐκεί. Ah, those dread lustrations! ! φεῦ φεῦ, κακῶν σῶν, Οἰδίπου, σ’ ὅσον στένω· Ah, Oedipus, how I grieve for your misfortunes: φεῦ μόχθων, Ah, what troubles he has! φεῦ μόχθων what ruin you suffered. ὢ φεῦ φεῦ τῆς ὥρας, τοῦ κάλλους. My oh my, her youth, her beauty! φεῦ τοῦ καπνοῦ, βαβαιάξ. Phew, that smoke! Damn! ὢ ὢ δάιων, Oh, oh, hapless ones! ὢ τάλαιν’ ἐγὼ σέθεν, Ὀρέστα, τῆς σῆς εἰ στερήσομαι ταφῆς. I am unhappy, Orestes, if I am cheated of the power to give you burial!

900 ὤμοι ἐμῶν νόστων, Alas for my homecoming! 909 ὤμοι ἐμᾶς ἄτας, Alas for my ruin! 980 ὤμοι βαρείας ἆρα τῆς ἐμῆς τύχης, Alas, then, for my grievous fate! 982 ὤμοι μοι κακῶν alas for my sorrows 591 ὤμοι ἐγὼ κακῶν, Oh disaster! 817 ὤμοι ἐγὼ πόνων, What misery is mine! 475–476 ὤμοι τεκέων ἐμῶν, ὤμοι πατέρων χθονός θ’ Alas for our children! Alas for our fathers and our country! 1098 ὤμοι ἐμᾶς λώβας, Oh, the outrage against me! 676 ὤμοι ἐγὼ κείνων λουτρῶν καὶ κρηνᾶν, Ah, alas for those gushing springs, that bath 1551 ὤμοι ἐγὼ παθέων, O misery! 902 ὤμοι ἐγὼ σέθεν Ah, I grieve for you! 591.67 ὤμοι | τῆς ἀλέας, ἣν ἅνθρωπός μ’ ἀποδύσας alas for the warmth, which the fellow left me… 925 ὤμοι σοφίας– ὤμοι μανίας– My, the cleverness– My, the craziness–

731

ὢ πόποι κεδνῆς ἀρωγῆς κἀπικουρίας στρατοῦ. Ah me, our army, our valiant aid and protector!

NPs, either in the vocative or the nominative case, are sometimes used in combination with genitives instead of, or in addition to, interjections.119 In some of these cases it is difficult to determine whether the genitive depends on the interjection or the NP, e.g. E. Hipp. 811 ἰὼ ἰὼ τάλαινα μελέων κακῶν· Alas, poor woman, how luckless you are! Other examples include E. Alc. 741–742 ἰὼ ἰώ. σχετλία τόλμης, ὦ γενναία καὶ μέγ’ ἀρίστη, χαῖρε· Alas, alas! O resolute in cour-

|| 119 Fraenkel (on A. Ag. 355): “It seems probable that [Aeschylus] has borrowed this form of invocation from Attic everyday speech, in which it seems to have been used under stress of marked excitement.” Fraenkel also lists four occurrences in Aristophanes of exclamatory sentences introduced by vocatives, with ὅσον (Nu. 2, Ra. 1278), οἵον (V. 625) and ὡς (Pl. 1095).

64 | Syntax age, heart noble and generous, farewell!, Med. 96 ἰώ, δύστανος ἐγὼ μελέα τε πόνων, ἰώ μοί μοι, πῶς ἂν ὀλοίμαν; Oh, what a wretch am I, how miserable in my sorrows! Ah ah, how I wish I could die!, Ion 960 φεῦ· τλήμων σὺ τόλμης, ὁ δὲ θεὸς μᾶλλον σέθεν. Ah me! You were hard-hearted, but the god even more so. There are even cases where there is no interjection at all, indicating that an interjection is not needed for the construction, E. Tr. 112 δύστηνος ἐγὼ τῆς βαρυδαίμονος ἄρθρων κλίσεως How luckless I am, how miserably does my body recline. In two passages in Euripides we find invocations preceding exclamative genitives: IA 327 ποῦ δὲ κἄλαβές νιν; ὦ θεοί, σῆς ἀναισχύντου φρενός. Ye gods, what shamelessness! How did you get your hands on it?), and Or. 1666–1667 ὦ Λοξία μαντεῖε, σῶν θεσπισμάτων οὐ ψευδόμαντις ἦσθ’ ἄρ’ ἀλλ’ ἐτήτυμος. O prophetic Loxias, you are not after all false in your prophecies but truthful! The interpretation of this last example as “exclamative” is contested, inter alios by the translator Kovacs, and the editor Willink, who judges that “this is not the moment for colloquialism”.120 As has been noted by Poultney, the genitive in exclamations can be preceded by a vocative expression in Aristophanes as well, most often an invocation to a god.121 Poultney does not consider examples with the nominative to be related, e.g. Ar. Ach. 1210 τάλας ἐγὼ ξυμβολῆς βαρείας. Woe is me, what a costly fray! Rather, he considered these as dependent on the adjective.122 Typical example: Ar. Pax 238–239 ὦναξ Ἄπολλον, τῆς θυείας τοῦ πλάτους—ὅσον κακόν—καὶ τοῦ Πολέμου τοῦ βλέμματος. Lord Apollo, the size of that mortar! How nasty is the mere look of War! Other examples (voc): Eq. 144; Nu. 153, 364; V. 161; Pax 238– 239; Av. 61, 223, 295, 1131; Lys. 967; Pl. 1050–1051. The interpretation that the principal function of these vocatives is to act as an exclamative is supported by the two passages in which the vocatives are not at all directed at deities, but instead they are directed at the city of Ecbatana and the general Lamachus respectively; Ar. Ach. 64 βαβαιάξ· ὦκβάτανα τοῦ σχήματος. Wowee! Ecbatana, what a getup!123, and Ach. 575 ὦ Λάμαχ’ ἥρως, τῶν

|| 120 Willink (on E. Or. 1666–1667): “The exclam. ‘Oh (how amazing? gratifying?) your prophecies (are)!’ is strangely off-key … .” 121 Poultney (1936: 125). 122 Poultney (1936: 124–125): “With κακοδαίμων: Ach. 1036, Nu. 1324, Fr. 324; with μακάριος: Eq. 184f., V. 1292f., 1512, Pax 715, Av. 1423; with μῶρος: Eq. 350; with τάλας: Ach. 209f., Lys. 735f., Pl. 1044; with τλήμων: Th. 1070ff.; with τρισμακάριος: Nu. 166.” 123 Olson (on Ar. Ach. 64): “The name thus offers a ‘spur-of-the-moment expletive’ allowing Dik[aiopolis] to express his amazement at the Ambassador’s clothing (Sommerstein ad loc.).”

The phrase schema | 65

λόφων καὶ τῶν λόχων.124 Lamachus, hero! What crests and ambuscades! The first example has an initial interjection, which might be used as explanation for the genitive; the other example does not. These vocatives are clearly not meant to be considered as proper invocations, but act as expressives, similar to modern English expressions like (Oh) my god, what a day! Here no reference to any god is intended, but the word is used as an expressive, thus forming a “regular, probably colloquial verbal response to a horrible or astonishing sight or revelation”.125

2.3.5 Positions 4–5: NPs (vocative and nominative) The final two positions are not as tightly connected to the head of the phrase as the other positions. It is apparently tempting for editors to put a comma before a following vocative NP in position 4, possibly to mark a pause. Yet, the examples from Aeschylus and Sophocles (Electra) clearly show that the vocative is connected to the interjection phrase, rather than to a following phrase. The nominative NP in position 5 is in agreement with the speaker. Occurrences here are very rare, and, as the example from Homer seems to show, an εἰμι may easily be supplied when the NP consists of an adjective. Another way of explaining this phenomenon would be to consider the nominative in position five as initial in a new clause, again with an omitted εἰμι. Cf. similar exclamations in nominative, e.g. τάλας (E. Hipp. 826; Ar. Ach. 1191, 1210) and δύστηνος. Consequently, if a word occurs in position 5, it can alternatively be understood as holding position 2 in a following IntP, such as in the example quoted in 1.5.1, ὢ μέλεος. The emphatic use of τάλας in ὦ τάλας ἐγώ, τάλας (S. Aj. 981, OC 847; E. Fr. 122.1038; Ar. Th. 1038) is a matter of repetition. There are also more complex combinations, in which new NPs show up after e.g. “interjected” VPs, e.g. E. IA 442 οἴμοι, τί φῶ δύστηνος; Ah me, what shall I say in my misery? (Agamemnon speaks); it is also easily explained as a predicative to the verb φῶ.

|| 124 Dover (on Ar. Nu. 219): “Dikaiopolis is not so much addressing Lamachos (contrast 578) as uttering a reverent exclamation at the sudden appearance of an almost supernatural being.” Cf. Olson (on Ar. Ach. 575): “The tone is none the less intensely sarcastic and the remark is ignored by everyone else on stage.” 125 Olson (on Ar. Pax 238–239).

66 | Syntax 2.3.5.1 Examples Position 4 (vocative) A. Pers. 445 οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα συμφορᾶς κακῆς, φίλοι· Ah, wretched me, my friends, this terrible catastrophe! Sept. 998 ἰὼ ἰὼ δυστόνων κακῶν, ἄναξ. Oh, oh, my prince, your lamentable sufferings! S. Tr. 971 οἴμοι ἐγὼ σοῦ, πάτερ, Alas for you, father! El. 1209 ὢ τάλαιν’ ἐγὼ σέθεν, Ὀρέστα, τῆς σῆς εἰ στερήσομαι ταφῆς. I am unhappy, Orestes, if I am cheated of the power to give you burial! E. El. 1185 ἰὼ τύχας † σᾶς τύχας μᾶτερ τεκοῦσ’†, O what a cruel fate was yours! Med. 357 φεῦ φεῦ, μελέα τῶν σῶν ἀχέων, δύστηνε γύναι, ποῖ ποτε τρέψηι; [Unhappy woman,] O dear, crushed by your misfortunes, where will you turn? Pho. 1425 φεῦ φεῦ, κακῶν σῶν, Οἰδίπου, σ’ ὅσον στένω· Ah, Oedipus, how I grieve for your misfortunes. Position 5 (nominative) E. Supp. 805 Αδ. ἰὼ ἰώ. τῶν γ’ ἐμῶν κακῶν ἐγώ126 ADMETUS Alas, alas! Yes, alas for my own woes! Hec. 1255 οἴμοι τέκνων τῶνδ’ ὀμμάτων τ’ ἐμῶν τάλας, Ah me, how I suffer for my children here and my eyes! Ph.

373127 1346

οἴμοι τῶν ἐμῶν ἐγὼ κακῶν. What misery for me! οἴμοι κακῶν δύστηνος alas for disaster

The internal structure of the NPs following interjections can be very simple, consisting of a single noun or personal pronoun. They can be in the singular or plural, and the nouns can stand with or without the article. The personal pronouns are always of the first or second person singular. The construction is employed by all four authors under study, and also by other dramatists, as well as prose writers; unsurprisingly, the construction is always found in direct speech.128 Common for all examples is that the NP follows after the interjection. || 126 ἐγὼ κακῶν Diggle: cf. Ph. 373 [οἴμοι τῶν ἐγὼ κακῶν], Men. Dysc. 189 [οἴμοι τάλαινα τῶν ἐμῶν ἐγὼ κακῶν·], Misum. 248 [οἴμοι τάλ̣αινα τῆς ἐμῆς ἐγὼ τύχης·]. 127 The position of κακῶν is confusing here, as with ἐγὼ in E. Supp. 805 above. 128 Cf. Xen. Cyr. IIΙ. 1. 39: ὁ μὲν δὴ Κῦρος ἐπὶ τούτοις εἶπε· φεῦ τοῦ ἀνδρός. “Poor man!” Cyrus exclaimed on hearing this. (Translation by Miller 1914). Cf. Herodotus 8.26: πυνθανόμενος γὰρ τὸ ἄεθλον ἐὸν στέφανον ἀλλ’ οὐ χρήματα, οὔτε ἠνέσχετο σιγῶν εἶπέ τε ἐς πάντας τάδε· “παπαί, Μαρδόνιε, κοίους ἐπ’ ἄνδρας ἤγαγες μαχησομένους ἡμέας, οἳ οὐ περὶ χρημάτων τὸν ἀγῶνα ποιεῦνται ἀλλὰ περὶ ἀρετῆς.” Hearing the men say that the prize was not money but a wreath of olive, he could not forbear from exclaiming before them all: “Good heavens! Mardonius, what manner of men are these against whom thou hast brought us to fight?—men who contend with one another, not for money, but for honour!” (Translation by Rawlinson 1996).

The phrase schema | 67

The NPs in the various positions can be very simple, consisting of only one word, or more complex structures of quite some length. There are also examples of the “mixing” of NPs, as in Euripides’ Phoenician Women 373 (οἴμοι τῶν ἐγὼ κακῶν), which has led Diggle to suggest an emendation of the passage in Suppliant Women 805, where Admetus’ ἰὼ ἰώ is followed by the chorus’ τῶν γ’ ἐμῶν κακῶν ἐγώ. Instead, he has switched places between ἐγώ and κακῶν, following the phrasing in Phoenician Women. This peculiarity is also found in Menander’s Dyscolus 189 (οἴμοι τάλαινα τῶν ἐμῶν ἐγὼ κακῶν·) and the Misumenus 248 (οἴμοι τάλ̣αινα τῆς ἐμῆς ἐγὼ τύχης·). Also, instead of the pronoun ἐγὼ we find the adjective τλήμων in a similar phrase in Helen 1223 (οἲ ’γὼ τῶν ἐμῶν τλήμων κακῶν).

2.3.6 Invocations, formulae and bare exclamative genitives Apart from proper invocations, such as (ὦ) Ζεῦ129 , the most common expression under this heading is Preposition phrases such as πρὸς θεῶν and (in comedy) ἐς κόρακας. Such exclamative expressions can precede the non-articular, freestanding infinitive, in the same manner as interjections do, e.g. Ar. V. 835: βάλλ’ εἰς κόρακας· τουτονὶ τρέφειν κύνα. To hell with him! Imagine keeping a dog like that!130 Other expressions especially common in comedy include informal oaths, such as μὰ and νὴ (Δία).131 Certain words which frequently are combined with interjections, such as δείλαιος, κακοδαίμων, τάλας and τάλαινα, can instead of an interjection take head position and combine with other NPs, like the genitive in exclamations (cf. 2.3.4 above). Function alone is not enough for an expression to qualify as an interjection, but some constructions are peculiarly close. For example, we have found four examples of NPs in the genitive without interjection, vocative, or any other preceding word, i.e. “bare” exclamative genitives. All but one example are found in Aristophanes: Ach. 86–87 καὶ τίς εἶδε πώποτε βοῦς κριβανίτας; τῶν ἀλαζονευμάτων. And who has ever seen ox casserole? What swaggering charlatanism!, Nu. 818 ἰδού γ’ ἰδοὺ Δί’ Ὀλύμπιον. τῆς μωρίας· Get a load of that! Olym-

|| 129 Dover (on Ar. Nu. 153): “ὦ Ζεῦ βασιλεῦ: Cf. Av. 223 ὦ Ζεῦ βασιλεῦ, τοῦ φθέγματος τοὐρνιθίου.” 130 For further examples of the articular infinitive in exclamations, and “bare” genitives of exclamation, cf. Stevens (1976: 61, n. 5–6). 131 Cf. Sommerstein (2014).

68 | Syntax pian Zeus. What stupidity …!, Ec. 787–789 τῆς μωρίας, τὸ μηδὲ περιμείναντα... What foolishness, not to wait and see. The only example in tragedy, E. Ba. 263 τῆς δυσσεβείας. What impiety!, is contested, e.g. by Dodds, who deems it “alien” stylistically, and calls it a colloquialism.132 The small number of examples points to the theory that this is a derived form of expression.133 However, the construction might also be older than the combination with interjections, the addition of which simply might be optional.

2.4 Syntax—Category 2 The same formal definition is used for all three categories of interjections. However, several of the items in this category seem to breach the condition that they “do not normally enter into construction with other word classes”. Some of the primary interjections in category 2 can occur free-standing, but most commonly they occur in combination with other words. Nevertheless, as became apparent in the analysis of category 1, not all items fulfil all criteria completely, perhaps because interjections are language only to a varying degree. Therefore, for example, I find it reasonable to include the common item εἶα, which nevertheless always occurs in combination with items from other word classes, since it is an uninflected word and not used otherwise. The second category has few members, compared to category 1; only seven primary εἶα (εἷα), ἤ, ἤν, ψύττ’(α), ὠή and ὢ ὄπ. The possibility of combinations with adverbs such as μάλ(α) and νῦν and particles such as δή and δῆτα is to some extent shared with category 1.134 ἤν occurs combined with ἰδού, and there is a single occurrence of ὠή followed by μάλ’ αὖθις. The items ἤ, ψύττ’(α) and ὢ || 132 Dodds (on E. Ba. 263): “The naked genitive is a colloquialism possible in the mouth of Dicaeopolis, or of the lower-middle-class housewives in Theocr. 15, but alien so far as we can tell to any dignified or formal speech, and certainly ill-suited to the highly stylized utterance of a Chorus-leader.” 133 This use is also found in prose, including the exclamatory infinitive: Xen. Cyr. II.2.3 εἶπε πρὸς αὑτόν· τῆς τύχης, τὸ ἐμὲ νῦν κληθέντα δεῦρο τυχεῖν. [He] said to himself: “Such luck! that I should happen to have been called here just now!” (Translation by Miller 1914). 134 The secondary interjections in category 2 rarely or never occur free-standing, but rather, as the primary items, frequently combine with certain VPs: either with imperatives (second person), or with hortative subjunctives (first person). They are commonly referred to as “crystallized” phrases, and they are characterized as “semantically bleached”. It is evident that some interjections in fact function similarly to VPs. It is also clear that some verbs have been syntactically “bleached” as well, inasmuch that there are cases when there no longer is numeral agreement, e.g. A. Pers. 140 ἀλλ’ ἄγε, Πέρσαι But come, ye Persians.

Syntax—Category 2 | 69

ὄπ (ὢ ὄπ· ὄπ) are not combined with any other words. The two subgroups of category 2 are semantically based, either demanding attention (ὠή) or exhorting (εἷα, ἤν), and therefore are unrelated to their morphology and syntax. Interjections in category 2 are, predictably, often followed by verbs in the imperative mood or in the future tense. Words in category 2 differ from those found in category 1 in one important respect: the former are typically directed at an auditor or another speaker, whereas the latter are oriented around the first person only. Apart from the following examples of εἶα, there are only two other items in category 2, ὢ ὄπ (Ar. Av. 1395 and Ra. 208) and ἤν (Ar. Ra. 1390), that occur as complete utterances and turns.

2.4.1 εἶα (εἷα)—eia (heia) The most common item in the category, εἶα (with the aspirated parallel form εἷα), is frequently combined with other words, either preceded by ἀλλ(ά), ἄγε, οὐχ, ὤ, or followed by δή, (ἔτι) μάλα, νῦν, ὤ. This item is nearly always uttered as a co-utterance, in three different combinations: (1) followed by an imperative (most frequent), (2) followed by a verb in future tense (some examples), and (3) followed by a jussive στείχωμεν (first-person subjunctive, a hapax legomenon, in A. Fr. 47a.23). All imperatives but one are in the second person. ἀλλ’ εἶα χώρει καὶ κόμιζ’ Ἰάσονα· [MEDEA] (to the nurse) But you, go and fetch Jason. E. Med. 820 Θο. ὦ πάντες ἀστοὶ τῆσδε βαρβάρου χθονός, οὐκ εἶα πώλοις ἐμβαλόντες ἡνίας παράκτιοι δραμεῖσθε... THOAS Up, all you citizens of this barbarian land! Put bridles on your horses... E. IT 1423

One example of an imperative in the third person is found in A. Ag. 1651 εἶα δή ... πᾶς τις εὐτρεπιζέτω Ho there, everyone ... hilt forward!135 There is also a significant example of εἶα followed by a ὅπως-clause in the future tense (E. Or. 1060), which shows that the interjection may serve as a substitute for a main clause, and that it expresses more than just an attention-getting signal. There are, how-

|| 135 This is, however, an exceptional line. Cf. Sommerstein (2008: 200–201, n. 341).

70 | Syntax ever, examples of free-standing ὅπως-clauses, where ‘see to it’ vel sim. is understood.136 This may also be understood as such a case. ἀλλ’ εἷ’ ὅπως γενναῖα κἀγαμέμνονος δράσαντε κατθανούμεθ’ ἀξιώτατα. [ORESTES] But come now, see to it that before we die we may do noble deeds worthy of Agamemnon. E. Or. 1060

The peculiar distance between εἶα and the imperative in Ε. Herc. 833 shows that the interjection contains enough imperative force to hold for at least four lines; it is not until 837 that the first imperative (κίνει) appears. In Aristophanes’ Peace we find a range of free-standing occurrences of εἶα, which the translator Henderson understood as encouragements for heaving. Fraenkel (A. Ag. 1650) has a different view: “An exception which is only a seeming one is the long section in Aristophanes’ Peace (459–496) where, after the request ὑπότεινε δὴ πᾶς καὶ κάταγε τοῖσιν κάλωις [‘Now at my signal, everyone, start hauling, and pull on those ropes!’] the real work is accompanied by the exclamations ὦ εἶα, εἶα ὦ etc.” Cf. 3.7.3.1 on the semantics of εἶα. Ar. Pax 458 ὢ εἶα Heave ho! 459 εἶα μάλα. Heave! 460 ὢ εἶα. Heave ho! 461 εἶα ἔτι μάλα. Heave again! 462 ὢ εἶα, ὢ εἶα. Heave ho! Heave ho! 467 εἶά νυν. Heave ho! 468 εἶα ὤ. Heave! 486 ὢ εἶα. Heave ho! 487 εἶα μάλα. Heave! 488 ὢ εἶα. Heave ho! 489 εἶα, νὴ Δία. Yes, heave! 494 εἶά νυν. Heave ho! 495 εἶα ὤ. Heave!

Similarly, in Peace 517–519, the eccyclema is brought forth, accompanied by the chorus’ singing. Χο. ὢ εἶά νυν, ὢ εἶα πᾶς. ὢ εἶα εἶα εἶά . || 136 Cf. Xen. Anab. 1.7.3: ὅπως οὖν ἔσεσθε ἄνδρες ἄξιοι τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἧς κέκτησθε καὶ ἧς ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ εὐδαιμονίζω. Be sure, therefore, to be men worthy of the freedom you possess, upon the possession of which I congratulate you. (Translation by Brownson 2006).

Syntax—Category 3 | 71

ὢ εἶα εἶα εἶα πᾶς. [The eccyclema gradually emerges through the central door, bearing the statue of Peace and her attendants, Cornucopia and Holiday.] CHORUS Heave now, heave all! Heave, heave, heave now! Heave, heave, heave all! Ar. Pax 517–519

Again, Fraenkel (A. Ag. 1651) comments, this time on Aegisthus’ εἶα δή (noted above): “This is reminiscent of the formula of encouragement obviously borrowed from everyday life in Ar. Peace 517, 519 εἶα πᾶς, similarly S. Ichn. 87 ἄγ’ εἶα δὴ πᾶς”.

2.5 Syntax—Category 3 The third category only has three members: εἶἑν, ἰαῦ and ναί. These items generally follow the condition that they “do not normally enter into construction with other word classes”.137 Only ναί and ἰαῦ occur free-standing, but most commonly they occur in combination with other speech. Free-standing occurrences S. El. 845 ναί. Yes! OC 1747 ναὶ ναί. Yes, yes! Ar. Ra. 272 ἰαῦ. Yo! Pl. 82 ναί. Yes.

Unlike some items in category 2, however, εἶἑν and ναί are frequently separated from co-utterances by editors with a semicolon or full stop. As previously stated, only a handful of the items occur extra metrum: εἶἑν seven times (E. 5, Ar. 2) and ναί five times (S. 1, E. 4). These items never enter into combinations with adverbs or particles such as δή and δῆτα. However, ναί occurs combined with μὰ Δία in comedy (12 times) and in satyr play (twice), possibly taking the place of the more conventional νή.138 In comedy, too, there is a large amount of passages spoken in “foreign” dialects that also contain informal oaths of this kind.

|| 137 On the internal aspiration of εἶἑν, see Mastronarde (1994) (on E. Ph. 849): “the internal aspiration is established by App. Dysc. Synt. 318, 26 and Plut. Mor. 393b.” 138 There is one occurrence in Sophocles Ichneutai (Fr. 314.118) and one in Euripides Cyclops (586).

72 | Syntax

2.6 Concluding remarks It has become clear in this chapter that interjections not only occur on their own, but also that they often co-occur with other parts of speech, following certain patterns and grammatical regularities. There are a few anomalies, which lack a large enough number of examples to be certain of their status; some have been called more “colloquial” on these grounds, such as the infinitive in exclamations. A perhaps surprising observation is that the greater number of occurrences of an interjection there are, the more features characteristic of interjections it will have; a selection of features includes free-standing occurrence, extra metrum position, “interjected” position, geminatio and connection with NPs (in all five cases). For example, this seems to be the case with φεῦ, which has a high number of occurrences, and an equally high number of possible combinations. The individual variation among the interjections, however, is indeed very large; some tend to be doubled, some not, some tend to stand extra metrum, some not, etc. It is clear that certain words standing immediately next to interjections behave in an orderly fashion; if the dative singular of the personal pronoun occurs, it always stands in position 1. The nominative singular of the personal pronoun, ἐγώ, often occurs standing in position 2, but can also occur in position 4, as well as within a genitive NP in position 2, e.g. E. Pho. 373 οἴμοι τῶν ἐμῶν ἐγὼ κακῶν What misery for me!, where it apparently is redundant after the preceding ἐμῶν. Position 5 is the least reliable, perhaps because it is the position furthest away from the head. One example is the addition of an expressive adjective, which might be understood as a new clause, and which sometimes creates confusion as to which word the genitive belongs, e.g. in E. Pho. 1346 οἴμοι κακῶν δύστηνος. One thing that might be understood as contradicting the proposed ability of interjections to enter into construction with other parts of speech is that most of the NPs that occur with interjections also may occur free-standing. Thus the dependency of these on interjections is questionable. Nevertheless, the relatively high frequency of their coincidence, as well as the strict word order of the expressions may be reason enough to consider them as proper syntactic combinations. One combination seems to occur only in connection with interjections, viz. the dative of the personal pronoun μοι in the combinations οἴμοι, ἰώ μοι and ὤμοι (ὦμοι). (Cf. the “impossible” *δύστανός μοι and *τοῦ κάλλους μοι.) In later

Concluding remarks | 73

Greek authors this particular combination is found with another frequently used interjection, φεῦ.139 A general observation is that interjections seem to have a lot in common with nouns (as well as adjectives and pronouns; adverbs and prepositions to some extent, conjunctions scarcely), inasmuch as these can be used in exclamations, in various cases serving various functions. The interjections in category 1 and 3 seem to act more like NPs, while the ones in category 2 more resemble VPs.

|| 139 Cf. Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesiaca, 1.4.1 and 5.7.2, both “φεῦ μοι τῶν κακῶν”, What troubles I have! (Translation by Henderson 2009). It should also be noted that NPs in the dative case are regularly used with the Latin vae, “woe”.

3 Semantics In this chapter, a semantic analysis of the material, based on the proposed three categories, is presented. Since the application of a Natural Semantic Metalanguage, which Ameka employs, is inconvenient on a larger scale, a substitute is found to be needed. Therefore, following the notion of Davidson, it is argued that an explicit core meaning can be offered for each category of items, which then form groups with similar meanings. With this point of departure, an alternative semantic analysis is presented, based on the analytical model provided by Kaplan. Allan’s notion of primary illocution is used to explain the semantics of interjections on sentence level. Evidence for the individual meaning of all items under study, collected from my own as well as editors’ and commentators’ readings, are provided, and the items are arranged in groups based on common semantic properties accordingly. Thus, an explicit analysis is made on category-level, which is followed by a proposed core meaning for each subcategory, and finally individual informational equivalents are given for each interjection.

3.1 Introduction In a general distinction between lexical and grammatical words, a lexical word has “lexical meaning, e.g., fox, arrive”, whereas a grammatical word is a word “without significant lexical meaning that functions to express grammatical relationships, e.g., a, the, to, at, etc.”140 It may seem difficult to place interjections into either of these categories, since they can be the main carriers of information in the sentence, as well as express grammatical relationships. If, however, the simple expression of an interjection may be regarded as a complete sentence, interjections necessarily need to be considered lexical words. This is also the main view of the present study. In the following chapter, I employ various semantic tools to analyze the source material, such as semantic roles, primary illocution, and to some extent truth-conditional semantics and sound symbolism. A number of such tools are necessary for the analysis, since the items in the three categories are heterogeneous semantically, some even polyvalent. Inspired by Davidson’s notion of

|| 140 Definitions from the ELL glossary. The terms are equivalent to “content words” and “function words”.

Introduction | 75

literal meaning as the primary point of concern for semantics, I employ a moderate minimalist approach, searching for one core meaning for each group of items, but allowing for the possibility of increasing the number of meanings for singular items.141 The approach has the disadvantage that the explicit core meanings are rather abstract and wide-ranging. However, as a means for bringing order to the material it has proven rewarding. The main investigation is divided into three parts, one for each category. Each part begins with an explicit analysis of the semantics of the category as a whole. Then, after presenting each sub-category, each word is examined in detail, and their individual semantic properties are demonstrated. The part which deals with the items in category 1 claims the largest space in this chapter, partly because of decidedly larger number of occurrences, partly since this particular field is especially insufficiently investigated. The semantics of category 1 is explained by applying the analytical model provided by Kaplan. In addition, Reddy’s theory on emotions is used to further clarify the connection between interjections and their emotive content in this category. The items in category 2 are primarily analyzed as belonging to the imperative PI, whereas the items in category 3 are analyzed as belonging to the declarative PI.142 It is shown that a certain feature, iconicity, is recurrent in all three categories. This feature, similar to indirect onomatopoeia, i.e. analogically onomatopoeic structure with no obvious non-linguistic sound as source, is believed to be the common feature shared by all three categories of interjections. Ameka’s suggests that onomatopoeic words are to be excluded from the interjection class altogether, since he regards these words as “a phonological class whose members may belong to different grammatical classes” (1992a: 112). I concur with the view that onomatopoeic words “tend to be descriptive, rather than expressive of a mental state as interjections are” (1992a: 112). It seems that, according to Ameka’s analysis, the class of interjections must follow the same, or at least three similar, semantic analysis, but as regards pragmatics, interjections may have at least three different functions. Following my semantic analysis, the division of the material is based on the assumption that the pragmatics of each item is ultimately semantically motivated. As a final point, it would also seem necessary to make room for more than one semantic analysis. Since I allow the formal criteria take first place in separating interjections from other parts of speech, it could have been motivated to || 141 Cf. Kroon (1995) and Mosegaard Hansen (1998). 142 Allan (2006).

76 | Semantics take into consideration the large group of imitative items that occur, primarily in Aristophanes’ works. However, since these items would require a wholly different semantic analysis, I have chosen to disregard of these items, cf. 1.6.4. At the outset, an explicit definition of what I understand by the term semantics is necessary. It is in the nature of the present explananda to be variable and diversified, and therefore a broad notion of semantics is essential. In the present study, semantics is understood as the study of expression meaning, i.e. the meaning of expressions taken in isolation from any context of utterance, and where references and truth value are not fixed. In the main analysis of the semantics of interjections, I focus on this expression meaning, while the use of interjections is dealt with in the pragmatics chapter. In the analysis of individual items, I follow the view that assumes interjections to be a part of language and that they express concepts. This view, “that the meaning of a word, etc. is the concept associated with it in the mind of the speaker or hearer” is in accordance with Ameka’s and Kaplan’s theories. 143 I also make a sharp distinction between semantics and pragmatics, in spirit following the view of Saussurean linguistics, which makes a distinction between langue, language regarded as a general abstract system, and parole, language in concrete use, i.e. what a speaker says at a certain moment with a certain communicative intention. I understand semantics as roughly equal to langue in this sense—words and sentences with referential meaning in abstracto, whereas parole is understood as roughly equal to pragmatics—the function of utterances in context. The latter is dealt with in the following chapter.

3.2 Core meaning The main view in my semantic analysis is that it is possible to identify a core meaning for each individual interjection, as well as for each group of interjections, by employing Davidson’s division between “what words mean and what they are used to do”, as presented in his influential article on metaphor (1978). Davidson’s central claim is that “[l]iteral meaning and literal truth conditions can be assigned to words and sentences apart from particular contexts of use”, which, he explains, “is why adverting to them has genuine explanatory power.”144 Aspects of language, that are not context-free, are therefore not questions of meaning, but of use. Therefore, metaphorical interpretation is context-bound, || 143 ELL glossary, s.v. “conceptualism”. 144 Davidson (1978: 33).

Core meaning | 77

and consequently also a question of use.145 The core meaning of each interjection is thus independent of the context of its utterance. Hence, the fundamental question of this chapter is: what do the Ancient Greek interjections mean by themselves? There is no need for any comparison to be made between metaphorical expressions and interjections; the theory is applicable on any language expression. This is a radical take on the division between semantics and pragmatics, but I have found it rewarding to employ on the study of interjections. However, such a strict minimalism approach results in descriptions which are far too general and abstract to have any explanatory power. Therefore, I have found it necessary to complement this view with the moderate minimalism approach, as put into practice by Kroon (1995) and Mosegaard Hansen (1998), which provides room for “a restricted number of distinct (though related) meanings or functions”.146 This approach is presented in more detail above in 1.4.147 Items in other parts of speech, such as verbs, can be considered to possess certain implicit semantic properties, such as reference to an agent, a patient and also to some relationship between these two. Similarly, interjections can be considered to contain such implicit properties, as well, such as slots for various semantic roles of this kind: agent, experiencer, patient, theme, secondary theme and cause. The question is, then, exactly which semantic properties each interjection, or rather group of interjections, has. Following the hypothesis that each item has a core meaning, I therefore suggest a least common denominator, which will be the same irrespective of the use of each item. Some interjections turn out to have certain implicit semantic roles in common, and therefore fall easily into the suggested categories. Following the moderate minimalism approach, I will attempt to show that there is only one meaning for each word, although in some cases there seems to be more than a single meaning. In such cases, it is assumed that these meanings are related in one way or another. In other cases, pragmatic features are used to explain what appears to be different meanings.

|| 145 It should be noted that Davidson in a later article toned down this idea of meaning, asserting that he was “foolishly stubborn about the word ‘meaning’ when all I cared about was the primacy of ‘first meaning’.” Davidson (1992: 307, n. 4). 146 Kroon (1995: 98). 147 The concept of core meaning is similar to Wierzbicka’s (2003: 289) concept of “semantic invariant”, which “can be revealed and formulated in such a way as to account precisely for [the interjections’] range of use.”

78 | Semantics In order to achieve the division into categories, I use the most salient meaning of each item in each individual case to determine its correct categorization. This method may be called into question; is this not a matter of subjective opinion rather than objective observation? Partly, yes; each individual passage ultimately needs to be interpreted, an action which is necessarily subjective, at least to a certain degree. I have therefore carried out an extensive study of previous editors’ and commentators’ notes on passages containing interjections, with the purpose of adding reliability to my own observations. With the aid of these comments, I isolate the most common denotation of each word, which in turn helps to reveal the core meaning of each word. It is obvious, finally, that interjections, like most other natural language, never are uttered without a context—in the context of a performance in a theater, the audience will always be “situated” to a certain extent, i.e. several predominantly indexical relations will be established simply by the fact that certain people are standing in front of each other, as the actors will do on stage. However, there are several examples of interjections being uttered off-stage (and therefore without any accompanying gestures etc.); some comedies even begin with the exclamations of interjections, which perhaps may be the closest we come to a “context-free” utterance in an actual performance. This does not, however, prevent us from being able to make a context-free semantic interpretation of the items.

3.3 Secondary interjections Secondary interjections are those words which have an independent semantic value but which can be used conventionally as utterances by themselves to express a mental attitude or state. They thus refer to mental acts too. Under secondary interjections fall such alarm calls and attention getters as Help!, Fire!, Careful! and swear and taboo words such as damn!, hell!, heavens!, Christ! and other emotively used words such as Shame!, Bother!, Drats!, etc. (Ameka 1992a: 111)

In modern English, there is an interplay between ordinary language and interjections; the common use of words from other parts of speech qua so-called secondary interjections is a clear indicator that “interjections” act as a special kind of language, in several respects different from ordinary language. One example (however uncertain) is the use of τάλας ἐγώ, τάλας, where the initial τάλας seems to operate in the place of an interjection, the usual expression being οἴμοι ἐγὼ τάλας, vel sim. Secondary interjections obviously do retain some of their original semantics, e.g. as a noun in Ζεῦ, in which it is significant that Zeus is named; a verb in

Prototypical characteristics | 79

ἄγε, in which it is significant that some action is implied; perhaps also a preposition phrase πρὸς θεῶν, again, there is significance in the noun; Preposition phrases are however necessarily understood as elliptic utterances. Secondary interjections may also be formed by “semantically bleached” oaths and invocations, e.g. μὰ τὸν Δία, (I swear) by Zeus, in a sense a lot like the use of taboo words in modern English, e.g. for God’s sake, goddammit or holy shit! Ancient Greek does not always share our modern day views of what may be considered blasphemous, and, notably, sexual language is never used as expressives, as is frequently the case in modern English. Since primary interjections are understood as having certain features, it is assumed that these features are primary as well, and thus native to their semantics; it is also assumed that other lexical items do not necessarily have a share in these features, even if they are used as secondary interjections. Secondary interjections are words which are considered to belong to other groups of lexical items semantically, which in effect ought to exclude them from having any part in defining the semantic features of primary interjections. The aim of this chapter is to draw conclusions on what interjections mean, not what lexical items acting as interjections mean. Therefore, secondary items are excluded from analysis in the present study.

3.4 Prototypical characteristics It became clear in the previous chapter that it is necessary to analyze interjections as three coherent, yet different, groups syntactically. This is also the case concerning their semantics; the three proposed categories require three separate semantic analyses, as well. This is manifested by the labels—expressive, conative and phatic—which are intended to describe the core semantics of each group. The proposed analysis is systematic and hierarchical. Each of the three basic categories is divided into subgroups. The next step in this chapter is to present the typical semantic characteristics of each category before they are examined in detail. This is followed by the analysis and tentative proposal of an informational equivalent for each item. An explicit core meaning of each subgroup is finally presented.

3.4.1 Category 1—expressive interjections The items in category 1 are understood as expressive interjections, i.e. their meaning consists in the speaker’s expression of a certain—cognitive or emo-

80 | Semantics tive—mental state, attitude or reaction. The concept “emotion” is explained with the aid of Reddy’s theory on emotions. Then, each group of items is presented. They fall into four separate groups, expressing surprise (e.g. ἔα), pain and vexation (e.g. φεῦ), lamentation (e.g. αἰαῖ) and joy (e.g. εὐαί).

3.4.2 Category 2—conative interjections The items in category 2 are understood as conative interjections, primarily oriented at what the speaker wants the auditor to do (or not do), thus also containing items that have semantics similar to that of vocatives and imperatives. Therefore, two basic meanings are used to divide the words into groups, expressing call for attention (e.g. ὠή), and exhortation (e.g. εἷα).

3.4.3 Category 3—phatic interjections The items in category 3 are understood as phatic interjections, acting as replies or responses to previous actions, events or utterances. They are thus primarily expressions of the speaker’s mental attitude towards the on-going discourse, and are used in the maintenance of communicative contact. The core semantics of these items is affirmation or assent. There are only three items in the category, which prototypically express agreement (ναί, ἰαῦ) and compliance (εἶἑν).

3.5 Theoretical background The conceptual tools employed in the chapter are the following. Allan’s theory on Primary illocution is used to explain items from all categories on sentence level, and serves as a starting-point for the analysis; this is followed by Ameka’s conceptually based definition of interjections, which is of use for all three categories; Reddy’s theory on emotions and Kaplan’s theory on interjection meaning (semantics) are also used.

3.5.1 Semantics of clause type—Primary illocutions Primary illocution (PI) is the semantics of clause type or corresponding subsentence. Declarative, interrogative, imperative, subjunctive, expressive, exclamative clause types or subsentences are identified through morphosyntactic, lexical, and prosodic form, their

Theoretical background | 81

use in main and subordinate clauses, and behavior under negation. The PI is identified with Speaker’s illocutionary intention in using the clause type/subsentence. This PI is the starting point for Hearer inferring the illocutionary point of (Speaker’s message in) the utterance containing the clause … . (Allan 2006: 270)

According to this view, the declarative performs an act of saying that Φ as its primary illocution. The fact that declaratives (potentially) have truth values is the principal way to positively identify them. A declarative illocution is the primary illocution and not the illocutionary point of an utterance, which is the basic purpose of a speaker making an utterance. The primary illocution of a sentence is thus the inherent semantics of a sentence, which is conveyed in a “normal” utterance. This is what is discussed in the present chapter. Can the primary illocution of the interjection ouch be declarative? Commonly, it is considered impossible to be uttered as a declarative, since it does not make sense to propose that a speaker “says that ‘ouch’”. Ouch could however, potentially, be an interrogative, primarily when it is a repetition of what the interlocutor just said. “Ouch?” = Q[Why did you say “ouch”?] (when not understanding why the interlocutor uttered ouch) or = Q[Did that really hurt?] (when in doubt of the interlocutor’s sincerity in uttering ouch)

However, this first use is not necessarily a repetition, but can also be a wellformed interrogative without a previous utterance of the same word. = Q[Did that hurt?] (after the observation of a potentially painful event) or = *Q[Did you rather mean ouch?] (questioning the correctness of interlocutor’s utterance— “I propose ouch as a more correct expression considering what you just experienced”) (– the “language police”)

Clearly, though, none of these explanations reflect the “normal” meaning of ouch, i.e. the PI of the sentence type it represents. Interjections in category 2 obviously feel at home in the imperative PI, while it seems difficult to utter words in category 1 with an imperative PI. I can think of one possible, however unlikely, situation to imagine: “Ouch!” = “I want this to hurt someone” (“I want this action to make someone say ouch (sincerely)”), resembling a magic formula or an incantation. I[F[This hurts someone.]]

82 | Semantics However, this second clearly comes across as a pragmatic use, rather than say something about the basic semantics of the expression.

3.5.2 Expressives Expressives are not well-formed utterances like the previous declaratives, interrogatives and imperatives, since they lack the properties of a full syntactic unit. Nevertheless, on the semantic level (rather than surface level), it is reasonable to assume that such expressions also have a PI of some sort, as they regularly can occur free-standing as complete utterances. It is clear that such expressives, just like other clause types, can be distinguished on morphosyntactic as well as semantic grounds. Allan continues: [Expressives] are short and usually verbless. Like clauses, they can stand alone in expressing a complete thought [pace Davis 2005148]. They are idioms, often with idiomatic counterparts in other languages. They do not admit passivization or negation. … Their principal function is to display a sometimes perfunctory, sometimes strongly felt emotive reaction or social interaction toward something that has occurred. (Allan 2006: 270)

It seems that expressives are related to formulae, a group which can be explained as a “type of set expression (usually grammatically irregular in form) used for greetings, expressions of anger, thanks, regret, etc.; e.g., How do you do?, Beat it!, Thanks, Too bad.” “Set expressions” are, in turn, described as a “class of invariable or stereotyped collocations”.149 According to Ameka, interjections are a sub-category of formulae, and in Allan’s words, expressives can be described as “brief idiomatic counterparts for ritualized behavior”. There are also certain characteristics that separate expressives from formulae. According to Allan, expressives do not have truth values, make requests, direct or entreat, which makes them neither declarative, interrogative or imperative. It is difficult to tell whether the PI of formulae with visible predicates is obvious or coded. It seems that formulae primarily serve to express certain illocutionary points, and are far from the PIs of their expression. There are formu-

|| 148 Davis (2005: 142): “I have offered interjections as clear exceptions to the rule that meaning consists in the expression of ideas. For example, ‘Ouch!’ does not express a thought or part of a thought. It makes no sense to say that someone is thinking the thought ‘Ouch!’ … Paratactic compounds like ‘Ouch! That hurts’ do express thoughts, but only because the other component does.” 149 ELL s.v. “formula” and “set expression”.

Theoretical background | 83

lae for expressing a declarative, Too bad., a request Please? (= “Can I have that?”), or an imperative, Beat it!. These three expressions obviously have another PI than their illocutionary point, which is parallel to how secondary interjections operate. As for expressive primary interjections, then, it seems that their PI belongs among expressives.

3.5.3 Expressives and exclamatives At all times, we are communicating information about our emotional state, attitudes, and evaluations of whatever we are currently confronting. (Lieberman 2000: 111)

If such a statement is true, it follows that, to a certain extent, it seems pointless to talk about a particular “emotive” mode of expression, since we always in some way express emotion (or lack thereof), in spoken language as well as nonverbal communication. We therefore need to pay special attention to what an “exclamation” really is—for example, it seems uncontroversial to claim that the major clause types can be used exclamatively. I am of course fully aware that some of these occur more often than others, but nevertheless it seems impossible to compare the clause type exclamation on the same level as the other three. Rather, the exclamative sentence type seems to be a form of mode, which is applicable to the other sentence types. As expected, Allan does not consider exclamatives a clause type in its own right. Instead they are considered to occur within the other clause types. Exclamatives are all prosodically marked by exaggerated acoustic intensity (wide-ranging peaks and troughs) that is indicated orthographically by an exclamation mark, “!”, and there is lexical marking of some declarative exclamatives by clause initial “how” and “what” immediately followed by the preposed clause constituent in the focus of exclamation (“What a bloody whiner he was!” “How she hated it!”). Speaker expresses within Φ a forcible, emphatic, or vehement point of approbation, delight, pleasure, pain, surprise, anger, irritation, etc.; the reflexive-intention is to focus Hearer’s attention on a part of what is being said in Φ as being of particular importance in the context of the communication in progress; but this is just a modification on the PI of the governing clause type. (Allan 2006: 270)

Thus, if category 1 interjections are to be understood as being exclamatives, it is necessary that they are in fact elliptical. Since exclamatives are considered to occur only within another PI, they would then be elliptical of a “governing” PI. This statement stands in clear conflict with Ameka’s dictum of interjections as non-elliptical. However, Ameka may only mean syntactically elliptical, e.g. of a

84 | Semantics verb, pronoun or noun, whereas Allan means semantically elliptical, i.e. of another PI. I follow the theory that interjections of all three categories in their core semantics belong in a certain clause type on sentence level, i.e. have a certain PI, e.g. the expressive ἀτταταῖ ouch, the conative εἷα come on, and the phatic ναί yes. It does also seem necessary for some interjections to have exclamative force as an inherent property. It seems “ungrammatical” to utter ἰοὺ ἰού or ἰώ without exclamative force. A typical ouch, associated with sudden physical pain, is thus regarded as an expressive exclamative. An unmarked, non-exclamative ouch, rather associated with mental, often sympathetic pain, can tentatively be provided truth values. This last example is however understood as having another illocutionary point, i.e. the declarative. If the illocutionary point of such an utterance is declarative, the interjection is understood as being used figuratively and will be considered to have other semantic properties, i.e. in being used in some alternative way to the “proper” use. Are category 1 interjections expressives according to Allan’s definition? Perhaps only if they are free-standing occurrences, ungoverned by another clause with a superior PI; otherwise they could be considered exclamatives, and relate to something which has occurred—not to an event in the future. Therefore, I suggest the PI of interjections in category 1 to be expressive. The PI of interjections in category 2 seems to be the imperative. The interjections in category 3 have, as previously noted, more similarities with statements. I therefore suggest that the PI for these items is the declarative. In conclusion, it seems that Allan’s theory is able to cover the class of interjections as it is understood in the present study, and the theory of PI is essential to explain the behaviour on sentence level of the interjections in all three categories.

3.5.4 The semantics of interjections—Ameka Ameka first defines the formal criteria for belonging to the interjection class. Next, when dealing with semantics, he finds that the formal definition is too broad, and thus narrows down the potential members in the group according to the following criteria: “Interjections are relatively conventionalised vocal ges-

Theoretical background | 85

tures (or more generally, linguistic gestures) which express a speaker’s mental state, action or attitude or reaction to a situation”.150 Since I have chosen to apply a theory-driven method, which in practice means that I employ a model with three semantically based categories, the related items previously mentioned (in 1.6.4) are thus excluded from the study. This includes onomatopoeia and oaths. In the “classification” at the end of his article, Ameka bases his view on what he perceives to be “the predominant function of the item in question with respect to its semantics.”, which leads to the division into three groups of items.151 He starts out with “expressive interjections”. Expressive interjections may be characterised as the vocal gestures which are symptoms of the speaker’s mental state. They may be subdivided into two groups: the emotive and the cognitive. The emotive ones are those that express the speaker’s state with respect to the emotions and sensations they have at the time. For example, Yuk! “I feel disgust”; Wow! “I am surprised”; Ouch! “I feel pain”; Ugh! “I feel disgust” (see Wierzbicka 1992). Cognitive interjections are those that pertain to the state of knowledge and thoughts at the time of the utterance. Examples include Aha! “I now know this”; (Ewe) ehê! “I now remember”. (Ameka 1992a: 113)

The group of items covered by this description thus constitutes what I have labeled category 1. The following class, “conative interjections”, in turn coincides with category 2: Conative interjections are those expressions which are directed at an auditor. They are either aimed at getting someone’s attention or they demand an action or response from someone of a speaker’s wants. “The aim of conation”, as Isačenko (1964: 91) points out, “is to provoke a reaction on the part of the listener”. For instance, sh! “I want silence here”; eh? “I want to know something”; Russian a’u which is used to keep contact with people and Australian English cooee which is used to locate people in the bush. Calls to animals etc. also belong here as conative interjections (see e.g. Bynon 1976 and Ameka (1992[b]). (Ameka 1992a: 113–114)

Finally, Ameka presents a third class, “phatic interjections”. Phatic interjections are used in the establishment and maintenance of communicative contact. A variety of conventional vocalisations which expresss [sic] a speaker’s mental attitude towards the on-going discourse, that is backchanneling or feedback signalling vocalisations, may be classified as phatic. For example, mhm, uh-huh, yeah. Included in this class are interjections used in the performance of various interactional routines. For ex|| 150 Ameka (1992a: 106). 151 Ameka (1992a: 114).

86 | Semantics ample, there are interjections (as opposed to formulae) for greeting, farewelling and welcoming people (see Ameka 1992 on the use of atúù! in the languages of southern Ghana, and also Evans 1992). (Ameka 1992a: 114)

Since such “conventional vocalisations” undeniably abound in spoken language, it is reasonable that they are assigned a prominent place in a classification which aspires to universality. However, the Ancient Greek material only provides us with a small number of primary items in this category.

3.5.5 Are interjections words or sentences? In the ELL article on interjections, Ameka discusses if interjections are to be considered words or sentences: “The grammarian is unsure as to whether [interjections] are words or sentences. … The semanticist or lexicographer does not seem to have an adequate means of dealing with lexemes, which both predicate and refer, as interjections do by virtue of being utterances.”152 In linguistic semantics, the predicate is an expression, normally part of a proposition, that can be true of something, and regularly consists of a verb. A predicate in formal logic also includes examples such as nouns and certain adjectives. Do interjections have two basic speech acts, i.e., do interjections refer as well as predicate? It seems that interjections in category 1 refer and predicate (i.e. describe or relate) the experience of a speaker in the place of nouns, adjectives and verbs. Furthermore, the expression of ouch and damn do not have the same meaning when uttered by someone who, e.g., hits herself on the thumb. This also points in the direction that these words refer; you might tentatively say that ouch primarily predicates the speaker’s experience of pain, while damn predicates the speaker’s experience of anger or vexation. Thus, both expressions predicate an experience, of pain and anger respectively. It is clear that interjections often may be replaced by a verbal expression; the exclamative element may have made earlier theories blind to the idea that these expressions actually may consist of two parts, one expressive and one exclamative (as argued by Allan; cf. Kaplan below).

|| 152 Ameka (2006: 746).

Theoretical background | 87

3.5.6 The semantics of interjections—Kaplan The task for a semantic theory is to give us a scientific description of the semantics of the object language—not to reproduce it, not to give synonyms, not to provide equivalent means of expression, but to describe it from above.—This is the heart of my claim: that there is a real difference between rules of use and rules of meaning.153

Kaplan operates in what he labels an anti-formalist tradition and declares, with Wittgenstein, that “meaning is use”.154 He loosely defines semantics as the “conventionalized information carried by the expressions of [a] language”, which, he continues, is “ignored largely by those who work in a formalist tradition”. He supplies what he calls the most important question at the outset to be “what are the conditions, under which the expression would be correctly or accurately used?” The two main instruments he employs for his analysis are descriptives and expressives, descriptives being utterances which carry descriptive content and are considered descriptively correct if what they describe is the case. Expressives, in turn, are utterances which carry expressive content and are considered descriptively correct if what they express or display is the case. He continues: “In the case of an expression that has both descriptive and expressive elements, we would say that the sentence is true only if it is both descriptively correct and expressively correct.” It is mentioned that an expressive is not necessarily sincere, which probably is the closest these expressions get to lying. The sentence “Alas, Kaplan was promoted” would therefore be possible to consider true (when uttered by a particular person) “only if Kaplan was promoted and the person who spoke did have a derogatory attitude toward him (or him being promoted)”. What kind of analysis does Kaplan give for ouch? “The rule for ouch is reasonably simple, that the speaker has just experienced probably a sudden and sharp pain”. Kaplan goes on to claim that ouch is an expressive that is used to express that the agent is in pain, and “the semantic information in the word ouch is represented by the set of those contexts at which the word ouch is expressively correct, namely the set of those contexts at which the agent is in pain.

|| 153 As I have not been able to acquire the unpublished manuscript with Kaplan’s theory, commonly referred to as Kaplan (1997) “What is meaning? Explorations in the theory of meaning as use”, I use a lecture as source material: Kaplan (2004). Cf. the critique in Kratzer (1999). 154 I believe that this is going too far—which I also explain with the theory of core meaning: there is in fact meaning, irrespective of use.

88 | Semantics That set of contexts represents the semantic information contained in the word ouch.” Ouch, he continues, “is a single word, an interjection, an expressive, it lacks a truth-value and does not syntactically combine with other expressions in ways in which sentences do”, whereas I am in pain “is a sentence, it has a truth-value and it does combine in all the old familiar ways, with negation and conditionalization and so on.” Kaplan understands the relation between these two expressions as informational equivalence, i.e. as conveying the same information, but through different modes of expression. These differences are in turn considered to be syntactical rather than semantical. An important distinction between semantics and pragmatics is pointed out, when it is emphasized that “it is the semantic information in the expressions that we’re talking about, not something that can be derived from the fact that someone has uttered such an expression.” Further on, Kaplan claims “that oops is an expressive, and that it expresses the fact that the agent has just observed a minor mishap”, so using Kaplan’s own terminology, oops has the expressive content I have just observed a minor mishap, and is expressively correct only if the speaker has just done this. The two expressions are thus informationally equivalent. In explaining the nature of what a minor mishap is, Kaplan characterizes the unlikely case of someone using the word oops after causing a whole building to collapse, killing hundreds of people, as “a macabre joke, by playing on the literal meaning of oops”—“an utterance of oops in the face of a true disaster, is expressively incorrect.”155 An important difference between ouch and oops is pointed out, viz. that the utterance of oops is necessarily based on the speaker’s perception of an external event, whereas ouch is based on the speaker’s subjective experience. In uttering oops, you may be “sincere, but mistaken, in the thought that you expressed”, if, in fact, a minor mishap never occurred. This, in turn, leads to the conclusion that an expressive can express a state that is not attitudinal at all. This cannot be the case concerning ouch, since an expressively correct expression of this word necessarily entails an experience of pain—the speaker must have “privileged access to the state of affairs which must obtain”. This gives us two further terms, subjective and objective. Expressives, that express no more than a state of the speaker, are called subjective, while expressives, that express more than that, are called objective. Thus, ouch is a subjective, expressing something about the state of the speaker, whereas oops is an objective, expressing something about the nature of || 155 Such “paratragic” use is also a good place to look for plays on the literal meaning of interjections.

Theoretical background | 89

the external world. And, oops does not necessarily have anything to do with attitudinal information. In the case of the utterance of boo and hurrah Kaplan asserts that “you’re simply expressing something subjective”, without making any kind of evaluative remark. To sum up, according to Kaplan, the semantic information of an expressive interjection can, e.g., be that someone is in pain, while the mode of expression can be either descriptive or expressive. To form a successful utterance, an expressive needs to have expressive content and be expressively correct. It is also important that the use is sincere, since “insincerity is always the failure to believe that the expression used is informationally correct; the failure to believe true what the expressive content is, or what the descriptive content is”. In his conclusions Kaplan emphasizes the fact that there is no correlation between subjective-objective on the one hand, and descriptive-expressive on the other. In oops, the information is objective, but the word is an expressive; similarly the semantic, subjective information contained in hurrah may also be contained in the objective descriptive I am in a state of joyful elation. If I claim that every interjection indeed has a core meaning, before I try to determine what this may be, I need to specify what kind of meaning it can be. If one follows Kaplan’s theory on expressives, words of this kind cannot be considered to have meaning, at least not “Meaning with a capital M”, as he says; rather, it is possible to speak about a certain meaning which seems to apply exclusively to expressives. Kaplan chose to call this expressive meaning (EM).

3.5.7 Emotion theory 3.5.7.1 Reddy I have found it necessary to problematize the use of generic emotion terms, not just since they are language and culture specific, but also since the very concept of “emotion” is difficult to define properly. Therefore, I have used the comprehensive study by Reddy to aid my definition of this matter. The goal-relevant “valence” of emotions and their goal-relevant “intensity” reflect the fact that deeply integrated goals are themselves sustained by overlearned cognitive habits which the individual has little or no capacity to evaluate or change, at least in the short run. (Reddy 2001: 25) The emotional lexicon of English and most other European languages may be regarded as a code for talking about the kinds of thought activations that characterize the disaggregated self. The Western concept of emotion represents a well-developed method for talk-

90 | Semantics ing about the complex multipathway activations that are an omnipresent aspect of waking life. Such activations spread well beyond the capacity of attention. (Reddy 2001: 96)

Reddy defines emotions as “goal-relevant activations of thought material that exceed the translating capacity of attention within a short time horizon.”156 And, according to his general theory, “emotives”, which is his label for “first-person, present tense emotion claims”, are capable of depicting, changing, building, hiding and intensifying emotions.157 I tentatively consider expressive interjections as partly equivalent to such “emotives”, hence having the property of being expressive of emotive content, as well as describing and provoking such content. Reddy continues to state that emotives are a “type of speech act different from both performative and constative utterances, which both describes … and changes … the world, because emotional expression has an exploratory and a self-altering effect on the activated thought material of emotion.”158 It is necessary to point out, that there is a significant difference between emotions and expressive interjections; emotions are what people experience, while the interjections serve as a means to communicate these. However, expressive interjections often mark the particular moment, when the emotion is experienced most intensely, and therefore the two may be confused. Reddy’s definition of emotions also points in the direction that interjections expressing emotions are not proper speech, but rather a physical symptom, a manifestation of emotion. However, since they are conventionalized and frequently used in the otherwise strictly held form of tragic drama, I find it reasonable to deem interjections a part of language. What emotions are expressed by expressive interjections? Did the Greeks in Antiquity have another set of emotions than we do today?159 Aristotle’s list of

|| 156 Reddy (2001: 128). 157 Reddy (2001: 105). This serves to explain the generally extraneous quality of interjections (especially in category 1), i.e. (1) why they habitually hold an initial position, and (2) why they are relatively external to syntax. Consequently, figurative and, to some extent, voluntary (or conscious) uses should be regarded as pragmatic, rather than semantic features. 158 Reddy (2001: 105): “Emotives are translations into words about, into ‘descriptions’ of, the ongoing translation tasks that currently occupy attention as well as of the other such tasks that remain in the queue, overflowing its current capacities. Emotives are influenced directly by, and alter, what they ‘refer’ to. Thus, emotives are similar to performatives (and differ from constatives) in that emotives do things to the world.” 159 For this question, and other work on emotions in Antiquity, see Lutz and White (1986), Konstan and Rutter (2003), Braund and Most (2003), Kaster (2005) and Rosenwein (2006). Rosenwein asserts that emotional paradigms change slowly over time, and that the ancients

Theoretical background | 91

emotions, used by Konstan (2006), seems to focus only on a selection of emotions (anger, shame, envy and indignation, fear, grief and pity), leaving out others, such as surprise, joy, etc., which we would find indispensable. It is necessary, therefore, to take into account a more general view on which emotions are likely to be found. It is also necessary to take into account the cognitive interjections, “those that pertain to the state of knowledge and thoughts at the time of utterance.”160 In order to attain this goal, I have tentatively used Ekman’s proposed “basic” emotions: amusement, anger, contempt, contentment, disgust, embarassment, excitement, fear, guilt, pride in achievement, relief, sadness/distress, satisfaction, sensory pleasure, and shame.161 The experience covered by Ameka’s notion of cognition is not found in Ekman’s list. I propose surprise to cover this sensation. Moreover, I have found it necessary to add pain and vexation, since they seem to belong somewhere between emotion and cognition. The following definitions, which are used for the informational equivalents, are taken from the OED.162 I am aware of Reddy’s reservation, that simple emotion labels are oversimplifications, but they are still of practical use, especially in the making of a lexicon.

3.5.7.2 Definitions of emotion terms ANGER: The active feeling provoked against the agent (as opposed to “That which pains or afflicts, or the passive feeling which it produces”); passion, rage; wrath, ire, hot displeasure. DISGUST: 1. Strong distaste or disrelish for food in general, or for any particular kind or dish of food; sickening physical disinclination to partake of food, drink, || experienced emotions that we in our time are unable to understand, e.g. positive envy and a special kind of disgust. 160 Ameka (1992a: 113). 161 Ekman (1999: 55). On the same page, Ekman introduces the label emotion families, which is described thus: “Each emotion is not a single affective state but a family of related states. … Put in other terms, each emotion family can be considered to constitute a theme and variations. The theme is composed of the characteristics unique to that family, the variations on that theme are the product of individual differences, and differences in the specific occasion in which an emotion occurs. The themes are the product of evolution, while the variations reflect learning.” Another important caveat is that the speaker need not necessarily be aware of what emotion he/she is experiencing, and not the addressee or auditor either. Verbal reports are therefore often inaccurate, also because several emotions may be experienced at once. 162 I have chosen to retain the numbering from the OED, for better transparency.

92 | Semantics medicine, etc.; nausea, loathing. 2. Strong repugnance, aversion, or repulsion excited by that which is loathsome or offensive, as a foul smell, disagreeable person or action, disappointed ambition, etc.; profound instinctive dislike or dissatisfaction. ENJOYMENT: 1. The action or state of deriving gratification from an object. 2. Gratification, pleasure. Enjoyment also includes happiness 2: The state of pleasurable content of mind, which results from success or the attainment of what is considered good, and joy 1.a.: A vivid emotion of pleasure arising from a sense of well-being or satisfaction; the feeling or state of being highly pleased or delighted; exultation of spirit; gladness, delight. 2. A pleasurable state or condition; a state of happiness or felicity.163 FEAR: 2.a. The emotion of pain or uneasiness caused by the sense of impending danger, or by the prospect of some possible evil. Fear also includes anxiety 1.: The quality or state of being anxious; uneasiness or trouble of mind about some uncertain event; solicitude, concern. “Anxious” also includes: being in painful or disturbing suspense. PAIN: 3.a. Physical or bodily suffering; a continuous, strongly unpleasant or agonizing sensation in the body (usually in a particular part), such as arises from illness, injury, harmful physical contact, etc. SADNESS: II.7.a. Sorrow, mournfulness. Sadness also includes pity I.2.b.: Tenderness and concern aroused by the suffering, distress, or misfortune of another, and prompting a desire for its relief; compassion, sympathy, and grief 7.a: Mental pain, distress, or sorrow. In mod. use in a more limited sense: Deep or violent sorrow, caused by loss or trouble; a keen or bitter feeling of regret for something lost, remorse for something done, or sorrow for mishap to oneself or others. SURPRISE: 3.a. Something that takes one by surprise; an unexpected occurrence or event; anything unexpected or astonishing. 4. The feeling or emotion excited by something unexpected, or for which one is unprepared.

|| 163 Halliwell (2008: 8): “The strongest laughter, in fact, is a physically arresting occurrence. It possesses a convulsiveness which takes over the person and defies restraint”.

Semantics—Category 1 | 93

VEXATION: 3.a.: The state or fact of being mentally troubled or distressed, in later use esp. by something causing annoyance, irritation, dissatisfaction, or disappointment.

3.6 Semantics—Category 1 This section is devoted to the study of the most common words sorting under the heading “interjections”, i.e. the expressive interjections. By sorting out the most salient sense of each word, I have found that the material falls into four main subcategories. Notice that this classification draws broad strokes, and that individual uses of words may vary a great deal. A common property for the expressive interjections is that they relate to the expression of emotion or cognition. This results in the conclusion that a vital part of the semantics of expressive interjections is that they are uttered either in reaction to some event, or to declare the mental state or attitude of the speaker. This is also in accordance with Ameka’s definition. Following the criteria set up by Kaplan, I claim that all expressive interjections in a particular group have a common core meaning, while the individual items in each group can be assigned individual informational equivalents, IEs. The IE of each item will in the ideal case be equivalent to the expressive content of it, and is expressively correct only if the speaker truly is experiencing the emotion or cognition in question at the time of the utterance.164

3.6.1 Explicit semantic analysis Interjections in cat. 1 contain an EXPERIENCER165 of a mental state and are indexical, referring to the speaker him- or herself. This reference may be explicitly mentioned, as in the example below, with μοι and ἐγὼ. The utterance itself emphasizes the time of utterance as especially relevant, which is marked by now. The SOURCE (or CAUSE) of the experience can be marked by a Noun Phrase in || 164 When the item is placed in a specific context of utterance it is also possible to determine whether the speaker is sincere in uttering the word, or if it rather is an insincere use. This is also the closest expressive interjections come to having proper truth conditions, viz. if they are expressively correct as well as sincerely uttered. See further discussion in the pragmatics chapter. 165 “Experiencer—the entity which receives or accepts, or experiences, or undergoes the effect of an action”. Fillmore (1971: 376).

94 | Semantics the genitive case. It is unnecessary to understand a following vocative as a PATIENT, since vocatives are semantically independent units. In the following example it is merely coincidental that SOURCE and (tentative) THEME share the same referent (S. Tr. 971): οἴμοι ἐγὼ Alas

σοῦ, πάτερ for you father! EXPERIENCER SOURCE (THEME)

Core meaning for all items in category 1, expressed with the aid of semantic roles: NowTIME speaker is EXPERIENCER of a mental state because of SOURCE

The general principle I follow is that the items convey various emotive or cognitive content. More explicitly, I propose that the core semantics of the items consists of an experience of such emotive or cognitive content, and that the material can be divided into four groups, each containing items with similar or related meaning. The label for each group acts as a kind of umbrella-term encompassing all individual items in each group. With the aid of the notion of information equivalence suggested by Kaplan, which, roughly, is a periphrastic description of the semantic content, the items in category 1 may be specified on the individual level, which is done in the word-level analysis. I will also discuss to what extent the behavior of certain items can be explained as due to homonymy or polysemy. The task of the following analysis is to fill out the details of each word in the group, i.e. their emotive and/or cognitive content. Since I have already given a general analysis of the words in the category in total, the following study therefore aims at providing an informational equivalent for each word, which specifies what needs to be the case for the item to be expressively correct. The IE will also help to distinguish the items from each other, if possible. There is also a set of words that do not easily fit into the categories for certain reasons: there may be too few examples, the source material may be weak, they may only occur in combinations etc. Also, since this category contains the majority of all interjections, we find quite a few hapax legomena, rare and special occurrences which require special treatment.

Semantics—Category 1 | 95

Tab. 4: Category 1. Expressive interjections IntPs Surprise

231

Pain and vexation

645

Lamentation

551

Joy

18

Hapax legomena

6

Rare and special cases

27

Only in combinations

18

Total

1496

3.6.2 Interjections expressive of surprise Interjections expressive of surprise or amazement are few in numbers, but fairly common in occurrences with 231 total IntPs. Since surprise is such a common feature generally among the expressive interjections, I find it appropriate to deal with these items first. The items in this category do not have any definite emotive content, but rather can be expressive of an unspecified, perhaps strongly felt emotion, always in combination with a cognitive element, for example at the sudden discovery of something. They are similar to two interjections in modern English, ah and oh, which are very generous as regards their semantic content.166 Therefore I have deemed it right to place their Ancient Greek counterparts ἆ and ὤ here, as well. The figures in the table refer to the total number of occurrences, followed by the occurrences in each author.

|| 166 OED s.v. “ah, int. and n.”: “Expressing entreaty, appeal, or remonstrance … sorrow, distress or regret … resignation or exasperation … dislike, aversion, or contempt … mockery or satisfaction at another’s misfortune … pleasure, surprise, wonder, or admiration … opposition or objection … realization, discovery, or inspiration … hesitation, inarticulacy”. OED s.v. “oh, int. and n.1”: “Expressing (according to intonation) surprise, frustration, discomfort, longing, disappointment, sorrow, relief, hesitation, etc.”

96 | Semantics Tab. 5: Interjections expressive of surprise Lemma

IntPs

Aeschylus

Sophocles

Euripides

Aristophanes

ἆ

42

8

8

21

5

αἰβοῖ

16

0

0

0

16

βαβαί

10

0

0

1

9

ἔα

62

5

4

44

9

ὤ

101

5

27

10

59

Total

231

18

39

76

98

3.6.2.1 ἆ—a ἆ is extant in all four authors, with eight occurrences in Aeschylus, eight in Sophocles, 21 in Euripides and 5 in Aristophanes. As with its o-based counterpart ὤ, ἆ is a semantically wide-ranging interjection. Sandin (A. Supp. 162) gives an overview, and makes a distinction between single ἆ and double ἆ ἆ: ἆ Ζήν, Ἰοῦς, ἰώ: a sort of quasi-etymological word-play is suggested by the chiastic arrangement of names and interjections similar to each other, which make Bamberger’s Ζάν attractive. … In Homer ἆ always expresses pity (albeit sometimes condescending and hypocritical), invariably appearing in the formula ἆ δειλοί (δειλέ etc.). Later the interjection conveys a broader range of emotions, but here pity appears to be intended with Io as the victim of Hera’s wrath. Note 328: See Sandin (2002) 149 for examples of compassionate ἆ after Homer. ἆ ἆ is a different case, expressing alarm, pain, or protest (to be distinguished from ἃ ἅ, laughter in E. Cyc. 157 and perhaps in Ba. 586, 596: see LSJ, Hsch. α 2). This may also be expressed by ἆ μή (on which see Barrett on E. Hipp. 503–4). (Sandin 2005)

Garvie (A. Ch. 1048) notes that the double ἆ ἆ marks “the onset of Orestes’ madness and his first sight of the Erinyes”. He continues: “The sound probably represents an intake of breath, a gasp of astonishment”, but notes that ἆ or ἆ ἆ more often “expresses a protest or reproof”. Parker (on E. Alc. 28) notes that the ἆ ἆ, ἔα ἔα at A. PV 114 “seems merely to express surprise”, while Griffith (A. PV 167) claims that “[i]f ἆ δᾶ is right, it is probably no more than an expression of terror”. ἆ Ζῆν, Ἰοῦς, † ἰώ μῆνις μάστειρ’ † ἐκ θεῶν. [CHORUS] Ah, Zeus! Ió, the divine wrath that hunted Io! A. Supp. 162

Semantics—Category 1 | 97

Ορ. ἆ ἆ δμοιαὶ γυναῖκες αἵδε Γοργόνων δίκην φαιοχίτωνες καὶ πεπλεκτανημέναι πυκνοῖς δράκουσιν· οὐκέτ’ ἂν μείναιμ’ ἐγώ. ORESTES [in sudden and intense terror] Ah, ah! I see the hideous women looking like Gorgons—clad in dark-grey tunics and thickly wreathed with serpents! I can’t stay here! A. Ch. 1048

The passages in Oedipus Rex (1147) and Philoctetes (1300) are often cited for their use in reproof. The presence of μή, which is used no less than three times in the example from Philoctetes, seems to be crucial for this use. Θε. οὐκ εἰς ὄλεθρον; οὐ σιωπήσας ἔσῃ; Οι. ἆ, μὴ κόλαζε, πρέσβυ, τόνδ’, ἐπεὶ τὰ σὰ δεῖται κολαστοῦ μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ τοῦδ’ ἔπη. SHEPHERD A plague on you! Will you not be silent? OEDIPUS No, do not strike him, old man! Your words deserve a blow more than his do. S. OT 1147 Νε. ἆ, μηδαμῶς, μή, πρὸς θεῶν, μὴ ’φῇς βέλος. NEOPTOLEMOS Ah, do not, I beg you, shoot the arrow! S. Ph. 1300

The Philoctetes also shows examples of ἆ uttered four times, in cries of pain. Neoptolemus’ following question, however, shows that the message conveyed by ἆ ἆ ἆ ἆ is not perfectly clear to him. Φι. ἆ ἆ ἆ ἆ. Νε. τί ἔστιν; Φι. οὐδὲν δεινόν. ἀλλ’ ἴθ’, ὦ τέκνον. PHILOCTETES Ah, ah, ah, ah! NEOPTOLEMUS What is the matter? PHILOCTETES Nothing grave. Come, my son! S. Ph. 732

Seaford (E. Cyc. 157) states that ἆ can express “different emotions”, while his present triple occurrence, “because a rarity, may be a subtle expression of the anarchy of Sil[enus]’s joy.” Σι. βαβαί· χορεῦσαι παρακαλεῖ μ’ ὁ Βάκχιος. ἆ ἆ ἆ. SILENUS Oo la la! Bacchus invites me to the dance! Tra la, tra la, tra la! E. Cyc. 157

98 | Semantics Parker (E. Alc. 28) calls the double occurrence ἆ ἆ “a tragic cry of surprise, often accompanied by pain, or (as here) anger.” Mastronarde (E. Med. 1056) describes ἆ ἆ as “an exclamation often expressive of surprise or distress, sometimes in proximity to an implied or actual prohibition”. Barrett (E. Hipp. 503– 504) calls ἆ “a sharp cry of protest, commonly followed by a prohibition with μή … or by some equivalent injunction or remonstrance”, and also notes that it contains a “tone of urgency”. Bond (E. Her. 629) sees a similarity between ἆ and ἔα, noting that “ἆ draws attention to the son’s behaviour with astonishment, like ἔα”. Kannicht (E. Hel. 445) says that ἆ can express either “körperliche oder seelische Schmerzempfindung [physical or mental sensation of pain]” like αἰαῖ, or “Erstaunen … oder Protest [astonishment … or Protest]”, like ἔα. ΘΑΝΑΤΟΣ ἆ ἆ· τί σὺ πρὸς μελάθροις; τί σὺ τῆιδε πολεῖς, Φοῖβ’; DEATH Ah! What are you doing at the palace? Why do you loiter about here, Phoebus? E. Alc. 28

Dodds’ comment on Bacchae 810–812 is frequently referred to by other commentators. Pentheus has broken off negotiations and turned to leave the stage when the Stranger recalls him with ἆ. This can hardly, like Eng. “Ah!” signify resignation. It can be the gasp of astonishment (cf. 586, 596) or a groan of pain (Rhes. 799); but often it expresses urgent protest, “Stop!”: … . This seems to be its force here … . Πε. ἐκφέρετέ μοι δεῦρ’ ὅπλα, σὺ δὲ παῦσαι λέγων. Δι. ἆ· βούληι σφ’ ἐν ὄρεσι συγκαθημένας ἰδεῖν; PENTHEUS Servants, my armor from the palace! And you, shut your mouth! DIONYSUS (with imperious authority, counterdemanding Pentheus’ orders) Stop! Do you want to see them sitting together on the mountains? E. Ba. 810

It seems likely, however, that Dionysus’ ἆ could be an expression of him coming to think of something, and using this to turn Pentheus’ attention to something other than he had planned. In comedy, MacDowell (Ar. V. 1379) calls ἆ “a cry of protest”; the passage is also commented on by Parker (on E. Alc. 28): “Philocleon reacts with surprise and rage in tragic style to Bdelycleon’s attempt to remove the flute-girl”. Austin and Olson (Ar. Th. 689) seem to follow MacDowell’s view, labeling ἆ ἆ a “sharp,

Semantics—Category 1 | 99

inarticulate cry of protest”. Dover (Ar. Ra. 759) claims that ἆ “normally implies ‘Stop!’, ‘Don’t . . .!’, but cf. A. Ag. 1085–1087 ‘Apollo, Apollo! . . . ἆ, where have you brought me?’ and A. Supp. 162 ἆ Ζεῦ in an anguished appeal.” Φι. ἆ ἆ, τί μέλλεις δρᾶν; LOVECLEON Hey, hey, what do you think you’re doing? Ar. V. 1379 Μι. ἆ ἆ· ποῖ σὺ φεύγεις; οὗτος οὗτος, οὐ μενεῖς; τάλαιν’ ἐγώ, τάλαινα, καὶ τὸ παιδίον ἐξαρπάσας μοι φροῦδος ἀπὸ τοῦ τιτθίου. MICA Hey! Hey! Where do you think you’re going? Stop, you! Stop, won’t you? Good grief, oh my, he’s even gone and snatched my baby right from the tit! Ar. Th. 689 [Ξα.] … καί μοι φράσον πρὸς Διός, ὃς ἡμῖν ἐστιν ὁμομαστιγίας, τίς οὗτος οὕνδον ἐστὶ θόρυβος καὶ βοὴ χὠ λοιδορησμός; Οι. Αἰσχύλου κεὐριπίδου. Ξα. ἆ. [XANTHIAS] (sounds of wrangling are heard inside) Now tell me, by Zeus, our mutual god of floggings, what’s all this commotion and yelling and name-calling inside the palace? SLAVE It’s Aeschylus and Euripides. XANTHIAS Aha. Ar. Ra. 759

Stevens sums up the situation in his commentary on Euripides’ Andromache 1076: ἆ ἆ: perhaps we should not try to pin down too precisely the force of this exclamation, but it is a fact of usage in drama that ἆ four times repeated is used to indicate distress in S. Ph. 732, 739 and [E.] Rh. 749, whereas a single or double ἆ almost always, as here, expresses a protest or at least remonstrance, and is generally followed by a prohibition or indignant question. … So also in four paratragic passages in Aristophanes. … The schol. on Ar. Pl. 127 calls it ἐπίρρημα ἐκπλήξεως, but the only passages where this seems correct are Ba. 586 and 596 and possibly A. Ch. 1046, though there is protest as well as horror in the cry of Orestes.

It appears that the wide range of interpretations of ἆ points at a very general core meaning. The single ἆ and double ἆ ἆ denote the sensation of noticing and disliking something that is obviously happening, thus forming a blend of cognitive and emotive content; the speaker is surprised at something that s/he dis-

100 | Semantics likes. Very often, ἆ seems to be used secondarily as a category 2 item, denoting a command, or rather a prohibition. The emotive core meaning of ἆ is of dislike. The triple occurrence of ἆ is a hapax legomenon and perhaps ought to find its place in that section; the quadruple occurrences seem to denote a strong sensation of pain. However, they are not as clear as other items expressing pain, e.g. ἀτταταῖ and παπαῖ (see 3.6.3.1 and 3.6.3.4 below). It is therefore reasonable to include these occurrences here, as well. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am surprised (and I dislike what I notice)]

3.6.2.2 αἰβοῖ—aiboi αἰβοῖ is a remarkable word, since its meaning seems to point in such a wide variety of directions. All 16 occurrences are found in Aristophanes. Platnauer calls it “an expression of incredulity” (Ar. Pax 544–546), while Dover says that it “expresses disgust … even nausea” (Ar. Nu. 102). Olson (Ar. Pax) labels it a “spontaneous cry, here of horror and despair” (15), a “spontaneous cry of joy” (1066) and “an expression of disgusted recognition” (1291–1294), while Dunbar (Ar. Av.) says that it “nearly always expresses disgust” (610), but that it also “expresses revulsion at the reference to defecation and the blackmailing intention involved” (1055) and “not disgust or displeasure but agreeable excitement” (1343). Δι. αἰβοῖ. Αμ. τί ἐστιν; Δι. οὐκ ἀρέσκουσίν μ’, ὅτι ὄζουσι πίττης καὶ παρασκευῆς νεῶν. DICAEOPOLIS Yuk! AMPHITHEUS What’s the matter? DICAEOPOLIS I don’t like this one. It stinks of pitch and battleship construction. Ar. Ach. 189–190 Φε. αἰβοῖ· τί ληρεῖς;

PHIDIPPIDES Psh, what’s this drivel?

Ar. Nu. 829

Ευ. αἰβοῖ, πολλῷ κρείττους οὗτοι τοῦ Διὸς ἡμῖν βασιλεύειν.

EUELPIDES Dammit, these birds are far better kings for us than Zeus!

Ar. Av. 610

Πα. αἰβοῖ· οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν τοῦ πέτεσθαι γλυκύτερον·

Semantics—Category 1 | 101

FATHER BEATER Hi ho! Nothing’s as much fun as flying!

Ar. Av. 1342

MacDowell (Ar. V. 37) summarizes the situation: This exclamation is used to express a number of different emotions, which seem to have no common factor except surprise: disgust at a bad smell (here, Akh. 189, Peace 15), other kinds of disgust (1338) sometimes inducing nausea (Clouds 906), dismay or annoyance (973, Knights 957, Clouds 102, 829, Peace 544, 1291, Birds 1055), the surprise of one favourably impressed (Birds 610), and even pleasurable anticipation (Birds 1342; this instance has not even the element of surprise in common with the others).

Regarding the last statement, that the occurrence in Av. 1342 does not have an element of surprise, I am of a different opinion; I find this occurrence likely to be uttered in surprise, e.g. when suddenly taking off and lifting from the ground. It therefore appears that the core meaning of this item can be determined to be surprise. What is characteristic of this particular surprise, then? It seems that the examples point at a qualitative surprise on behalf of the speaker, that s/he had expected not more or less of something, but rather something different, of lesser or greater quality, or something that creates another sensory experience. In conclusion, I propose that the specific content of αἰβοῖ is cognitive, denoting a qualitative surprise. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am surprised (because of the quality of this)]

3.6.2.3 βαβαί—babai βαβαί has even fewer occurrences in the material than αἰβοῖ, in total only ten: one in Euripides and the other nine in Aristophanes.167 Contrary to the case of αἰβοῖ, there is one example outside of comedy, in Euripides’ satyr play Cyclops. || 167 There are no variant readings in the manuscripts. However, Plato uses βαβαί twice (Phaed. 84d, Soph. 249d.), and βαβαῖ nine times (Lys. 218c, Rep. 361d, 459b, Phlb. 23b, Phdr. 236e, Hipp. min. 364c, Hipp. maj. 294e, Alcb. i. 118b, 119c.). Moreover, while Dionysus Thrax uses the circumflex (Ars Grammatica 1.1.80), Herodian prescribes the form to be oxytone (as “εὐαί”), while other words ending in -αι should be written with the perispomene, giving the examples “ἀταταῖ, αἰαῖ, παπαῖ” (περὶ μονήρους λέξεως 3,2 933.19). This is however contradicted in the Partitiones (254.3), where all threnetika epirrhemata ending in -αι are oxytone: βαβαὶ, παπαὶ, οὐαὶ, ἀταταὶ. The word deserves further study because of its use in other contemporary authors, as well as its afterlife. Apart from the aforementioned passages in Plato, there are occasional occurrences

102 | Semantics Οδ. γεῦσαί νυν, ὡς ἂν μὴ λόγωι ’παινῆις μόνον. Σι. βαβαί· χορεῦσαι παρακαλεῖ μ’ ὁ Βάκχιος. ἆ ἆ ἆ. Οδ. μῶν τὸν λάρυγγα διεκάναξέ σου καλῶς; ODYSSEUS Taste it, then, so that your praise of it may not be mere words. SILENUS Oo la la! Bacchus invites me to the dance! Tra la, tra la, tra la! ODYSSEUS Didn’t it gurgle nicely down your throat? Ε. Cyc. 156 ἆρα τρώξονται; βαβαί, οἷον ῥοθιάζουσ’ [DICAEOPOLIS] (tossing the figs to the girls) Will they eat them? Good heavens, how they slurp them down. Ar. Ach. 806168 Πο. ἰὼ Μέγαρα Μέγαρ’, ὡς ἐπιτρίψεσθ’ αὐτίκα ἁπαξάπαντα καταμεμυττωτευμένα. Τρ. βαβαὶ βαβαιάξ, ὡς μεγάλα καὶ δριμέα τοῖσι Μεγαρεῦσιν ἐνέβαλεν τὰ κλαύματα. WAR (adding garlic) Oho, Megara, how you’ll be crushed up soon, every last bit, and tumbled into tossed salad! TRYGAEUS (aside) Good gracious, what loud and pungent sobbing he’s thrown in for the Megarians! Ar. Pax 248169 ΛΑΚΕΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΩΝ ΠΡΕΣΒΕΥΤΗΣ τί δεῖ ποθ’ ὑμὲ πολλὰ μυσίδδην ἔπη; ὁρῆν γὰρ ἔξεσθ’ ὡς ἔχοντες ἵκομες. Χο. βαβαί· νενεύρωται μὲν ἥδε συμφορὰ δεινῶς τεθερμῶσθαί τε χεῖρον φαίνεται. SPARTAN DELEGATE What’s the use of wasting lots of words? It’s plain to see how we’re faring. (they open their cloaks)

|| in a few other authors in the fourth and third centuries: Timocles (fr. 22.2), Xenocrates (fr. 70.1), Alexis (fr. 206.1), Menander (Sent. 130) and Chrysippus (fr. 709a.13). Later, it is used sporadically by more than 200 different authors, as far as to Symeon of Thessaloniki, i.e. well into the fifteenth century. It is worth special notice that Johannes Chrysostomus uses the word 129 times in his comments on the New Testament. The word is also taken up by Latin authors, e.g. four times by Plautus (Pers. 5.2.25, Ps. 1.3.131, Cas. 5.2.26, Ep. 1.1.52) and once by Petronius (Sat. 37.9). 168 Olson (Ar. Ach. 806) labels this occurrence “a colloquial expression of shock or astonishment”. 169 Olson (Ar. Pax 248) calls βαβαί an “expression of surprise … and here perhaps of horror … but without any necessary overtones of sympathy”.

Semantics—Category 1 | 103

CHORUS LEADER Wow! This condition has grown terribly tense, and looks to be inflamed worse than before. Ar. Lys. 1076

It seems that βαβαί denotes the surprise of one who had expected less than what actually was realized, i.e. a “positive” surprise, in the sense of I did not expect (as much of) this. As previously noted, αἰβοῖ expresses the surprise of one who had expected something different. The distinction between the two therefore seems to be one of quality and quantity: αἰβοῖ denotes a qualitative surprise, whereas βαβαί denotes a quantitative surprise. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am surprised (because of the quantity of this)]

3.6.2.4 ἔα—ea Most, if not all examples of ἔα seem to point us in the same direction, viz. the surprised reaction of the speaker to something unwanted or unexpected. Out of the total 63 occurrences, five are found in Aeschylus, four in Sophocles, 44 in Euripides and nine in Aristophanes. The word has received quite a lot of attention by commentators. A scholion to A. PV 114 labels it an ἐκπλήξεως ἐπίρρημα. Fraenkel (A. Ag. 1256–1257, n. 6) calls it “the surprise of the speaker at some novel, often unwelcome, impression on his senses, the visual sense or another”, Willink (E. Or. 277) a “colloquial exclamation of sudden awareness”, Collard (E. Supp. 92) “an exclamation of surprise or alarm and Dodds (E. Ba. 644) describes it as “a gasp of astonishment, perhaps representing the sound of a sharp intake of breath”.170 Denniston, on E. Med. 1005, concludes: “It is perhaps impossible to find an instance of ἔα in Eur. in which surprise is not the dominant emotion.” Fraenkel (A. Ag. 1256–1257, n. 6) points out a potential variation in E. IA 1132, “where ἔα is unmistakably (as probably in 644) simply a cry of distress”. However, I find it difficult to find any ground for this claim, seeing that these examples behave similarly to the previously given examples, even though they are uttered with more stress. Ιφ. χαῖρ’· εὖ δέ μ’ ἀγαγὼν πρὸς σ’ ἐποίησας, πάτερ. Αγ. οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως φῶ τοῦτο καὶ μὴ φῶ, τέκνον.

|| 170 Kannicht (E. Hel. 71) disproves the idea of Wilamowitz and Schwyzer that ἔα be an imperative of ἐᾶν; it is rather to be taken “als phonetische Artikulation eines keuchenden Schnappens [as a phonetic articulation of gasping for breath]”.

104 | Semantics Ιφ. ἔα· ὡς οὐ βλέπεις εὔκηλον ἄσμενός μ’ ἰδών. IPHIGENIA Hello, father. It was good that you brought me here to see you. AGAMEMNON I do not know how I can accept your words or deny them. IPHIGENIA But what is this? You look distressed: you were glad to see me before. Ε. ΙΑ 644 Κλ. τὴν παῖδα τὴν σὴν τήν τ’ ἐμὴν μέλλεις κτανεῖν; Αγ. ἔα· τλήμονά γ’ ἔλεξας ὑπονοεῖς θ’ ἃ μή σε χρή. Κλ. ἔχ’ ἥσυχος· CLYTAEMESTRA Do you intend to kill your daughter and mine? AGAMEMNON Ah! Your words are dreadful and your suspicions are improper. CLYTAEMESTRA Control your agitation! Ε. ΙΑ 1132

Thus, ἔα may be uttered at the appearance of some unexpected sound: Πρ. ὦ δέσποτ’, ἀδικούμεσθα· σὰς δ’ ἐπιστολὰς ἐξαρπάσας ὅδ’ ἐκ χερῶν ἐμῶν βίαι, Ἀγάμεμνον, οὐδὲν τῆι δίκηι χρῆσθαι θέλει. Αγ. ἔα· τίς ποτ’ ἐν πύλαισι θόρυβος καὶ λόγων ἀκοσμία; OLD MAN (in a loud voice) Agamemnon, master, I am being wronged! This man has taken your letter from my hands and refuses to act justly! [Enter from the skene AGAMEMNON] AGAMEMNON Ah, ah! What’s this confusion, these unseemly words, at my gates? E. IA 317

It may also be the appearance of some thing: ἔα, τί χρῆμα; σὴν δάμαρθ’ ὁρῶ, πάτερ, νεκρόν· [He sees the corpse of PHAEDRA.] [HIPPOLYTUS] But what can this be? I see your wife, father, dead. Ε. Hipp. 905

Or some individual: ἔα· τίς οἴκων θυοδόκων ὑπερτελὴς ἀντήλιον πρόσωπον ἐκφαίνει θεῶν; [Enter ATHENA by mechane, alighting on the theologeion.] [ION] But look! Which of the gods is showing a sun-like countenance above the incenseladen temple? E. Ion 1549

Semantics—Category 1 | 105

ἔα is never used to turn the auditor’s attention towards something or someone, but rather always in a form of self-address. Consequently, I conclude that ἔα denotes the speaker’s reaction to the appearance of something unexpected or unwanted, which can be understood as an existential surprise, i.e. the speaker did not know of or expect that which suddenly is present. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am surprised (because of the appearance of this)]

3.6.2.5 ὤ—ō Considering its relatively many occurrences, 101 in total, ὤ has received surprisingly little attention. Perhaps scholars have found it difficult—possibly even unnecessary—to distinguish the interjection ὤ from the vocative particle ὦ.171 We find five examples in Aeschylus, 27 in Sophocles, 10 in Euripides and 59 in Aristophanes. The disproportionate number of occurrences in comedy is due to its use in the bridal hymn (Peace and Birds), and the use in combination with εἷα (Peace). In Aeschylus, Sommerstein (A. Eu. 357) notes that “ὤ in mid-sentence (or at the end of a short sentence) in tragic lyric normally expresses a strong access of emotion, whether joy (Ch. 942; Eur. Tr. 335, Ba. 590) or distress (Eur. Hipp. 362, 669, Supp. 807); here it seems to express the joy of the chase.” δωμάτων γὰρ εἱλόμαν ἀνατροπάς· ὅταν Ἄρης τιθασὸς ὢν φίλον ἕληι, ἐπὶ τόν, ὤ, διόμεναι κρατερὸν ὄνθ’ ... [CHORUS] For I have chosen for my own the overturning of houses: when Violence turns domestic and destroys a kinsman—oh!—and powerful though he may be … A. Eu. 357

In Sophocles, ὤ is particularly common in combination with the selfreferring adjective τάλας/τάλαιν(α), in the expressions ὢ τάλας ἐγώ and ὢ τάλαιν’ ἐγώ. Τευ. ὤμοι βαρείας ἆρα τῆς ἐμῆς τύχης. Χο. ὡς ὧδ’ ἐχόντων— Τευ. ὢ τάλας ἐγώ, τάλας. TEUCER Alas, then, for my grievous fate! CHORUS This being the case—

|| 171 Cf. Dickey (1996: 199–206) for a comprehensive account of ὦ + vocative.

106 | Semantics TEUCER Wretched, wretched am I! S. Aj. 981

Ηλ. μὴ πρὸς γενείου μὴ ’ξέλῃ τὰ φίλτατα. Ορ. οὔ φημ’ ἐάσειν. Ηλ. ὢ τάλαιν’ ἐγὼ σέθεν, Ὀρέστα, τῆς σῆς εἰ στερήσομαι ταφῆς. ELECTRA By your beard, do not take from me what I love most! ORESTES I say I will not let you keep it! ELECTRA I am unhappy, Orestes, if I am cheated of the power to give you burial! S. El. 1209

In Euripides, there are a few conspicuous examples of ὤ which follow a finite verb, such as Hippolytus 362 and Bacchae 590, of which the latter seems to contain an element of solemnity. Χο. ἄιες ὤ, ἔκλυες ὤν, ἀνήκουστα τᾶς τυράννου πάθεα μέλεα θρεομένας; CHORUS Oh, did you catch, oh, did you hear the queen uttering woes past hearing? E. Hipp. 362172 ὁ Διόνυσος ἀνὰ μέλαθρα· σέβετέ νιν. — σέβομεν ὤ. [CHORUS A] Dionysus is in the house! Worship him! CHORUS B We worship him, ah! E. Ba. 590

In comedy, the commentators are united in the view that ὤ is an exclamation, and MacDowell (Ar. V. 248) calls ὤ “a cry of surprise”, as does Olson on Peace 693. Henderson (Ar. Lys. 350–351) notes the exclamatory element and refers to ὤμοι. ΠΑΙΣ ὤ. τὸν πηλόν, ὦ πάτερ πάτερ, τουτονὶ φύλαξαι. BOY Whoa! Father, father, mind the mud there! Ar. V. 248 Ερ. ὢ ὤ, οἷά μ’ ἐκέλευσεν ἀναπυθέσθαι σου. HERMES Uh oh, the things she’s told me to find out from you! Ar. Pax 693

|| 172 Kovacs follows his own edition, which has ὤ after ἄιες as well as after ἔκλυες. Diggle’s edition, however, has ἔκλυες ὤν.

Semantics—Category 1 | 107

ὤ is also used extensively in the bridal hymn to Hymeneus (E. Tro. 335; Ar. Pax 1332–1359 and Av. 1736–1754), as well as in combination with εἷα (Ar. Pax 459–469), cf. 3.7.3.1 below. It seems that ὤ, similarly to ἆ, has a strong cognitive element, i.e. it above all denotes the speaker’s becoming aware of something, but also often contains elements of a certain attitude towards what has been observed, forming a blend of cognitive and emotive content. This attitude is commonly of grief or despair, but also of contentment (E. Pho. 295). There are also formulaic uses of ὤ, such as the use in the bridal hymn. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am surprised]

3.6.2.6 Core meaning In conclusion, I propose the following core meaning for this group. Now speaker is EXPERIENCER of surprise Proposed informational equivalents for the individual items:

ἆ αἰβοῖ βαβαί ἔα ὤ

[I am surprised (and I dislike what I notice)] [I am surprised (because of the quality of this)] [I am surprised (because of the quantity of this)] [I am surprised (because of the appearance of this)] [I am surprised]

3.6.3 Interjections expressive of pain and vexation Interjections expressive of pain and vexation indicate the result of the speaker’s emotive reaction to a current situation. The material contains a total number of 645 IntPs (out of roughly 1500). In this group we find three of the most common items, οἴμοι, φεῦ and ὤμοι, as well as two more infrequent, ἀτταταῖ and παπαῖ. I have also chosen to place the elusive ἰοὺ ἰού in this group. It seems that οἴμοι and φεῦ form a somewhat special case, since they have a large and rather even distribution across all four authors. ἀτταταῖ and παπαῖ have several variant forms, and it seems that they are closely related, similarly to how τοτοῖ is related to ποποῖ. I am tempted to consider the various items similar to these to be of a common origin, as well as to share similar semantic content. The reaction to a sudden pain naturally contains an element of surprise. ἰοὺ ἰού has the variant form ἰοῦ ἰοῦ.

108 | Semantics Tab. 6: Interjections expressive of pain and vexation Lemma

IntPs

Aeschylus

Sophocles

Euripides

Aristophanes

ἀτταταῖ

11

0

2

0

9

ἰοὺ ἰού

43

4

8

3

28

οἴμοι

307

4

75

111

117

παπαῖ

35

5

13

9

8

φεῦ

169

25

36

97

11

ὤμοι

80

7

26

42

5

Total

645

45

160

262

178

3.6.3.1 ἀτταταῖ—attatai There are only 11 occurrences of ἀτταταῖ, which are found in Sophocles (two) and Aristophanes (nine).173 The two examples in tragedy are found in Philoctetes, and are uttered by its namesake in one of his fits of pain: ἀπόλωλα, τέκνον, κοὐ δυνήσομαι κακὸν κρύψαι παρ’ ὑμῖν, ἀτταταῖ· διέρχεται,

|| 173 An explanation based on sound symbolism may be possible for differing between the pain depicted with a dental (τ) and with a labial (π). There is also reason to believe that ἀτταταῖ is related to παπαῖ. Cf. Ar. Ra. 57, where variant readings include ἀππαπαῖ, ἀταταῖ, ἀτταταῖ; see also Ar. Th. 945, where R has ἰαππαπαιάξ, which is also found in Suda (ε 2807.33). I was tempted to suggest ταταῖ (in analogy with παπαῖ) as the lemma, but the only extant occurrence is considerably late (in Herod. Mim. 3.79), and a coniecture: τατα. The peculiar variant form of ὀτοτοτοῖ in Sophocles, ὀττοτοῖ, seems to be a kind of “missing link”, connecting ἀτταταῖ with ἀππαπαῖ, and ὀττοτοῖ with the hapax ὀπποποῖ, also in Sophocles. There is also a link established between παπαῖ / ταταῖ and πόποι / τοτοῖ. It seems that these words were very similarly formed, and they are uttered in much the same contexts, as well. In addition, the similarity of π and τ in majuscule manuscripts may have increased this confusion. Here is the full range of variants (unattested forms are marked by *): τατᾶ παπᾶ * * *τατα παπαῖ πόποι/ποποῖ τοτοῖ τατταταί * * τοτοτοῖ ἀτταταῖ *

ἀππαπαῖ ὀπποποῖ ἀπαππαπαῖ *

ὀττοτοῖ *

ἰατταταί ἰατταταιάξ

* * ἰαππαπαιάξ *

* *

Semantics—Category 1 | 109

διέρχεται. [PHILOCTETES] I am lost, my son, I shall not be able to conceal my pain in your company. Ah! It goes through me, it goes through me! S. Ph. 743 ἔχετε τὸ πρᾶγμα· μὴ φύγητε μηδαμῇ. ἀτταταῖ. ὦ ξένε Κεφαλλήν, εἴθε σοῦ διαμπερὲς στέρνων ἵκοιτ’ ἄλγησις ἥδε. [PHILOCTETES] You know what is the matter! Do not run away, I beg you! A-a-a-a-h! Cephallenian stranger, I wish this pain would go right through your chest! S. Ph. 790

Here the emotive content which is experienced is referred to with the words κακὸν and ἄλγησις respectively, which both refer fairly clearly to pain. In the contest between Xanthias and Dionysus, in Frogs, on who can endure the most beating by Aeacus without crying out in pain, it seems reasonable to interpret ἀτταταῖ as an expression of bodily pain. Ξα. οὔκουν ἁνύσεις τι; ἀτταταῖ. Αι. τί τἀτταταῖ; μῶν ὠδυνήθης; XANTHIAS Then hurry up! (struck) Ow! AEACUS Why the “ow”? Did that hurt? Ar. Ra. 649

The same seems to be the case in the opening scene of Knights, in which the slave Demosthenes appears after having been beaten by his master’s new steward, Paphlagon. The pain seems to linger on in his body as he leaves the house. ΔΗΜΟΣΤΘΕΝΗΣ Ἰατταταιὰξ τῶν κακῶν, ἰατταταί. κακῶς Παφλαγόνα τὸν νεώνητον κακὸν αὐταῖσι βουλαῖς ἀπολέσειαν οἱ θεοί. ἐξ οὗ γὰρ εἰσήρρησεν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν πληγὰς ἀεὶ προστρίβεται τοῖς οἰκέταις. FIRST SLAVE Yow, ow ow ow! Damn it all! Yow ow ow! That damn new-bought Paphlagon, may the gods damnably destroy him, him and all his schemes! Ever since he turned up at our house, he’s been getting the homebred servants beaten nonstop. Ar. Eq. 1

Among the various interpretations the item receives in comments, we find Kamerbeek (S. Ph. 742) who labels it an “exclamation of suffering”; Olson (Ar. Ach. 1190) characterizes ἀτταταῖ as an “inarticulate cry of grief”, which is also the

110 | Semantics case “at Nu. 707; Th. 223, 1005; S. Ph. 743, 790”, and he later comes to the conclusion that “this must be an all-purpose exclamation like παπαῖ” (1198). Austin and Olson (Ar. Th.) once more characterize it as an “inarticulate cry of grief” (223), specifying it as “expressing inarticulate grief and horror” (945). Concerning the possible relation to ἀ(π)παπαῖ, cf. 3.6.3.4. The examples seem to point at ἀτταταῖ expressing the speaker’s experience of pain; it can express the sudden and simultaneous reaction to the experienced pain, as in Philoctetes, as well as the enduring state (which may be short or long) the speaker experiences after the actual beating, as in the example from Knights. It seems clear from the use in Sophocles that the core semantics of the item contain the experience of physical pain, similarly to modern English ouch. Most occurrences in Aristophanes seem to confirm this view as well. The other uses in Ar. are explained as figurative uses, such as the experience of a mental pain instead of a physical. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am in sudden pain]

3.6.3.2 ἰοὺ ἰού (ἰοῦ ἰοῦ)—iou iou The seemingly inconsistent nature of this item has troubled commentators ever since Antiquity. It has conspicuously few occurrences in tragedy, only four in Aeschylus, eight in Sophocles and three in Euripides, while we find 28 in Aristophanes, forming a total of 43. The scholion to Clouds 1 states that ἰοὺ ἰού is a σχετλιαστικὸν ἐπίρρημα, roughly “an interjection of vexation”, while the scholion to Peace 317 calls ἰοῦ ἰοῦ an expression “of pleasure; therefore it is also pronounced with a circumflex”. However, the idea of there being two different items separated by their accentuation is correctly dismissed by Körte as “vermutlich eine späte Grammatikertüftelei”.174 Fraenkel (A. Ag. 25), surprisingly, only gives a very short reference to LSJ and to Körte’s article, and translates “Hurrah, hurrah!”. Bain gives an alternative double interpretation: “ἰοὺ ἰού may be a cry of exasperation … or it may be a shout to wake up the people inside”. He continues: “Possibly it is both of these things”, and refers to Agamemnon 25, “where ἰοὺ ἰού serves as a cry of joy and a

|| 174 Roughly translated, “probably a late invention by grammarians”. According to Körte (1933: 273, n. 4), the scholion to Peace 317, in combination with a similar report in the Suda (ι 427), made Hermann and Wilamowitz alter the readings in the manuscripts for A. Ag. 25 in their editions. LSJ (s.v.) also notes that “the rule is not observed in codd”.

Semantics—Category 1 | 111

summons to Klytaimestra”.175 Garvie explains the same passage (A. Ag. 25): “Probably the cry expresses the Servant’s annoyance at the lack of response. But it may be intended to arouse those within the palace”. Stanford characterizes it as “sometimes an exclamation of joy, sometimes of sorrow, depending on the context and on the speaker’s tone of voice …. In both cases an element of surprise seems to be implied.” ὦ χαῖρε λαμπτὴρ νυκτός, ἡμερήσιον φάος πιφαύσκων καὶ χορῶν κατάστασιν πολλῶν ἐν Ἄργει τῆσδε συμφορᾶς χάριν. ἰοὺ ἰού· Ἀγαμέμνονος γυναικὶ σημαίνω τορῶς εὐνῆς ἐπαντείλασαν ὡς τάχος δόμοις ὀλολυγμὸν εὐφημοῦντα τῆιδε λαμπάδι ἐπορθιάζειν, [WATCHMAN] He suddenly leaps up in joy. O welcome, beacon, bringing to us by night a message of light bright as day, a message that will be the cause of many choral dances in Argos in response to this good fortune! Ahoy ahoy! I proclaim plainly to the wife of Agamemnon that she should raise herself from her bed, as quickly as may be, and on behalf of the house raise a shrill, auspicious cry of triumph over this beacon, Α. Ag. 25

I find it reasonable to believe that this occurrence equally well may be an expression of joy and enthusiasm, followed by a call of summons. Regarding the occurrence in Libation-Bearers (880), I follow Garvie, who refers to the parallel Clouds 1, and interpret it as an expression of the pained desperation of the servant when no one responds to his calls. καὶ μάλ’ ἡβῶντος δὲ δεῖ, οὐχ ὡς δ’ ἀρῆξαι διαπεπραγμένωι· τί γάρ; ἰοὺ ἰού· κωφοῖς ἀυτῶ καὶ καθεύδουσιν μάτην ἄκραντα βάζω· [SERVANT] … what would be the point? [Knocking again] Ahoy, ahoy! [To himself] I’m shouting to the deaf, and calling uselessly to people who are wasting their time asleep. A. Ch. 880

Easterling (S. Tr. 1143) reproduces Kamerbeek’s note, that Sophocles uses ἰοὺ ἰού “when the speaker discovers his or another’s terrible condition”. Davies comment (also S. Tr. 1143) refers to similar situations when prophecies are ful|| 175 Bain (1981: 62, n. 1).

112 | Semantics filled, quoting Rau’s Paratragodia (1967: 171). Webster considers the words in S. Ph. 38 to be “in disgust”, while Jebb (apud Shuckburgh) calls them “a cry of surprise”. ἰοὺ ἰού is used by Iocaste as well as Oedipus in OT, the latter seemingly picking up the former. Iocaste’s final line, when she has failed to conceal his fate, runs: Ιο. ἰοὺ ἰού, δύστηνε· τοῦτο γάρ σ’ ἔχω μόνον προσειπεῖν, ἄλλο δ’ οὔποθ’ ὕστερον. IOCASTE Ah ah, unhappy one! That is all I can say to you, and nothing any more! S. OT 1071

And again, when Oedipus recognizes his terrible fate: Οι. ἰοὺ ἰού· τὰ πάντ’ ἂν ἐξήκοι σαφῆ. OEDIPUS Oh oh! All is now clear! S. OT 1182

Apart from the occurrence in Agamemnon, enthusiastic or joyful examples of ἰοὺ ἰού include two in Cyclops: Χο. ἰοὺ ἰού· γέγηθα μαινόμεσθα τοῖς εὑρήμασιν. CHORUS LEADER Hurrah! I am driven frantic with joy by your inventions! Ε. Cyc. 464 Κυ. ἰοὺ ἰού· ὡς ἐξένευσα μόγις· ἄκρατος ἡ χάρις. The Cyclops has a long drink. CYCLOPS Caloo, callay! How close I was to drowning in it! This is pleasure unalloyed. E. Cyc. 576

and also one in Aristophanes: Ευ. ὦναξ Ἄπολλον, τοῦ νέφους. ἰοὺ ἰού, οὐδ’ ἰδεῖν ἔτ’ ἔσθ’ ὑπ’ αὐτῶν πετομένων τὴν εἴσοδον. EUELPIDES Lord Apollo, what a cloud of them! Whooee! They’re so many you can’t see into the wings anymore! Ar. Av. 295

The only further example in Euripides is the surprised horror of the nurse finding Phaedra hung in Hippolytus: Τρ. (ἔσωθεν) ἰοὺ ἰού· βοηδρομεῖτε πάντες οἱ πέλας δόμων·

Semantics—Category 1 | 113

ἐν ἀγχόναις δέσποινα, Θησέως δάμαρ. Help, help! Come, help, anyone near the palace! My lady, Theseus’ wife has hanged herself! E. Hipp. 776 NURSE (within)

In comedy, Dover (Ar. Nu. 1) holds the expression to be “a cry of distress”, and MacDowell gives the translation “Whew!” (Ar. V. 931). Olson, on the unique triple occurrence in Ar. Pax 110, makes a general overview: “An inarticulate cry, often of pain or horror …, but also used (as here) to summon others from their houses (Nu. 1321–1323; Lys. 829–832; cf. Ra. 653, where the two uses are confused). Contrast 317.” Olson considers this last passage “a cry of joy”. The passages in Aristophanes interpreted by Olson as cries of summons are also possible to interpret as expressing an emotion of the speaker who simultaneously wants to get into contact with someone. Λυ. ἰοὺ ἰού, γυναῖκες, ἴτε δεῦρ’ ὡς ἐμὲ ταχέως. Γυ. τί δ’ ἐστίν; εἰπέ μοι, τίς ἡ βοή; Λυ. ἄνδρ’, ὁρῶ προσιόντα παραπεπληγμένον, τοῖς τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ὀργίοις εἱλημμένον. [LYSISTRATA appears on the roof.] LYSISTRATA Hurray! Ladies, come here, quickly! [MYRRHINE and several other Wives join Lysistrata.] WIFE What is it? What’s all the shouting? LYSISTRATA A man! I see a man coming this way, stricken, in the grip of Aphrodite’s mysterious powers! Ar. Lys. 829

Dunbar (Ar. Av. 193b) gives the following interpretations: “‘hurrah!’, here of joy …, but also of surprise … and dismay”. Henderson (Ar. Lys. 295) holds that it “conveys surprise or annoyance”. Dover (Ar. Ra. 653) summarizes the case like this: “ἰου (however accented) appears to be an exclamation of pain and grief (e.g. Nu. 1, 1321) and of excitement and pleasure”. Another example of the flexible meaning of ἰοὺ ἰού is found in the example in Frogs, in the contest also mentioned in ἀτταταῖ above. Dionysus reacts to the blow with ἰοὺ ἰού, most likely in pain, but explains it with his reaction to some imagined scent of onions: Δι. ἰοὺ ἰού. Αια. τί ἐστιν; Δι. ἱππέας ὁρῶ. Αια. τί δῆτα κλάεις; Δι. κρομμύων ὀσφραίνομαι. Αια. ἐπεὶ προτιμᾷς γ’ οὐδέν;

114 | Semantics Δι.

AEACUS … (strikes Dionysus)

οὐδέν μοι μέλει.

DIONYSUS Hi yo!

AEACUS What’s the matter? DIONYSUS I see horsemen.

AEACUS So why are you crying? DIONYSUS I can smell onions!

AEACUS Meaning you didn’t feel anything? DIONYSUS Couldn’t care less!

Ar. Ra. 653

ἰοὺ ἰού is obviously elusive, and gives the impression of being at least bivalent, pointing at a general meaning of excitement (either positive or negative), or, according to some, as two different items belonging in categories 1 and 2 respectively. I consider ἰοὺ ἰού to denote the positive as well as negative shades of excitement to some physical or mental stimulus; from discomfort and distress (Ar. Ra. 653) to anxiety and alarm (E. Hipp. 776), as well as sheer enthusiasm and delight (Ar. Lys. 829). It is clear that several items contain an element of cognitive reaction, i.e. surprise; the meaning of ἰοὺ ἰού focuses on the affect which results from this surprise. There seems to be a difference related to register involving the occurrences in satyric drama and comedy compared to the ones in tragedy. Perhaps the unexpected example of positive ἰοὺ ἰού in Agamemnon is to be explained by the relatively low social rank of the speaker, a qualification which seems to allow a wider range of uses of the word. There is also a formulaic expression “to cry ἰοῦ ἰοῦ” (roughly = to live it up), which occurs in comedy only. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am agitated]

3.6.3.3 οἴμοι—oimoi οἴμοι is one of the most common interjections, and it is therefore expected to have quite a range of uses, and possibly be difficult to detect a single core meaning. In the works of Aeschylus, we find only four occurrences of οἴμοι, while it has 75 in Sophocles and 111 in Euripides. In Aristophanes there are 117 occurrences, which makes it one of the most commonly used items, in tragedy as well as comedy, with a total of 307. οἴμοι is clearly the combination of the οἴ of lamentation and μοι, the first person personal pronoun in the dative. It is rarely combined with an additional μοι. οἴμοι is never doubled, however it is frequently followed by mostly self-pitying expressions such as τάλαιν(α), τάλας, δείλαιος and κακοδαίμων.

Semantics—Category 1 | 115

In Aeschylus, we find the doubtful hapax legomenon πανοίμοι, which Garvie (A. Ch. 1225) labels “a strengthened form of οἴμοι”.176 Apart from that, there are three rather conventional occurrences, pointing at the expression of a mental pain, bordering on sorrow. Ορ. τὸ πᾶν ἀτίμως ἔρεξας, οἴμοι, πατρὸς δ’ ἀτίμωσιν ἆρα τείσεις ORESTES You tell a tale of utter degradation! [oimoi] Well, she shall pay for degrading my father,177 A. Ch. 434

In Sophocles, Kells (S. Aj. 1000–1001) finds that “with the full recognition of his utter loss Teucer sums up all his agony of heart and mind” with an οἴμοι. ἁγὼ κλυὼν δύστηνος ἐκποδὼν μὲν ὢν ὑπεστέναζον, νῦν δ’ ὁρῶν ἀπόλλυμαι. οἴμοι. ἴθ’, ἐκκάλυψον, ὡς ἴδω τὸ πᾶν κακόν. [AJAX] … and when I heard it, poor fellow, I mourned quietly while I was still far off, but now that I can see I am stricken to death! Alas! Come, uncover him, so that I may see the whole horror! S. Aj. 1002

Griffith (S. Ant. 86) notes that οἴμοι expresses “annoyance”, and again at 933– 934 “horror and fear”. Easterling (S. Tr. 1133) states that “οἴμοι has many shades of meaning, … . Here it registers Heracles’ anger that D[eianeira] died before he could kill her himself, ὡς χρῆν”, and the occurrence at 1203 is labeled an “exclamation of shock or dismay”. Ηρ. λέγ’, εὐλαβοῦ δὲ μὴ φανῇς κακὸς γεγώς. Υλ. λέγω. τέθνηκεν ἀρτίως νεοσφαγής. Ηρ. πρὸς τοῦ; τέρας τοι διὰ κακῶν ἐθέσπισας. Υλ. αὐτὴ πρὸς αὐτῆς, οὐδενὸς πρὸς ἐκτόπου. Ηρ. οἴμοι· πρὶν ὡς χρῆν σφ’ ἐξ ἐμῆς θανεῖν χερός; HERACLES Speak, but take care that you are not revealed to be a traitor. HYLLUS I will speak; she is dead, newly slain! HERACLES At whose hand? A miracle, told by a prophet who speaks evil! HYLLUS By her own hand, not that of any other.

|| 176 The manuscript M has “πὰν· οἴμοι”. 177 Sommerstein’s translation follows the reading of M more closely and discards Herwerden’s conjectures ἔλεξας and τίσει.

116 | Semantics HERACLES Ah me! Before she could die at my hand, as she should have done?

S. Tr. 1133

In Euripides, Seaford (E. Cyc. 687) labels the expression οἴμοι γελῶμαι “paratragic”, referring back to 683, as well as to S. Ant. 839 and A. Eu. 789 and 819. Stevens (E. And. 693) states that “οἴμοι sometimes, as here, denotes indignation or impatience, rather than lamentation”, while Mastronarde (E. Or. 1610) labels the expression οἴμοι, τί δράσω; “a frequent expression of ἀπορία”. Πη. οἴμοι, καθ’ Ἑλλάδ’ ὡς κακῶς νομίζεται·

PELEUS Oh, how perverse customs are in Greece!

E. Αnd. 693

In comedy, Olson (Ar. Ach. 163–164) labels οἴμοι τάλας a “stereotypical expression of lamentation and despair”, while the οἴμ’ ὡς τεθνήξεις, “Oh, now you’re doomed”, in 590 is called “an inarticulate cry of angry exasperation”, comparing it to 1081 and 1117. Neil (Ar. Eq.) gives the following comments: 183–4. οἴμοι, of rather sarcastic anger, as Soph. Antig. 86 234. οἴμοι κακοδαίμων, a comic exclamation of distress 1243. οἴμοι κακοδαίμων (as if “I’m damned” came in a tragic passage on our stage) was probably a favourite comic effect in parodies of tragic lines, cf. fr. 308, Antiphanes 282.

Dover (Ar. Nu. 773) translates the scholion to the passage “[i]n ordinary usage we commonly say οἴμοι when someone rejoices”, but notes that there is no exact parallel to this use in Aristophanes. In Pax 425 (cited below) he finds “a note of self-pity”, and in Th. 1185 “one of unsatisfied desire”. Ευ. φέρε θοἰμάτιον ἄνωθεν, ὦ τέκνον, τοδί· καθιζομένη δ’ ἐπὶ τοῖσ γόνασι τοῦ Σκύθου τὼ πόδε πρότεινον, ἵν’ ὑπολύσω. Το. ναίκι ναὶ κάτησο κάτησο, ναίκι ναίκι, τυγάτριον. οἴμ’ ὠς στέριπο τὸ τιττί’, ὤσπερ γογγυλί. EURIPIDES All right, girl, off with your dress, and sit on the Scythian’s lap. Now stick out your feet so I can take off your shoes. ARCHER Yeah, sit down, sit down, yeah, yeah, sweetie! Wow, what firm titties—like turnips! Ar. Th. 1185

Dunbar calls the passage in Clouds 773 “equally surprising” as Birds 610. Olson (Ar. Pax 424–425) calls the passage in Clouds “exceptionally, an unambiguous expression of delight”.

Semantics—Category 1 | 117

Στ.

οἴμ’, ὡς ἥδομαι ὅτι πεντετάλαντος διαγέγραπταί μοι δίκη. STREPSIADES Gosh, how good I feel! I’ve had a five-talent lawsuit expunged! Ar. Nu. 773

MacDowell makes the following comment on Ar. V. 137: “The meaning of this exclamation varies according to its context (and, no doubt, mode of utterance). Here perhaps the nearest English equivalent is ‘ŏ-ŏ’, implying ‘Here comes trouble!’, the usual comic attitude of an inferior to the approach of a superior.” ΒΔΕΛΥΚΛΕΩΝ ὦ Ξανθία καὶ Σωσία, καθεύδετε; Ξα. οἴμοι. Σω. τί ἐστι; Ξα. Βδελυκλέων ἀνίσταται. LOATHECLEON Xanthias! Sosias! Are you asleep? XANTHIAS Uh oh. SOSIAS What? XANTHIAS Loathecleon’s getting up. Ar. V. 137

Olson (Ar. Pax 257) notes that οἴμοι μοι is found “[n]owhere else in comedy but common in tragedy, occasionally with μοι accidentally omitted”. Platnauer (Ar. Pax 424–425) states that “οἴμ’ is here a cry of joy”. Olson (also Ar. Pax 424– 425) suggests that it is “[p]erhaps an expression of (hypocritical) self-pity.” On Peace 1245 Platnauer states that οἴμοι is spoken “in anger here”, and Olson (also Pax 1245) calls οἴμοι, καταγελᾷς “an expression of disgusted anger”. Τρ. … χἄτερ’ ἔτι πόλλ’ ἕξεις ἀγαθά. πρῶτον δέ σοι δῶρον δίδωμι τήνδ’, ἵνα σπένδειν ἔχῃς. Ερ. οἴμ’, ὡς ἐλεήμων εἴμ’ ἀεὶ τῶν χρυσίδων. TRYGAEUS … And you’ll get other benefits too; to begin with, I’m giving you this as a gift (gives him a golden bowl), to use for libations. HERMES Uh oh, I’ve always had such a soft spot for gold plate! Ar. Pax 424 Ο. κ. οἴμοι, καταγελᾷς. Τρ. ἀλλ’ ἕτερον παραινέσω. ARMS DEALER Damn it, you’re making fun of me! TRYGAEUS Then here’s another idea: ... Ar. Pax 1245

Austin and Olson (Ar. Th. 222–223) state that “οἴμοι is normally an expression of physical pain … or grief”. They also note that “ᾤμοι or ὤμοι appears to be the

118 | Semantics high poetic form of the word, whereas Dindorf’s οἴμοι is colloquial Attic and thus more appropriate for Inlaw”. The suggestion on 232 is that οἴμοι is “frequently little more than a colloquial expression of annoyance or grief”. On οἴμοι τάλας (Ar. Th. 241–242) they state that it is an “almost exclusively comic expression … attested in tragedy only at S. OT 744*; Ph. 416*, 622*.” Finally, on 625, οἴμοι is called “colloquial” and stated to express “annoyance or impatience”. Ευ.

γενναῖος εἶ. κάθιζε· φύσα τὴν γνάθον τὴν δεξιάν. Κη. οἴμοι.

Ευ.

τί κέκραγας; ἐμβαλῶ σοι πάτταλον, ἢν μὴ σιωπᾷς. EURIPIDES You’re a gentleman. (to Kinsman) Sit down. Blow out your cheek, the right one. KINSMAN Oh no! EURIPIDES What’s this bellyaching? If you don’t quiet down I’ll have to stick a peg in your mouth. Ar. Th. 221–223

Ussher (Ar. Ec. 323) note that the combination οἴμοι κακοδαίμων “seem sometimes (as perhaps in 1093) to be used for comic heightening of lines parodying tragic diction”, but notes that “in tragedy κακοδαίμων occurs only once (in anapaests, E. Hipp. 1362).” Finally, van Leeuwen (Ar. Pl. 169) calls οἴμοι τάλας an expression “non lugentis sed ira excandescentis [not of sorrow but of growing hot with rage]”, and οἴμοι in 389 is labeled “irati haec vox [of anger]”. οἴμοι κακοδαίμων, ὅτι γέρων ὢν ἠγόμην γυναῖχ’· ὅσας εἴμ’ ἄξιος πληγὰς λαβεῖν. [BLEPYRUS] God, what a fool I was, getting married at my age! I deserve a good flogging. Ar. Ec. 323

On its own, οἴμοι is often used as a stereotypical expression of real or feigned lamentation, the former common in Sophocles and Euripides, the latter common in Aristophanes. The “vernacular” sense of this item is reinforced by the fact that there are only few occurrences in Aeschylus, whose style is decidedly non-vernacular; ὤμοι is the more literary, epic-oriented counterpart of οἴμοι.178 Barrett (E. Hipp. 799) notes that “[i]n the mss. of Eur. and Soph. οἴμοι (vernacular Attic) is much the commoner, with ὤμοι (literary) showing a preference for lyric passages.”

|| 178 There are 29 occurrences of ὤ μοι in Homer, none of οἴμοι.

Semantics—Category 1 | 119

οἴμοι is the word which is used when the speaker has realized something that is contrary to his or her expectations, as the result of a negative surprise. It is clear that an element of surprise is present in all items that denote cognitive reaction. However, οἴμοι clearly does not only contain a cognitive element; instead, the most salient element of οἴμοι is emotive, denoting the vexation of the speaker to some physical or mental stimulus, “esp. by something causing annoyance, irritation, dissatisfaction, or disappointment”.179 Vexation is here understood in the broadest possible sense, ranging from impatience and annoyance to despair and shock. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am vexed] because I realize something contrary to expectation—as a result of (negative) surprise

3.6.3.4 παπαῖ—papai There are 35 occurrences of παπαῖ, which are found in all four authors (five in Aeschylus, 13 in Sophocles, nine in Euripides and eight in Aristophanes).180 We also find several possible variant forms, which points at a need for variation (of tone, scope etc.). παπαῖ is a fairly uncommon item, primarily employed in continued pain and at surprise. It is used in the series of cries at the end of Aeschylus’ Persians; in Agamemnon it is combined with ἒ ἒ. Aeschylus and Sophocles share the use of μάλ’ αὖθις, Sophocles also with μάλ’ alone. It indicates a loss of control in Aristophanes (Lys. 215). Χο. παπαῖ παπαῖ. Ξε. καὶ πλέον ἢ παπαῖ μὲν οὖν. CHORUS Papai, papai! XERXES No, “papai” is too mild! A. Pers. 1031 Κα. ἒ ἒ παπαῖ παπαῖ, τί τόδε φαίνεται;

CASSANDRA Ah, ah! Papai, papai! What is this I see?

A. Ag. 1114

|| 179 OED s.v. “vexation, n.”, 3a. 180 There are only a few problematic text passages concerning παπαῖ. There is an apparent confusion with παῖ παῖ, an exclamative vocative expression similar to ὦ παῖ. One example is found in E. Alc. 226, where manuscripts V and B have παπαὶ ὦ, whereas L and P have παῖ παῖ φεῦ φεῦ ἰὼ ἰώ.

120 | Semantics As is the case with several other interjections in category 1, παπαῖ has forced translators to transcribe instead of translate. The unique exclamations in Philoctetes 745–746 are described by Jebb (apud Shuckburgh) as representing “three successive cries of pain, each longer than the last, as the agony becomes sharper; they seem to suggest the convulsive movement of the lips from which the sounds are wrung.” Webster (S. Ph. 895) claims that the situation normally would have had φεῦ φεῦ, but that Sophocles “perhaps chooses παπαῖ to show that Neoptolemus’ mental agony is parallel to Philoctetes’ physical agony, 745, etc.” Φι. ἀπόλωλα, τέκνον, κοὐ δυνήσομαι κακὸν κρύψαι παρ’ ὑμῖν, ἀτταταῖ· διέρχεται, διέρχεται. δύστηνος, ὢ τάλας ἐγώ. ἀπόλωλα, τέκνον· βρύκομαι, τέκνον· παπαῖ, ἀπαππαπαῖ, παπᾶ παπᾶ παπᾶ παπαῖ. πρὸς θεῶν, πρόχειρον εἴ τί σοι, τέκνον, πάρα ξίφος χεροῖν, πάταξον εἰς ἄκρον πόδα· ἀπάμησον ὡς τάχιστα· μὴ φείσῃ βίου. ἴθ’, ὦ παῖ. Νε. τί δ’ ἔστιν οὕτω νεοχμὸν ἐξαίφνης, ὅτου τοσήνδ’ ἰυγὴν καὶ στόνον σαυτοῦ ποῇ; Φι. οἶσθ’, ὦ τέκνον; Νε. τί ἔστιν; Φι. οἶσθ’, ὦ παῖ; Νε. τί σοί; οὐκ οἶδα. Φι. πῶς οὐκ οἶσθα; παππαπαππαπαῖ. PHILOCTETES I am lost, my son, I shall not be able to conceal my pain in your company. Ah! It goes through me, it goes through me! O misery, unhappy as I am! I am lost my son! I am devoured, my son! A-a-a-a-a-h! I beg you, if you have a sword handy, strike at my heel! Lop it off quickly! Do not spare my life! Come, my son! NEOPTOLEMUS What is this sudden new thing that makes you cry out and groan so much? PHILOCTETES You know, my son! NEOPTOLEMUS What is it? PHILOCTETES You know, my boy! NEOPTOLEMUS What is the matter with you? I do not know. PHILOCTETES How can you not know? A-a-a-a-a-h! S. Ph. 742–754 Νε.παπαῖ· τί δῆτ’ δρῷμ’ ἐγὼ τοὐνθένδε γε; NEOPTOLEMUS Ah! What am I to do next? S. Ph. 895

Bond (E. Her. 1120) characterizes it as “a strong and rare exclamation, used in intense physical pain … or in disgust”. Stockert (E. IA 655) calls it “ein Ausruf der Trauer [an exclamation of sorrow]”.

Semantics—Category 1 | 121

Αμ. εἰ μηκέθ’ Ἅιδου βάκχος εἶ, φράσαιμεν ἄν. Ηρ. παπαῖ, τόδ’ ὡς ὕποπτον ἠινίξω πάλιν. AMPHITRYON I will tell you if you are no longer an infernal Bacchant. HERACLES Ah me! Yet another riddling response! E. Her. 1120 Αγ. … συνετὰ λέγουσα μᾶλλον εἰς οἶκτόν μ’ ἄγεις. Ιφ. ἀσύνετά νυν ἐροῦμεν, εἰ σέ γ’ εὐφρανῶ. Αγ. παπαῖ· τὸ σιγᾶν οὐ σθένω, σὲ δ’ ἤινεσα. AGAMEMNON … By speaking intelligently you cause me to feel more pity. IPHIGENIA Then I will speak foolishly if it will cheer you up. AGAMEMNON (to himself) Ah me, how hard to hold my tongue! (aloud) I thank you, daughter. E. IA 655

In comedy, Austin and Olson (Ar. Th. 1191) hold that the variant form παπαπαπαι “expresses the grief that results from baffled longing, much like οἴμοι in 1185”, while Henderson (Ar. Lys. 214–216) considers it as “expressing alarm, as often in tragedy”. ΤΟ. ὂ παπαπαπαῖ, ὠς γλυκερὸ τὸ γλῶσσ’, ὤσπερ Ἀττικὸς μέλις. ARCHER Woo woo woo! Boyoboy! What a sweet tongue, like Attic honey! Ar. Th. 1191 ΚΛ. ὅστις πρὸς ἐμὲ πρόσεισιν ἐστυκώς. παπαῖ, ὑπολύεταί μου τὰ γόνατ’, ὦ Λυσιστράτη. CALONICE Shall approach me with a hard-on. Oh god, my knees are buckling, Lysistrata! Ar. Lys. 214–216

The ἀπαπαῖ in Frogs 57, being an unusual variant form of παπαῖ, receives quite a lot of attention by commentators. Stanford calls it “an inarticulate expression of grief or pain. A good actor would make much of this opportunity of expressing unspeakable emotion”, while Dover’s extensive discussion holds that it “might be a cry of revulsion”, yet the speaker “could as well utter ἀπαπαῖ in distress when ἀλλ’ ἀνδρός touches him on the raw”. Dover concludes: If ἀπαπαῖ is a cry of repudiation, the response would be an apologetic statement, “(Well, you did say that) you were with Kleisthenes”; but if ἀπαπαῖ is a cry of distress, the response could be a question, “Did you do it with Kleisthenes?”, implying, “Is it Kleisthenes you’re longing for?”

122 | Semantics It seems fairly obvious that ἀπαπαῖ is uttered in reaction to the πόθος (longing) described at the start when its force is renewed by Heracles’ mention of “a man”. Δι. καὶ δῆτ’ ἐπὶ τῆς νεὼς ἀναγιγνώσκοντί μοι τὴν Ἀνδρομέδαν πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν ἐξαίφνης πόθος τὴν καρδίαν ἐπάταξε πῶς οἴει σφόδρα. Ηρ. πόθος; πόσος τις; Δι. σμικρός, ἡλίκος Μόλων. Ηρ. γυναικός; Δι. οὐ δῆτ’. Ηρ. ἀλλὰ παιδός; Δι. οὐδαμῶς. Ηρ. ἀλλ’ ἀνδρός; Δι. ἀπαπαῖ. Ηρ. ξυνεγένου τῷ Κλεισθένει; Δι. μὴ σκῶπτέ μ’, ὦδέλφ’· οὐ γὰρ ἀλλ’ ἔχω κακῶς· τοιοῦτος ἵμερός με διαλυμαίνεται. DIONYSUS Anyway, as I was on deck reading Andromeda to myself, a sudden longing struck my heart, you can’t imagine how hard. HERACLES A longing? How big? DIONYSUS Small, the size of Molon. HERACLES For a woman? DIONYSUS Nope. HERACLES Then for a boy? DIONYSUS Not at all. HERACLES For a man, then? DIONYSUS Ah ah! HERACLES Did you do it with Cleisthenes? DIONYSUS Don’t tease me, brother; I’m truly in a bad way. That’s how thoroughly this passion is messing me up. Ar. Ra. 57

Starkie (Ar. V. 235) considers that although “ἀππαπαῖ ought to be an expression of delight … this is most unlikely. Suda explains the item by συγκαταθετικὸν ἐπίρρημα [adverb of affirmation]. However, in line 309 it is also an exclamation of grief”. MacDowell (also Ar. V. 235) calls it “an exclamation of sorrow; cf. 309. Yet elsewhere similar exclamations are used to express pleasure; e.g. Th. 1191. παπαπαπαῖ.” ΧΟΡΟΣ … ὦ Στρυμόδωρε Κονθυλεῦ, βέλτιστε συνδικαστῶν, Εὐεργίδης ἆρ’ ἐστί που ’νταῦθ’ ἢ Χάβης ὁ Φλυεύς; πάρεσθ’ ὃ δὴ λοιπόν γ’ ἔτ’ ἐστίν, ἀππαπαῖ παπαιάξ, ἥβης ἐκείνης, ἡνίκ’ ἐν Βυζαντίῳ ξυνῆμεν

Semantics—Category 1 | 123

φρουροῦντ’ ἐγώ τε καὶ σύ· [Enter the CHORUS, accompanied by BOYS] CHORUS LEADER … You there, Strymodorus of Conthyle, my excellent brother juror, do you see Euergides anywhere, or Chabes of Phlya? I’m afraid what’s here is—oh my!—all that’s left of your youthful time, when we shared guard duty at Byzantium, you and I. Ar. V. 235

There is some variation in the use of παπαῖ, but on the whole it seems quite clear to express the speaker’s experience of pain, either physical or mental. The evidence also seems to point at παπαῖ having a reference to a prolonged—rather than a sudden—sensation. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am in continuous pain]

3.6.3.5 φεῦ—pheu φεῦ is traditionally interpreted as primarily conveying two separate senses, “grief or anger” and “astonishment or admiration” (LSJ); Labiano Ilundain calls the two notions (in Ar.) “sorpresa” and “queja” [surprise and lamentation], while Montanari (2005) calls them “dolore, angoscia, sdegno [pain, anguish, disdain]” and “meraviglia, stupore, ammirazione [wonder, amazement, admiration]”. It is one of the most commonly used interjections, with a total of 169 occurrences, 25 in Aeschylus, 36 in Sophocles, 97 in Euripides, and 11 in Aristophanes. Fraenkel comments extensively on Aeschylus’ Agamemnon 1143: There is no example of φεῦ in Aeschylus which is not provoked by an occurrence affecting the speaker himself, by something which, whether he actually takes part in it or experiences it in his imagination, is of immediate concern to him … Moreover, the exclamation seems to be extremely strong in itself: to judge from its use elsewhere in Aeschylus, we might suppose that it expresses not mere sympathy but horror or a lament implying condemnation. … the Chorus, in conjuring up the sorrows of the nightingale, are overwhelmed by the horror of the familiar story with its scenes of murder, a mother’s murder of her child (Suppl. 65 ff.). This would perhaps give φεῦ its full force here too.

Denniston and Page (A. Ag. 1307–1308) say that “φεῦ normally expresses either (a) grief or (b) astonishment or admiration, and the sequel shows that what Cassandra uttered was a cry of disgust”. Enger calls the same passage an “Ausdruck entsetzter Abwehr [an expression of horrified defence].” Κα. φεῦ φεῦ. Χο. τί τοῦτ’ ἔφευξας, εἴ τι μὴ φρενῶν στύγος;

124 | Semantics CASSANDRA Ugh, Ugh!181

CHORUS Why are you going “ugh” like that? Unless it’s some mental horror.

A. Ag. 1307

In Sophocles, Stanford (S. Aj. 983) holds that “φεῦ here indicates a sudden pang of fresh grief or dismay”, while Kells (S. El. 1021–1022) claims that “φεῦ expresses almost any kind of strong emotion” and Griffith (S. Ant. 1048) calls it “sad and indignant”. Τευ. ὦ περισπερχὲς πάθος. Χο. ἄγαν γε, Τεῦκρε. Τευ. φεῦ τάλας. TEUCER O devastating blow! CHORUS Only too much so, Teucer! TEUCER Alas, unhappy one! S. Aj. 983 Τε. φεῦ· ἆρ’ οἶδεν ἀνθρώπων τις, ἆρα φράζεται – Κρ. τί χρῆμα; ποῖον τοῦτο πάγκοινον λέγεις; Τε. ὅσῳ κράτιστον κτημάτων εὐβουλία; TEIRESIAS Alack! Does any man know, does any man understand – CREON What thing? What is this general statement you are making? TEIRESIAS How much the best of all possessions is good counsel! S. Ant. 1048

Webster (S. Ph. 234) considers the parallel given by Jebb (Ar. Av. 1724) for “wondering, joyful φεῦ” to be “sufficient”. A similar use is found in the Fragments, 636. Φι. ὦ φίλτατον φώνημα· φεῦ τὸ καὶ λαβεῖν πρόσφθεγμα τοιοῦδ’ ἀνδρὸς ἐν χρόνῳ μακρῷ. PHILOCTETES O dearest of sounds! Ah, what it is to be addressed by such a man after so long! S. Ph. 234 φεῦ φεῦ, τί τούτου χάρμα μεῖζον ἂν λάβοις τοῦ γῆς ἐπιψαύσαντα κᾆθ’ ὑπὸ στέγῃ πυκνῆς ἀκοῦσαι ψακάδος εὑδούσῃ φρενί; Ah, ah, what greater joy could you obtain than this, that of reaching land and then under the roof hearing the heavy rain in your sleeping mind? S. Fr. 636

|| 181 As previously noted, Sommerstein uses Heyse’s conjectures φῦ φῦ and ἔφυξας, which is the reason he translates thus.

Semantics—Category 1 | 125

In Euripides, Parker (E. Alc. 1102) claims that “the exclamation of distress marks the moment when Admetus begins to give way. His wish that the situation were not as it is reveals his sense that he is losing control of it.” Gregory (E. Hec. 55) regards φεῦ as conveying “emotions ranging from ruefulness to surprise, anger, and sorrow.” Collard (E. Hec. 1238–1239) agrees with Kells that “the exclamation φεῦ expresses any vehement emotion, from grief to delight”. Denniston (E. El. 367) observes the common use in introducing a general reflection, while Owen (E. Ion 1515) notices that “[t]he interjection here expresses astonishment”, while the repeated interjection in 1369 “expresses grief.” Stockert (E. IA 710) calls it an “Ausdruck des Staunens [an expression of astonishment]”. φεῦ· ὦ μῆτερ, ἥτις ἐκ τυραννικῶν δόμων δούλειον ἦμαρ εἶδες, ὡς πράσσεις κακῶς ὅσονπερ εὖ ποτ’· [POLYDORUS’ GHOST] Ah! Dear mother, who have lived to see the day of slavery after life in a royal house, how sad your fortunes are, as sad as they once were happy. E. Hec. 55 Ηλ. οὗτος κέκληται πόσις ἐμὸς τῆς ἀθλίας. Ορ. φεῦ· οὐκ ἔστ’ ἀκριβὲς οὐδὲν εἰς εὐανδρίαν· ELECTRA That is the man they call the husband of unhappy Electra. ORESTES Oh my! There is no reliable way to predict nobility. E. El. 367

In comedy, Olson (Ar. Ach. 457a-b) translates “Ah!, Wow!”, and labels φεῦ “an inarticulate expression, here not of grief … but of surprised pleasure”. Ευ. Δι. Ευ. Δι.

τί δ’, ὦ τάλας, σε τοῦδ’ ἔχει πλέκους χρέος; χρέος μὲν οὐδέν, βούλομαι δ’ ὅμως λαβεῖν. λυπηρὸς ἴσθ’ ὢν κἀποχώρησον δόμων. φεῦ· εὐδαιμονοίης, ὥσπερ ἡ μήτηρ ποτέ. EURIPIDES What need have you, poor wretch, for this wickerwork? DICAEOPOLIS No need at all; I want to have it anyway. EURIPIDES Know you are irksome, and depart my halls! DICAEOPOLIS Whew! God’s blessings on you—as once on your mother! Ar. Ach. 457

Dunbar (Ar. Av. 162) also specifically observes that φεῦ expresses “amazement, not grief”. Wilamowitz (Ar. Lys. 198) comments upon the special use with δᾶ: “φεῦ δᾶ war also in Sparta noch in lebendigem Gebrauch, in Athen gehört es dem tragischen Kunststile an, aus der Lyrik beibehalten. [φεῦ δᾶ was still in

126 | Semantics active use in Sparta, while it belongs in the tragic style in Athens, retained from lyric poetry]” Turner (also Ar. Lys. 198) characterizes φεῦ δᾶ as “a cry of surprise, whether pleasurable or painful”, while Henderson observes that it is “tragic (only here in comedy), expressing astonishment; origin obscure”. Austin and Olson (Ar. Th. 245) labels φεῦ an “inarticulate expression of unhappy astonishment”, while Stanford (also Ar. Ra. 141) gives “not ‘Alas’ here, but expressing either disgust …—‘Ugh!’—or a whistle of admiration (cf. the modern ‘wolf’ whistle) as in Birds 1724.” Χο. ἄναγε, δίεχε, πάραγε, πάρεχε. περιπέτεσθε μάκαρα μάκαρι σὺν τύχᾳ. ὢ φεῦ φεῦ τῆς ὥρας, τοῦ κάλλους. ὦ μακαριστὸν σὺ γάμον τῇδε πόλει γήμας. CHORUS Get back! Divide! Form up! Make room! Fly by the man blest with blest luck! My oh my, her youth, her beauty! What a blessing for the city is the marriage you have made. Ar. Av. 1724 Ηρ. ἐν πλοιαρίῳ τυννουτῳί σ’ ἀνὴρ γέρων ναύτης διάξει δύ’ ὀβολὼ μισθὸν λαβών. Δι. φεῦ, ὡς μέγα δύνασθον πανταχοῦ τὼ δύ’ ὀβολώ. HERACLES An ancient mariner will ferry you across in a little boat no bigger than this, for a fare of two obols. DIONYSUS Wow, what power those two obols have everywhere! Ar. Ra. 141

It is again clear that an element of surprise is present in all items that denote cognitive reaction. However, φεῦ clearly does not only contain cognitive content. The most salient emotive content is again one of vexation (understood in the broadest possible sense) to some physical or mental stimulus, “esp. by something causing annoyance, irritation, dissatisfaction, or disappointment”182. Secondarily, it is also used as an intensifier, a strengthening word, the main function of which is to add emphasis to an accompanying utterance. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am vexed]

3.6.3.6 ὤμοι—ōmoi ὤμοι has a total of 82 occurrences in the material: seven in Aeschylus, 27 in Sophocles, 43 in Euripides and five in Aristophanes. As was noted in connection || 182 OED s.v. “vexation, n.”, 3a.

Semantics—Category 1 | 127

with οἴμοι above, it seems that ὤμοι is a more elevated variant of the same expression. ὤμοι also differs from οἴμοι in that it is rarely used spontaneously, but rather often voluntarily, almost reflective. ὤμοι occurs more commonly in song than in speech and has an older history, with 28 occurrences in Homer, where it is always printed ὤ μοι. One of the most prominent examples of ὤμοι is found in Agamemnon, where it is used by the play’s namesake at the moment he is stabbed to death. Αγ. ὤμοι πέπληγμαι καιρίαν πληγὴν ἔσω. Χο. σῖγα· τίς πληγὴν ἀυτεῖ καιρίως οὐτασμένος; Αγ. ὤμοι μάλ’ αὖθις δευτέραν πεπληγμένος. AGAMEMNON [within] Ah me, I am struck down, a deep and deadly blow! CHORUS Hush! Who’s that screaming about being struck and mortally wounded? AGAMEMNON [within] Ah me again, struck a second time! A. Ag. 1343

This use seems to have been taken up by Sophocles in Electra 1415–1416, where nearly the exact same wording is used, this time by Clytemnestra. Κλ. ὤμοι πέπληγμαι. Ηλ. παῖσον, εἰ σθένεις, διπλῆν. Κλ. ὤμοι μάλ’ αὖθις. Ηλ. εἰ γὰρ Αἰγίσθῳ γ’ ὁμοῦ. VOICE OF CLYTEMNESTRA Ah, I am struck! ELECTRA Strike twice as hard, if you have the strength! VOICE OF CLYTEMNESTRA Ah, again! ELECTRA I wish it were Aegisthus too! S. El. 1415–1416

In Sophocles, it is used as a comment on the speaker’s own statement in Ajax 1205: ἐρώτων δ’ ἐρώτων ἀπέπαυσεν, ὤμοι. [CHORUS] And he cut me off from love, alas, from love! S. Aj. 1205

In Philoctetes, the use in 1265 has had commentators suggest emendations since it “does not sound like tragedy” (Webster). Φι. τίς αὖ παρ’ ἄντροις θόρυβος ἵσταται βοῆς; τί μ’ ἐκκαλεῖσθε; τοῦ κεχρημένοι, ξένοι; ὤμοι· κακὸν τὸ χρῆμα. μῶν τί μοι μέγα πάρεστε πρὸς κακοῖσι πέμποντες κακόν; [Enter PHILOCTETES]

128 | Semantics PHILOCTETES What is this new clamour of shouting by the cave? Why do you call me out? What do you need, strangers? Alas! It is something bad! Are you here to bring me some great evil in addition to my others! S. Ph. 1265

In Euripides, Bond (E. Her. 1065) notes that “ὤμοι and αἰαῖ alternate as responses” and refers to the similar passage in Trojan Women 1229. ὤμοι is frequently used as a reaction to some unwelcome news, as at Hippolytus 591, where Phaedra informs the chorus of what Hippolytus is saying behind the door: Χο. ὤμοι ἐγὼ κακῶν· προδέδοσαι, φίλα.

CHORUS Oh, disaster! You are betrayed, my friend!

E. Hipp. 591

Kannicht (E. Hel. 688) calls ὤμοι a “Klageruf [cry of sorrow]”, similar in use to the preceding example. Ελ. οὐκ ἔστι μάτηρ· ἀγχόνιον δὲ βρόχον δι’ ἐμὰν κατεδήσατο δύσγαμον αἰσχύναν. Με. ὤμοι· θυγατρὸς δ’ Ἑρμιόνης ἔστιν λόγος; HELEN My mother is dead: she tied a noose about her neck for shame at my foul union. MENELAUS Ah me! And what is our daughter Hermione’s life? E. Hel. 688

In comedy, apart from one occurrence in a fragment, all four occurrences are found in Clouds, the first two spoken in sequence by Worse and Better Argument respectively, and the other two spoken in another scene by Strepsiades, who is being mocked for his antiquated speech. Στ. ὤμοι, πονηρά γ’, ὦ Νεφέλαι, δίκαια δέ.

STREPSIADES Ah, Clouds, a lesson hard but just!

Ar. Nu. 1462

ὤμοι shows some affinities to the interjections of lamentation, such as occurring in lyrical passages, as well as alongside αἰαῖ in alternate responses in Euripides. Nevertheless, it seems that such a meaning may very well be secondary, the primary being an expression of the speaker’s vexation, with a clearer reference to negative sensations than e.g. φεῦ. The high register of the item becomes clear by its low frequency in Aristophanes. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am vexed]

Semantics—Category 1 | 129

3.6.3.7 Core meaning In conclusion, I propose the following core meaning for this group. Now speaker is EXPERIENCER of pain or vexation Proposed informational equivalents for the individual items:

ἀτταταῖ ἰοὺ ἰού οἴμοι παπαῖ φεῦ ὤμοι

[I am in sudden pain] [I am agitated] [I am vexed] [I am in continued pain] [I am vexed] [I am vexed]

3.6.4 Interjections expressive of lamentation Interjections expressive of grief and lamentation are especially common in tragedy (for various, if not obvious, reasons), and therefore naturally find their own category, comprising a large amount of all IntPs, 551 (of 1496). As with the interjections expressive of pain and vexation, these items all have variant forms or can be doubled. It is particularly common that these interjections are transcribed rather than translated, which perhaps is a consequence of modern English having “an impoverished vocabulary for lamentation”.183 Tab. 7: Interjections expressive of lamentation Lemma

IntPs

Aeschylus

Sophocles

Euripides

Aristophanes

αἰαῖ

128

15

20

84

9

ἒἔ

44

12

10

20

2

ἰή

18

3

0

1

14

ἰώ

294

71

68

129

26

οἴ

45

21

4

18

2

|| 183 “One of the difficulties of translating Greek tragedy for a modern audience is that modern American English has an impoverished vocabulary for lamentation. ‘Alas’ is, at best, extremely stilted, and, at worst, inducing of giggles. Thus, when I do chose to translate pheu as ‘alas’, that is when I feel a character’s stated grief is insincere. Other terms of grief, such as aiai or oimoi, I leave untranslated, since the inarticulate interjections seem, in some ways, more powerful than any actual English equivalent.” Mitchell-Boyask (2006: 23).

130 | Semantics

ὀτοτοτοῖ

22

12

1

9

0

Total

551

134

103

261

53

3.6.4.1 αἰαῖ—aiai αἰαῖ, with a total of 128 occurrences (15 in Aeschylus, 20 in Sophocles, 84 in Euripides and 9 in Aristophanes), is one of the most common interjections. It has no variant forms, but is sometimes doubled, or combined with other items.184 The scholion to A. Supp. 866 states that αἰαῖ is used εὐκτικῶς, “as a wish”. Hutchinson (A. Sept. 787) notes that “the significant event is emphasized” by

|| 184 There are a number of textual issues in connection with αἰαῖ. Firstly, the proper accentuation is uncertain. There is no agreement in the manuscripts on whether it should be oxytonic or perispomene. Editors may simply give αἶ “or” αἴ; e.g. S. Aj. 370, S. Tr. 968, E. Pho. 1340. Secondly, most manuscripts give the word as repetitions of the single syllable αἶ or αἴ, normally two, three or four repetitions. Since the IntP often consists of either a double or a quadruple form, editors have chosen to normalize the orthography into the contracted form, αἰαῖ. This is the third issue: how many syllables should the expression have? In the case of αἰαῖ the manuscripts frequently show something rather different than we are shown in the printed texts. Stevens (1971) on E. And. 1188: “The MS. reading does not correspond with that of most MSS. in 1175 but the precise form of such interjections is uncertain in both lines and cannot be restored with any confidence.” All passages except one (Ar. Pl. 706) have either the single (αἰαῖ) or the double (αἰαῖ αἰαῖ) form. However, some manuscripts obviously have three αἶ (S. Aj. 370; E. Med. 1008). As with other interjections, especially in category 1, there might be room for variation here, as well. The word frequently occurs in lyrical passages, and there are also examples extra metrum. In both these cases there would have been a lot of room for the actor to elaborate the utterance. The fourth issue is the similarity, in both pronunciation and use, of αἰαῖ to ἒ ἔ (cf. 3.6.4.2, inter alia for aspiration), which often involves a certain confusion, and there are plenty of examples of variant readings in manuscripts of these words. Cf. Kannicht on E. Hel. 164–166: “αἰαῖ … und ἒ ἔ (ἓ ἕ) … sind in der Überlieferung oft verwechselt …—offenbar als orthographische Folge der phonetischen Tatsache, das schon spätestens im 4. Jh. v. Chr. αι als offener e-Laut gesprochen wurde: im Timotheospapyrus wenigstens wird metri causa gekürztes αι … mehrfach durch ε wiedergegeben [αἰαῖ … and ἒ ἔ (ἓ ἕ) … are often confused in the textual tradition … —apparently as an orthographic result of the phonetic fact, that αι already in the fourth century BCE was pronounced as an open e-sound: in the Timotheus papyrus, at any rate, αι shortened metri causa is … rendered by ε on several occasions]”. Moreover, the fact that these particular interjections also combine has further contributed to this confusion. Some passages have several alternative readings, such as E. Med. 111, which has at least five: “111 αἰαῖ fere ELP: ἔ ἔ fere BOC et Es: αἶ αἶ ἔ ἔ fere HD et O2: ἒ ἒ αἶ αἶ V: ἔ ἔ ἔ ἔ A: fort. αἰαῖ αἰαῖ praeferendum (uide ad 96).”

Semantics—Category 1 | 131

the utterance of the item. Griffith (A. PV 66) labels αἰαῖ “usually a cry of misery; uniquely here of pity”. τέκνοις δ’ ἀρχαίας ἐφῆκεν ἐπίκοτος τροφᾶς, αἰαῖ, πικρογλώσσους ἀράς, [CHORUS] and angered with his sons for their wretched185 maintenance of him he let fly at them (ah, ah!) the curses of a bitter tongue, A. Sept. 787 Κρ. ἀδαμαντίνου νῦν σφηνὸς αὐθάδη γνάθον στέρνων διαμπὰξ πασσάλευ’ ἐρρωμένως. Ηφ. αἰαῖ Προμηθεῦ, σῶν ὕπερ στένω πόνων. POWER Now drive the remorseless bite of the adamantine wedge with all your power right through his chest. HEPHAESTUS [as he reluctantly prepares to do so] Ah, Prometheus, I groan for your sufferings! Α. PV 66

In Sophocles, Stanford (S. Aj. 430–433) comments on Ajax realizing that his name in fact constitutes a figura etymologica, and can be interpreted as “he who is destined to cry αἰαῖ, woe, woe”. Easterling (S. Tr. 1081) notes that the lyric cry “αἰαῖ, ὦ τάλας” “signals a new onset of pain”, while the cry ἒ ἔ, αἰαῖ in Electra is responded with the Chorus’ question “why are you crying?”. Αι. αἰαῖ· τίς ἄν ποτ’ ᾤεθ’ ὧδ’ ἐπώνυμον τοὐμὸν ξυνοίσειν ὄνομα τοῖς ἐμοῖς κακοῖς; νῦν γὰρ πάρεστι καὶ δὶς αἰάζειν ἐμοί, AJAX Alas! Who ever would have thought that my name would come to harmonise with my sorrows? For now I can say “Alas” a second time... S. Aj. 430 Ηλ. ἒ ἔ, αἰαῖ. Χο. ὦ παῖ, τί δακρύεις; Ηλ. φεῦ. Χο. μηδὲν μέγ’ ἀύσῃς. ELECTRA Woe, woe, ah me! CHORUS Daughter, why do you weep? ELECTRA Alas! CHORUS Utter no loud cry! S. El. 826

|| 185 Sommerstein’s edition has ἀθλίας instead of ἀρχαίας. The manuscripts have ἀραίας.

132 | Semantics In Euripides, Thompson and Mills (E. Med. 1009) translate “αἰαῖ μάλ’ αὖθις ‘alas, I say, again alas!’”, and Mastronarde (also E. Med. 1009) comments that “μάλ’ αὖθις is a formulaic combination appended to a repeated exclamation about a dozen times in tragedy: ‘woe, I say again!’” Barrett (E. Hipp. 569) notices “a sudden cry of anguish”, while Collard (E. Hec. 332) calls it “an exclamation of sorrow or hurt.” Φα. ἰώ μοι, αἰαῖ· ὦ δυστάλαινα τῶν ἐμῶν παθημάτων. PHAEDRA Oh, alas, alas! Oh, what suffering is mine! E. Hipp. 569

Bond (E. Her. 900) observes the combination of the lamenter’s referral to his own lament: “Such references are a formal part of threnody and are common in tragedy”. Kannicht (E. Hel. 125) labels αἰαῖ a “demaskierenden Klagenschrei [unmasking cry of sorrow]”, while Mastronarde (E. Ph. 1340) calls it a “lyric outburst”. Willink (E. Or. 316) describes αἰαῖ as a “‘Lamenting’ address to the Furies”. Ελ. αἰαῖ· κακὸν τόδ’ εἶπας οἷς κακὸν λέγεις.

HELEN Ah no! How dreadful! I mean for those it touches.

E. Hel. 125

Οι. αἰαῖ. Αν. τί τόδε καταστένεις; Οι. τέκνα. Αν. δι’ ὀδύνας ἔβας· OEDIPUS Ah me! ANTIGONE What is this sigh you make? OEDIPUS My sons! ANTIGONE You are in pain! E. Ph. 1560

In comedy, Austin and Olson (Ar. Th. 885) observe that “αἰαῖ is common in tragic lamentation … and is here paratragic”. Ευ. αἰαῖ· τέθνηκε. ποῦ δ’ ἐτυμβεύθη τάφῳ; Κη. τόδ’ ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ σῆμ’, ἐφ’ ᾧ καθήμεθα. EURIPIDES Alas, he is dead! Where was he duly entombed? KINSMAN This is his very tomb whereon I sit. Ar. Th. 885

It seems that αἰαῖ can express state as well as reaction; however, the former seems to be the more common. It is reasonable to assume that any expression which can be connected with μάλ’ αὖθις is expressive of state rather than reaction.

Semantics—Category 1 | 133

The emotive content of αἰαῖ therefore does not necessarily contain surprise; the primary emotion in question is one of grief or sorrow. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am in grief]

3.6.4.2 ἒ ἔ—e e ἒ ἔ is not as common as αἰαῖ, with a total of 44 occurrences (12 in Aeschylus, 10 in Sophocles, 20 in Euripides and two in Aristophanes).186 Garvie (A. Ch. 790) states that ἒ ἔ “is normally a cry of pain” and also refers to West’s suspicion that “ἒ ἔ in dramatic texts represents sobbing.”187 Hutchinson (A. Sept. 148) gives the following comment: “These sudden cries … are like a serious and passionate version of what in comedy are mere formulae of surprise.” Griffith (A. PV 566) calls the cries ἆ ἆ ἓ ἕ “shrieks” of “pain and terror”. ἒἒἒἔ [CHORUS] They utter sharp cries of terror. A. Sept. 148

In Sophocles, Kells (S. El. 840) speaks of a “cry of lamentation”, which seems to apply also to the following occurrence in Women of Trachis: ἐέ, οὐδ’ ἀπαράξαι κρᾶτα βίου θέλει μολὼν τοῦ στυγεροῦ; φεῦ φεῦ. [HERACLES] Ah, ah! Will no one come and lop off my head, ending the misery of my life? Ah, ah! S. Tr. 1014

|| 186 As with (αἰ)αῖ, the interjection ἔ regularly appears in the “doubled” form ἒ ἔ, which I consequently take to be the “normal” form, since there are no extant occurrences of the single ἔ, cf. αἴ (Ar. Pl. 706). Similarly to αἰαῖ, again, the word at times doubles once more (a phenomenon which I understand as indicating a prolongation of the emotional state), and furthermore shares a sometimes problematic textual transmission, cf. note 184 above. Unique to ἒ ἔ is the occasional aspiration occuring in the manuscripts of Aeschylus and Euripides; this reading is usually not preferred by editors (examples include E. Hipp. 591 αἲ αἲ ἓ ἓ H, Hipp. 1354 ἕ ἕ BP and Tr and Pho. 1340 αἶ αἶ (uel αἲ αἲ) ἓ ἓ PWZ and Ms; ἒ αἲ S). One work stands out, however, viz. Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound, where the aspiration is retained throughout (and even added, in 566). 187 West (1982b: 288 n. 28).

134 | Semantics In Euripides, Barrett (E. Hipp. 1353–1354) notes that “the ἒ ἔ of 1354 will be [Hippolytus’] cry of pain as he moves once more”. ἒ ἔ· ὦ στυγνὸν ὄχημ’ ἵππειον, ἐμῆς βόσκημα χερός, διά μ’ ἔφθειρας, κατὰ δ’ ἔκτεινας. [HIPPOLYTUS] O agony! O hateful horses my own hands have fed, you have destroyed me, have killed me! E. Hipp. 1354

In comedy, Starkie (Ar. V. 316) asserts that he has “no doubt that Aristophanes is imitating Euripides here.” MacDowell (also Ar. V. 316) calls the passage “more parody of tragedy”, whereas Austin and Olson call the αἰαῖ αἰαῖ ἒ ἔ of Ar. Th. 1042 a “paratragic expression of grief”. Πα. ἀνόνητον ἄρ’ ὦ θυλάκιόν σ’ εἶχον ἄγαλμα. ἒ ἔ. πάρα νῷν στενάζειν. BOY Ah shopping bag, it seems you’ve been a useless ornament to carry! Boo hoo. All we can do is bawl. Ar. V. 315

It seems that ἒ ἔ is very close semantically to αἰαῖ, although the evidence seems to point at ἒ ἔ as expressive of a state rather than a reaction. The emotive content of ἒ ἔ therefore does not seem to contain surprise; the primary emotion in question is one of grief or sorrow. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am in continuous grief]

3.6.4.3 ἰή—iē ἰή is a fairly uncommon item, with a total of 18 occurrences, three in Aeschylus, none in Sophocles, one in Euripides and 14 in Aristophanes. It also occurs in combination with an explicit or implicit παιάν or παιών, most likely a byname for Apollo, in all passages save five, which all consist of repetitions of the same line in Frogs, supposedly a quote from the lost play Myrmidons. In Aeschylus, Friis-Johansen and Whittle (A. Supp. 114) note that “single and double ἰή is used by Aeschylus only as a cry of keening, usually (as here, cf. 125–126) in combination with ἰώ”, pointing to the fact that ἰὼ ἰώ, ἰὼ in the antis-

Semantics—Category 1 | 135

trophe respond to the ἰὴ ἰή, ἰηλέμοισιν of the strophe. On A. Ag. 1485, where we found the combination ἰὼ ἰή, Fraenkel observes that “ἰὼ ἰώ follows ἰὴ ἰή in the θρῆνος of the Persae”. Ξε. ἰὴ ἰὴ ἰὼ ἰώ.

XERXES Ieh, ieh! Ió, ió!

A. Pers. 1004

τοιαῦτα πάθεα μέλεα θρεομένα λέγω λιγέα βαρέα δακρυοπετῆ ἰὴ ἰή, ἰηλέμοισιν ἐμπρεπῆ· [CHORUS] Such are the sad sufferings that I speak and cry of, grievous, keening, tear-falling sufferings —ié, ié!—made conspicuous by loud laments: A. Supp. 114

In Euripides, where we find only a single occurrence, Collard and Cropp (Fr. 370.5) describe ἰὴ παιάν as a “cry appealing for or celebrating deliverance, usually directed to Apollo with whom the healing god Paieon had come to be identified.” This is also the earliest occurrence in tragedy of the word in combination with παιάν.188 τί]ς̣ ἂν πρὸς ἀγμοῖς Παλλάδος σταθεὶ ποδί κ]ήρυξ γένοιτ’ ἂν τῶν κατὰ στατόν, φίλοι; (Χο.) ἦ̣ ποτ’ ἀνὰ πόλιν ἀλαλαῖς—ἰὴ παιὰν – κ]αλλίνικον βοάσω μέλος ἀ̣ναλ̣α̣βόμενος ἔρ]γ̣ον γεραιᾶς χερὸς Λίβυος ἀ̣χ̣άεντος | [λω]τοῦ, (Who) has stood by Pallas’ cliffs, my friends, and can be our herald of how things stand with the army? (chanting) Shall I ever shout through the city the glorious victory song, crying Iē paiān, taking up the task of my aged hand, the Libyan (lotus) pipe sounding to the cithara’s cries... E. Fr. 370.5

In comedy, Platnauer (Ar. Pax 195–197) calls the ἰὴ ἰὴ at 455 “a cry of exultation”, while Olson (Ar. Pax 453) states that ἰὴ παιών “is equivalent to a plea for divine assistance and thus good fortune at the beginning of a great and potentially significant undertaking”.

|| 188 Sophocles has two occurrences of Παιάν. In one he is referred to as ἰήιος: “ἰήιε Δάλιε Παιάν” (OT 154), while in the other, a repeated ἰώ is found instead of ἰή: “ἰὼ ἰὼ Παιάν·” (Tr. 221).

136 | Semantics Τρ. ἡμῖν δ’ ἀγαθὰ γένοιτ’. ἰὴ παιών, ἰή. Χο. ἄφελε τὸ παίειν, ἀλλ’ “ἰὴ” μόνον λέγε. Τρ. ἰὴ ἰὴ τοίνυν, ἰὴ μόνον λέγω. HERMES189 And on us let blessings flow. Strike up the Paeon: hip hip— TRYGAEUS Omit the striking; just say hooray! HERMES Hooray, hooray, then, I’ll only cry hooray! Ar. Pax 453–455

Dunbar (Ar. Av. 1763) gives a similar range of explanations: This was a ritual cry, properly to Apollo as Healer, uttered in various situations, of which the most relevant to Birds are the military paian, uttered after victory (e.g. Il. 22. 391–4, Thuc. 2. 91. 2, Eq. 408) or before battle in hopeful expectation of victory, (e.g. A. Pers. 393 of Greeks going into battle at Salamis, Thuc. 7. 75. 7 of the Sicilian Expedition setting out) and the wedding paian (Ar. Th. 1034–5, lyr., from E. Andromeda, Σ).

Henderson (Ar. Lys. 1291) states that “this cry, usually directed at Apollo, brings good luck and averts bad and is therefore appropriate in hymns of thanksgiving, success and deliverance from peril”. Dover (Ar. Ra. 1264–1265) declares that ἰή can be “a cry with which Paian is hailed” and “a cry of woe”. It seems reasonable to consider ἰή to trace its origins in the “cry of keening” described by Friis-Johansen and Whittle. The frequent examples of association with hailing, especially of Παιάν, are to be understood as formulae, i.e. nonspontaneous and socially expected, with a secondary use of calling for assistance from a divinity.190 Proposed informational equivalent: [I am in mourning]

3.6.4.4 ἰώ—iō ἰώ is one of the most common interjections, with a total of 294 occurrences, found in all four authors: 71 in Aeschylus, 68 in Sophocles, 129 in Euripides, as well as 26 in Aristophanes. It occurs doubled in all authors, and it is frequently combined with (μοί) μοι, and with certain other interjections, most notably αἰαῖ. It also frequently occurs in lyrical passages. In Aeschylus, Hutchinson (A. Sept. 97) calls ἰώ “[a]n exclamation, rather than an address”, and Friis-Johansen and Whittle (A. Supp. 162) a “cry of lamen|| 189 Wilson and Henderson have differing opinions as to whom the lines belong, as is apparent. 190 This use seems similar to the “hip” which is used in introducing a united cheer: “hip hip (hip) hooray”. Cf. OED s.v. “hip, int. (and n.4)” 2.

Semantics—Category 1 | 137

tation”, although 905 and 908 are called “a formal appeal for protection”. In Agamemnon, the chorus recalls what the seers in the house said when Helen had been abducted to Troy: “ἰὼ ἰὼ δῶμα δῶμα καὶ πρόμοι, ἰὼ λέχος καὶ στίβοι φιλάνορες·” [CHORUS] “Alas for the house, alas for the house and its chiefs! Alas for the bed and the traces of a loving wife!” A. Ag. 410–411

Fraenkel (A. Ag. 503) provides an extensive note: Aeschylus uses ἰώ fairly often, but not in trimeters, except in this speech (again in 518) and in a cry of Cassandra’s (1305, cf. 1315), and again fr. 143 N. (discussed below). It must therefore be regarded as expressing strong excitement. The Herald’s first word shows him as a man quite overcome by his feelings and indulging them freely. How well this acts as a foil to the self-controlled demeanour of the king will be seen. The Herald belongs to a class of society[note] which does not feel bound to practice the εὐσχημοσύνη and the restrained utterance of the real gentry. It is significant that the prologue of Aeschylus’ Μυσοί (fr. 143 N.) began in just the same way: ἰὼ Κάϊκε Μύσιαί τ’ ἐπιρροαί. This is the salutation spoken on arrival in Mysia by the same servant of Telephus who shortly afterwards says (fr. 144) ποταμοῦ Καΐκου χαῖρε πρῶτος ὀργεών, εὐχαῖς δὲ σώζιοις δεσπότας παιωνίαις.

Later, on 1305, Fraenkel labels ἰώ “exceedingly strong …, not a mere appeal but a shriek.” Denniston and Page (A. Ag. 1315) speak of “a cry of appeal to the bystanders to bear witness (1317 μαρτυρῆτε) to her ill-treatment.” Κα. ἰὼ πάτερ σοῦ σῶν τε γενναίων τέκνων.

CASSANDRA Ió, my father, for you and your noble sons!

A. Ag. 1305

A conspicuous example of Aeschylus’ repeated use of ἰώ is found in Seven Against Thebes. Αντ. ἰὼ πάντων πολυπονώτατοι. Ισμ. ἰὼ δαιμονῶντες ἐν ἄται. Αντ. ἰώ, ποῦ σφε θήσομεν χθονός; Ισμ. ἰώ, ὅπου τιμιώτατον. Αντ. ἰὼ ἰὼ πῆμα πατρὶ πάρευνον. FIRST SEMICHORUS Oh, both so much afflicted in every way! SECOND SEMICHORUS Oh, both possessed by the spirit of Ruin! FIRST SEMICHORUS Oh, where in the land shall we inter them? SECOND SEMICHORUS Oh, in the place of greatest honour.

138 | Semantics FIRST SEMICHORUS Oh, oh, a pain to their father, if they sleep where he does!

A. Sept. 1000–1004191

In Sophocles, Kells (S. El. 840) calls Electra’s ἒ ἔ, ἰώ a “cry of lamentation”. Davies (S. Tr. 1026) gives the following comments: ἰὼ δαῖμον: some scholars … take this as a mere cry of pain (cf. 1112), not an appeal for help; others take it as a genuine apostrophe like 1031 ἰὼ ἰὼ Παλλάς: cf. Hutchinson on Aesch. ScT 481, arguing that ἰώ + vocative in Aeschylus and S is always a proper address (cf. OT 1311 ἰὼ δαῖμον, ἵν’ ἐξήλου). Ηρ. ὦ παῖ, ποῦ ποτ’ εἶ; τᾷδέ με τᾷδέ με πρόσλαβε κουφίσας. ἒ ἔ, ἰὼ δαῖμον. θρῴσκει δ’ αὖ, θρῴσκει δειλαία διολοῦσ’ ἡμᾶς ἀποτίβατος ἀγρία νόσος. ἰὼ ἰὼ Παλλάς, τόδε μ’ αὖ λωβᾶται. ἰὼ παῖ, τὸν φύτορ’ οἰκτίρας, HERACLES Ah, ah! My son, where are you? Here, here, raise me, take hold of me! Ah, ah, O god! It leaps up again, the evil thing, it leaps up to destroy me, the cruel plague, irresistible! Ah, ah, Pallas, again it does me outrage! Ah, my son, take pity on your father, S. Tr. 1023–1034

Ussher (S. Ph. 219) characterizes the exclamation as “partly in greeting, but rather in surprise (and pleasure) at the sight of their Greek dress”. ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΤΗΣ ἰὼ ξένοι·

PHILOCTETES Hail, strangers!

S. Ph. 219

Jebb (apud Shuckburgh) (S. Ph. 400) asserts that “ἰὼ calls on the goddess to note the wrong”, and notes (Ph. 736) that “it is the rapid utterance of one who fears to betray himself, not a cry of anguish extorted by physical torment.” ἰὼ μάκαιρα ταυροκτόνων λεόντων ἔφεδρε,

|| 191 Sommerstein has abandoned the manuscript attributions of the lines to Antigone and Ismene, instead giving them to two semichoruses. He notes (note 144): “These brief responsive phrases may have been sung by individual voices from the two halves of the chorus.”

Semantics—Category 1 | 139

[CHORUS] … ah, blessed one that sits behind bull-slaughtering lions! S. Ph. 400

Webster (S. Ph. 391) notes that it “would sound to Philoctetes like an invocation to Cybele to punish the Atreidae”. Webster also notes that “Jebb misses this subtlety and unjustifiably translates ἰὼ ‘hear it’.” In Women of Trachis, we find a peculiar example of doubled ἰώ followed by Παιάν, which otherwise is only found in combination with ἰή (cf. 3.6.4.3 above). ἰδού μ’ ἀναταράσσει, εὐοῖ μ’, ὁ κισσὸς ἄρτι βακχίαν ὑποστρέφων ἅμιλλαν. ἰὼ ἰὼ Παιάν. ἴδ’, ὦ φίλα γύναι, τάδ’ ἀντίπρῳρα δή σοι βλέπειν πάρεστ’ ἐναργῆ. [CHORUS] See, the ivy excites me—Euoi!—whirling me around in the Bacchic rush! Oh, oh, Paean! See, see, dear lady! You can look on this before your eyes, in all clarity. S. Tr. 222

In Euripides, Gregory (E. Hec. 1091) speaks of ἰώ as “the cry for help that will bring Agamemnon to the scene”. Barrett (E. Hipp.) gives three comments: 569–70. After 568, a brief pause while Ph[aedra] listens; then she breaks into a sudden cry of anguish. 601. Often in tragedy a character under stress of some strong emotion calls on the elements and declares that emotion to them, or calls them to witness what is happening. 884. ἰὼ πόλις: “Ho, men of my land!” (πόλις, as often, = the body of citizens); he summons them to hear him denounce and curse Hipp[olytus] Anyone who is violently wronged at once raises such a shout (βοή) calling on the men of the community.

Collard (E. Supp. 1072) notes that “[t]he sudden excitement of Ev[adne]’s leap and the horror of the watching I[phis] and Cho[rus] are marked … with interjections extra metrum”, while Bond (E. Her. 738) claims that “ἰώ invokes the aid of a god or a divine power: ‘Hail Justice! Hail the heaven-sent tide of retribution!’”. Χο. μεταβολὰ κακῶν· μέγας ὁ πρόσθ’ ἄναξ πάλιν ὑποστρέφει βίοτον ἐξ Ἅιδα. ἰὼ δίκα καὶ θεῶν παλίρρους πότμος. CHORUS Our woes depart! Mighty is our former lord as he returns alive from Hades!

140 | Semantics Hail, justice and the tide-turning fate of the gods! E. Her. 738

Stockert (E. IA 590) labels the double ἰώ an “ekstatische Ausruf, der auch im Kult beiheimatet ist [extatic exclamation, also common in ritual]”, the single ἰώ in 1333 a “Klagenruf” and again the double occurrence in 1505 a “kultischer Jubelruf wie lat. io [ritual joyful cry like Latin io]”. ἰὼ ἰώ· μεγάλαι μεγάλων εὐδαιμονίαι· τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως ἴδετ’ Ἰφιγένειαν, ἄνασσαν ἐμήν, [Enter by Eisodos A IPHIGENIA and CLYTAEMESTRA on a chariot. They are accompanied by men or women of Argos, who form a SECOND CHORUS.] lEADER OF THE SECOND CHORUS Hail, hail! Great is the happiness of the great! See the king’s daughter, Iphigenia, our princess, E. IA 590 ἰώ, μεγάλα πάθεα, μεγάλα δ’ ἄχεα, Δαναΐδαις τιθεῖσα Τυνδαρὶς κόρα. [IPHIGENIA] Ah, ah, great are the sufferings, great the woes that Tyndareus’ daughter laid upon the children of Danaus! E. IA 1333 Ιφ. ἰὼ ἰώ· λαμπαδοῦχος ἁμέρα Διός τε φέγγος, ἕτερον αἰῶνα καὶ μοῖραν οἰκήσομεν. χαῖρέ μοι, φίλον φάος. Χο. ἰὼ ἰώ· ἴδεσθε τὰν Ἰλίου καὶ Φρυγῶν ἑλέπτολιν στείχουσαν, IPHIGENIA Ah, ah, daystar that lights our way, Zeus’s sunlight, I shall take as my dwelling another life, another lot! Farewell, dear light! [Exit IPHIGENIA by Eisodos B, accompanied by the servant.] CHORUS Ah, ah! See her, the sacker of Ilium and the Phrygians, E. IA 1505

The association to cultic use is also found in Bacchae, where Dionysus himself calls on his followers alongside cries of ἰώ.

Semantics—Category 1 | 141

Δι. ἰώ, κλύετ’ ἐμᾶς κλύετ’ αὐδᾶς, ἰὼ βάκχαι, ἰὼ βάκχαι. DIONYSUS (within) Ho there, hear my voice, ho, bacchants, ho bacchants! E. Ba. 578

In comedy, Olson (Ar. Ach. 566–567) notes that ἰώ is “[p]robably to be taken as a parody of an appeal for divine assistance”, and that “[t]he exclamation ἰώ (in the classical period confined to drama) is used at moments of high emotion …, generally in reference to something terrible or heartwrenching … or as a part of a call for attention and assistance (often from a god), as here.” MacDowell (Ar. V. 750) labels ἰώ μοί μοι “an exclamation of grief, typical of tragedy; cf. Clouds 1259–1261, where it is comically taken to be the utterance of a character in a tragedy.” Ημ.α ἰὼ Λάμαχ’, ὦ βλέπων ἀστραπάς, βοήθησον, ὦ γοργολόφα, φανείς, ἰὼ Λάμαχ’, ὦ φίλ’, ὦ φυλέτα· FIRST SEMICHORUS O Lamachus who looks lightning, appear and help us, you of the fearsome crest! O Lamachus, friend and fellow tribesman! Ar. Ach. 566–567 ΧΡΗΣΤΗΣ Βʹ ἰώ μοί μοι. Στ. ἔα. τίς οὑτοσί ποτ’ ἔσθ’ ὁ θρηνῶν; οὔ τι που τῶν Καρκίνου τις δαιμόνων ἐφθέγξατο; Χρ. τί δ’, ὅστις εἰμί, τοῦτο βούλεσθ’ εἰδέναι; ἀνὴρ κακοδαίμων. [Enter SECOND CREDITOR.] SECOND CREDITOR Oh me, oh my! STREPSIADES Eh? Who can this be, beating his breast? Could it possibly be one of Carcinus’ deities that made that sound? SECOND CREDITOR Who am I? Why do you want to know? A man ill-fated. Ar. Nu. 1259–1263

The various uses of ἰώ found in tragedy seem to point in different directions, one being a cry of anguish or lamentation, another a cry associated to the cult of some divinity; there are also examples of what seems to be cries for help. However, it does seem probable that these uses in fact all derive from only one or two sources.

142 | Semantics Similarly to ἰή, ἰώ is used as a cry of lamentation as well as a cry in combination with vocatives; in Aeschylus’ Persians the two interjections are even combined. However, there is no single divinity equally closely associated to ἰώ as Παιάν is to ἰή. Therefore, it seems likely that the core semantics of the two items are similar but not the same. Following my view that ἰώ is a category 1 interjection, its core semantics are emotive and denote a sensation of grief, perhaps also including fear or anxiety. Secondarily, ἰώ often seems to be used as a call for attention or aid, regularly in association with divine cult, alongside vocatives and imperatives. However, since vocatives are able to fulfil the function of invoking by themselves, any such addition the interjection makes is clearly redundant; therefore, I find it reasonable not to attribute the invoking feature to the core semantics of ἰώ.192 The numerous examples of ἰώ in combination with (μοί) μοι, presented in detail above (cf. 2.3.2.1), clearly show that this item belongs in category 1; nevertheless, as with ἰή, the frequent combination with vocatives can be considered a formulaic use, i.e. non-spontaneous and socially expected. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am in continuous grief]

3.6.4.5 οἴ—oi The total number of occurrences of οἴ is 45 (21 in Aeschylus, four in Sophocles, 18 in Euripides and two in Aristophanes). A distinguishing feature of οἴ is the frequent referral to the first person made explicitly with the pronoun ἐγώ. In Aeschylus there are occurrences of doubled as well as tripled variant forms, οἰοῖ, οἰοῖ οἰοῖ and οἰοιοῖ. In Aeschylus, Garvie (A. Ch. 893) notes that οἲ’γώ is the beginning of “Clytaemestra’s lamentation also at 691”, and refers to Cassandra’s cry at Agamemnon 1257: “This time there is no doubt of her sincerity.” Βα. οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα συμφορᾶς κακῆς, φίλοι· ποίωι μόρωι δὲ τούσδε φὴις ὀλωλέναι; QUEEN Ah, wretched me, my friends, this terrible catastrophe! By what kind of death do you say they have perished? A. Pers. 445–446

|| 192 Worman (2000: 26) marginal note: “with connotation of ‘help’—you cry ‘ἰώ’ when control is lost”.

Semantics—Category 1 | 143

Κλ. οἲ ’γώ, τέθνηκας, φίλτατ’ Αἰγίσθου βία. CLYTAEMESTRA Ah me! Mighty Aegisthus, my beloved, are you dead? A. Ch. 893

In Sophocles, the passage found in the fragments (210.30) clearly refers to lamentation, and all three remaining occurrences are spoken at the news or mention of death. Πα. τέθνηκ’ Ὀρέστης· ἐν βραχεῖ ξυνθεὶς λέγω. Ηλ. οἲ ’γὼ τάλαιν’, ὄλωλα τῇδ’ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ. OLD SLAVE Orestes is dead! There you have it in a word! ELECTRA Ah me, misery! I am lost this day! S. El. 673–674

Collard (E. Hec. 438) notices that “Hec[uba]’s consecutive and climactic appeals in these lines, in asyndeton, mark extreme emotion”. Εκ. οἲ ’γώ, προλείπω, λύεται δέ μου μέλη. ὦ θύγατερ, ἅψαι μητρός, ἔκτεινον χέρα, δός, μὴ λίπηις μ’ ἄπαιδ’. ἀπωλόμην, φίλαι. HECUBA Ah, ah! I am faint! My limbs are unstrung! Daughter, take hold of your mother, stretch out your hand, give it to me, do not leave me childless! My friends, my life is over! E. Hec. 438

A peculiar feature, which is found in only one other item, ὀτοτοτοῖ, is that all occurrences in tragedy of οἴ, except for those spoken by Xerxes and the chorus in Persians, are uttered by female speakers. In comedy, Platnauer (Ar. Pax 932) comments on the word play (of βοΐ, ὑί and ὀί respectively): “There is also in Attic an exclamation, οἴ, indicating sorrow or terror (cf. οἴμοι); this in Ionic would perhaps be pronounced ὀΐ.” Olson (also Ar. Pax 932) notes the same word play. Τρ. τῷ δαὶ δοκεῖ σοι δῆτα τῶν λοιπῶν; Χο. ὀί. Τρ. ὀί; Χο. ναὶ μὰ Δί’. Τρ. ἀλλὰ τοῦτό γ’ ἔστ’ Ἰωνικὸν τὸ ῥῆμ’. Χο. ἐπίτηδές γ’, ἵν’ ἐν τἠκκλησίᾳ ὡς χρὴ πολεμεῖν λέγῃ τις, οἱ καθήμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ δέους λέγωσ’ Ἰωνικῶς “ὀὶ”— Τρ. εὖ τοι λέγεις. —καὶ τἄλλα γ’ ὦσιν ἤπιοι. Χο.

144 | Semantics TRYGAEUS Then which of the remaining options appeals to you? SLAVE193

A boo lamb.

TRYGAEUS Boo lamb? SLAVE That’s right.

TRYGAEUS But that’s an Ionic pronunciation.

SLAVE I used it on purpose, so that whenever anyone in Assembly says we’ve got to go to war, the assemblymen will be frightened and say in Ionic, “Boo!”— TRYGAEUS Good idea! SLAVE—and be gentle otherwise, Ar. Pax 932

It seems that οἴ most frequently is a women’s expression of grief, sorrow or fear, commonly used in lamentations and as a reaction to something unwanted or feared. Proposed informational equivalent: [Ifemale am in grief]

3.6.4.6 ὀτοτοτοῖ—otototoi There are only 22 occurrences of ὀτοτοτοῖ, and all are found in tragedy: 12 in Aeschylus, one in Sophocles and nine in Euripides.194 ὀτοτοτοῖ mostly occurs in lyric meters, except for the one occurrence (A. Ag. 1256), where it is also shortened. Κα. παπαῖ· οἷον τὸ πῦρ· ἐπέρχεται δέ μοι. ὀτοτοῖ Λύκει’ Ἄπολλον, οἲ ἐγὼ ἐγώ. CASSANDRA Papai! How the fire comes upon me! Ototoi! Apollo the Wolf-god! Ah me, ah me, … A. Ag. 1256–1257

Broadhead (A. Pers. 918) labels ὀτοτοτοῖ an expression of “gloomy feelings”, and Garvie (A. Ch. 159) calls it “the characteristic cry of the θρῆνος”. ὀτοτοτοτοτοτοῖ· ἴτω τις δορυσθενὴς ἀνὴρ

|| 193 Henderson attributes the lines to a slave, whereas Wilson’s edition attributes them to the chorus. 194 There are quite a lot of variant readings of ὀτοτοτοῖ. The main problem with this item is the unclear number of syllables consisting of -το-. Probably, it was possible to ad lib this word in performance, since it mostly occurs in lyrical passages. There is a variant form ὀττοτοῖ, which occurs twice (S. El. 1245 and E. Or. 1389). This reading is contested by LSJ, but defended by Willink (E. Or. 1390–1391).

Semantics—Category 1 | 145

ἀναλυτὴρ δόμων †Σκυθιτά τ’ ἐν χεροῖν παλίντον’ ἐν ἔργωι† βέλη ’πιπάλλων Ἄρης σχέδιά τ’ αὐτόκωπα νωμῶν ξίφη. [CHORUS] Ototototototoi! Oh, if only there would come a man, mighty with the spear, to set the house free again, brandishing in his hands Scythian weapons in the work of war and wielding a sword, of one piece with its hilt, for close fighting! A. Ch. 159

On (A. Ch. 869), Garvie notes that “ὀτοτοτοῖ is found as a death-cry nowhere else in tragedy”, and refers to the suggestion of Schadewaldt, “that it is intended to suggest the femininity of Aegisthus.” Αι. ἒ ἒ ὀτοτοτοῖ.

AEGISTHUS [within] Ah-ah! Otototoi!

A. Ch. 869

One of the most famous passages in Aeschylus, Cassandra’s renowned ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ in Agamemnon 1072 and 1076, clearly shows a person in a state of combined fear and grief. ΚΑΣΣΑΝΔΡΑ ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ· ὤπολλον ὤπολλον. Χο. τί ταῦτ’ ἀνωτότυξας ἀμφὶ Λοξίου; οὐ γὰρ τοιοῦτος ὥστε θρηνητοῦ τυχεῖν. [CASSANDRA at last descends from the carriage and walks towards the palace; but on seeing, before the door, the pillar and altar of Apollo Agyieus, she suddenly stops in her tracks.] CASSANDRA Ototototoi, popoi dah! Apollo! Apollo! CHORUS Why are you wailing like that about Loxias? He is not the sort to come in contact with one who laments. A. Ag. 1072

The one occurrence in Sophocles clearly shows the sorrowful reaction of Electra at a memory evoked by Orestes. Ορ. ὅρα γε μὲν δὴ κἀν γυναιξὶν ὡς Ἄρης ἔνεστιν· εὖ δ’ ἔξοισθα πειραθεῖσά που. Ηλ. ὀττοτοῖ , ἀνέφελον ἐνέβαλες οὔποτε καταλύσιμον, οὐδέ ποτε λησόμενον ἁμέτερον οἷον ἔφυ κακόν. ORESTES But remember that women too have martial valour; and you know it well, I think, from experience.

146 | Semantics ELECTRA Alas, alas! You have brought to mind the nature of our sorrow, never to be veiled, never to be undone, never to forget! S. El. 1245

In Euripides, Diggle (1970), on E. Fr. 781.68, notes that “ὀτοτοτοῖ is plainly a parenthetic interjection and does not interrupt the construction.” ἰώ μοί μοι. κακὰ φανήσεται· βασίλεια τάλαινα παῖς τ’ ἔσω κρυφαῖος νέκυς – ὀτοτοτοῖ—κεραύνιαί τ’ ἐκ Διὸς πυριβόλοι πλαγαὶ λέχεά θ’ Ἁλίου. [CHORUS] Alas, alas for me! Evil things will be revealed: the wretched queen and her dead son hidden within—oh, dreadful!—and the fiery lightning-strokes hurled by Zeus, and her union with Helios! E. Fr. 781.68

Similarly to the cry οἴ, ὀτοτοτοῖ is always used by female speakers, with only one exception, the death-cry of Aegisthus in Aeschylus’ Libation-Bearers. Given their similarity in meaning, it is possible that ὀτοτοτοῖ in fact is a variant form of οἴ, with the addition of a series of preposed ὀτ-, perhaps in an imitation of sobbing. In short, ὀτοτοτοῖ is used in violent expressions of sorrow, grief and lamentation. Proposed informational equivalent: [Ifemale am in violent grief]

3.6.4.7 Core meaning In conclusion, I propose the following core meaning for this group. Now speaker is EXPERIENCER of sadness Proposed informational equivalents for the individual items:

αἰαῖ ἒἔ ἰή ἰώ οἴ ὀτοτοτοῖ

[I am in grief] [I am in continuous grief] [I am in mourning] [I am in continuous grief] [I female am in grief] [Ifemale am in violent grief]

Semantics—Category 1 | 147

3.6.5 Interjections expressive of joy Interjections expressive of joy and elation are uncommon in the material as a whole, and the items sorted under this heading are dissimilar and often unrelated. Their core meaning can be argued as expressive of encouragement or exultation, as well as triumph and excitement. They all have in common that they resemble formulae rather than proper interjections, following Ameka’s criteria: “they are tied to specific situations”, they “tend to be multi-word expressions”, they are “intentional and (socially) expected reactions to situations”.195 Thus, they can be viewed as performing various social acts, such as cheering and encouraging. The total number of IntP occurrences is a mere 18, pointing at the overall rare character of this group of words. Tab. 8: Interjections expressive of joy Lemma

IntPs

Aeschylus

Sophocles

Euripides

Aristophanes

ἀλαλαί

3

0

0

0

3

εὐαί

5

0

0

0

5

εὐοῖ

6

0

1

2

3

ἰαί

4

0

1

0

3

Total

18

0

2

2

14

3.6.5.1 ἀλαλαί—alalai ἀλαλαί has a total of three occurrences, all found in Aristophanes.196 LSJ calls this item an exclamation “of joy, in formula ἀλαλαὶ ἰὴ παιών”. The only example which does not occur alongside ἰὴ παιών is found in Birds 951. || 195 Ameka (1992a: 108–109). 196 The textual situation of ἀλαλαί is far from unambiguous. In Birds 952, ἀλαλαί is Bentley’s conjecture for the manuscript reading ἀλαλάν, which clearly makes little sense. In Birds 1763, the extended form ἀλαλαλαί is “much better attested”, according to Dunbar. In this passage, we also find the variant form ἀλλαλαί in L. It is however unsurprising that there should be variant forms with varying numbers of syllables of this word, cf. ὀτοτοτοῖ and ἐλελεῦ. The reading of the passage in Lysistrate is sound. The form itself is rather uncommon, but there are several other passages, from dramatic works as well as prose, that contain a verb which supports the authenticity of the interjection. The verb, ἀλαλάζειν, meaning “to cry ἀλαλαί”, occurs in a lyrical passage in S. Ant. 133 νίκην ὁρμῶντ’ ἀλαλάξαι, which means “hastening to shout forth his victory”. Various other forms of

148 | Semantics Πο.

ἀπέρχομαι, κἀς τὴν πόλιν γ’ ἐλθὼν ποιήσω τοιαδί· “κλῇσον, ὦ χρυσόθρονε, τὰν τρομερὰν κρυεράν· νιφόβολα πεδία πολύπορά τ’ ἤλυθον.” ἀλαλαί. POET I’m off, and when I get back I’m going to compose something like this in honor of your city: “Celebrate, Muse on golden throne, the shivering, freezing land; to the snowblown many-pathed plains have I come.” Hurrah! Ar. Av. 951

Dunbar (Ar. Av. 953) gives the following comments: ἀλαλαί, “Hurrah!”, is Bentley’s correction of paradosis ἀλαλάν, accus. of ἀλαλά (Att. -λή), war-cry, which fits neither sense nor syntax. For ἀλαλαί cf. the only other exx., 1763 = Lys. 1291, where the festive contexts suggest an expression of triumphant excitement, also ἀλαλάζειν at Xen. An. 5. 2. 14, 6. 5. 27 = cry ἀλαλαί, raise the war-cry in anticipation of victory, and S. Ant. 133 (lyr.) νίκην ὁρμῶντ’ ἀλαλάξαι, “rushing to shout Victory!”

The two other occurrences of ἀλαλαί are thus both followed by the formula ἰὴ παιών, one even with the addition of another formula, τήνελλα καλλίνικος (Ar. Av. 1763). The occurrence in Birds 951 perhaps therefore ought to be marked with a crux.

|| this verb are found in A. Fr. 57.7 (ἀλαλάζει), S. Fr. 534.6 (ἀλαλαζομένη), E. Fr. Antiopes 48.54 (ἀλαλάζετα[ι), E. Her. 981 (ἠλάλαξε), Ba. 592 (ἀλαλάζεται), 1133 (ὠλόλυζον Diggle: ἠλάλαζον P: ηλαλοζον Π7), El. 843 (ἠλέλιζε Schenkl: ἠλάλαζεν L), 855 (ἀλαλάζοντες). The occurrence of ἀλαλᾷ in E. Hel. 1344 is understood by Kannicht as a noun formed on the cry ἀλαλαί. In prose, it occurs at Xen. Anab. 5.2.14 (ἠλέλιξαν) and 6.5.27 (ἠλάλαζον). There may perhaps be an affinity between the three cries represented by the verbs ἀλαλάζω, ἐλελίζω and ὀλολύζω. They may, indeed, all be instances of the same phenomenon, i.e. the ululation, which is “produced with a high-pitched, loud voice, accompanied by rapid movement of the tongue and the uvula” (Pendle 2001: 430). However, as Pendle points out, this “is an exclusively female vocalization typical of Middle Eastern, African and (to some extent) southern European women”. On the meaning of the cry, Pendle also interestingly notes that it “may simply be an expression of joy, but it is also an act of power.” That this might be the case in our time does not, however, entail that it also was in antiquity, and it seems likely that the ancient cries had different uses. It may also be that the cries described by ἀλαλάζω and ἐλελίζω are open for both sexes, whereas ὀλολύζω is reserved for women. ὀλολύζω is used by Homer as well as by fifth-century authors in Athens, frequently denoting the cry of women. Consequently, as becomes clear from the conjectures on Bacchae 1133 and Electra 843, modern editors seem keen to keep this distinction. Cf. Deubner (1941) and Calame (2001: 77–78).

Semantics—Category 1 | 149

Πε. ἕπεσθέ νυν γάμοισιν, ὦ φῦλα πάντα συννόμων πτεροφόρ’ ἐπὶ δάπεδον Διὸς καὶ λέχος γαμήλιον. ὄρεξον, ὦ μάκαιρα, σὴν χεῖρα καὶ πτερῶν ἐμῶν λαβοῦσα συγχόρευσον· αἴρων δὲ κουφιῶ σ’ ἐγώ. Χο. ἀλαλαλαί, ἰὴ παιών, τήνελλα καλλίνικος, ὦ δαιμόνων ὑπέρτατε. PEISETAERUS Hold out your hand, my happy one, and holding to my wings join me for a dance; I’ll lift you up and swing you! [PEISETAERUS and Princess, dancing, lead the way off; the Chorus follow.] CHORUS Hip hip hooray! Hail Paeon! Hail your success, you highest of divinities! Ar. Av. 1763

The connection with the formula ἰὴ παιών, which only occurs in victorious and joyful contexts, makes clear that the ἀλαλαί, in drama, is a cry of joy. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am in a state of joy]

3.6.5.2 εὐαί—euai There are five occurrences of εὐαί, all in Aristophanes.197 It occurs combined with εὐοῖ and ἰαί respectively, as well as repeated four times in a row. It is only used in songs or lyrical passages. Ussher (Ar. Ec. 1180–1183) gives the following comment: All go off dancing (metre doubtful), the chorus with Bacchic cries (becoming to the god of the festival) and confident of triumph (εὐαί, ὡς ἐπὶ νίκῃ). They bid “step high” (see 1165 n.) and boldly proclaim “we shall be dining”. They speak, in these last lines, as choreutae (cf. 1154): their thoughts are not (as 1165) of Praxagora’s banquet, but of feasting as guests of the victorious choregus (cf. 1153 n.) Χο. αἴρεσθ’ ἄνω, ἰαὶ εὐαί, δειπνήσομεν, εὐοῖ εὐαί, εὐαί, ὡς ἐπὶ νίκῃ. εὐαί, εὐαί, εὐαί, εὐαί. CHORUS Lift your legs aloft, hey hey, We’re off to dinner, hoy hoy, || 197 The manuscript readings of εὐαί are uncertain regarding the aspiration (of both syllables). According to Herodian (De prosodia catholica 503.13, 547.9; Περὶ παθῶν 301.29), the correct spelling is εὐαἵ, and he sorts it together with εὐοἵ and εὔἁν. These items are labeled ἐπιρρήματα βακχευτικά (ap. Theogn. 158, 19). Herodian also relates that Eupolis has the combination “εὐαὶ σαβαῖ” (De prosodia catholica 502.22), mentioning it in combination with οὐαῖ, αἰαῖ, σαβοῖ, αἰβοῖ and αἴ, οὐαί, βαβαί respectively, as examples of which words that end in -αι or -οι have the circumflex or are oxytone.

150 | Semantics and victory, hurray! Hurray hurrah! Ar. Ec. 1180

Ussher also mentions the other passage that also contains εὐαί, Lysistrata 1291, which contains “triumphal shouts and dancing”. εὐαί is here preceded by the formula ἀλαλαί ἰὴ παιήων, and again combined with εὐοῖ, and in the vicinity of ἰαί: Χο. ἀλαλαί, ἰὴ παιών. αἴρεσθ’ ἄνω, ἰαί, ὡς ἐπὶ νίκῃ, ἰαί. εὐοῖ εὐοῖ, εὐαὶ εὐαί. CHORUS Alalai, yay Paian! Shake a leg, iai! Dance to victory, iai! Evoi evoi, evai evai! Ar. Lys. 1291

The joyful context which surrounds the occurrences seems to show that εὐαί is an interjection expressive of joy. Since there are no other occurrences of either εὐαί or ἰαί, it is difficult to determine its status. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am in a state of joy]

3.6.5.3 εὐοῖ—euoi εὐοῖ stands apart from the other items in this group, since it has occurrences in tragedy as well as comedy: of the total six occurrences, one is found in Sophocles, two in Euripides and three in Aristophanes.198 εὐοῖ also occurs alongside εὐαί and ἰαί in general manifestations of joy. There are examples which have a peculiar aspiration, εὖοἷ, which was noted already by the ancient grammarians. The example in Sophocles is an interjected cry in a passage clearly associated with the cult of Dionysus. Interestingly, however, the deity Παιάν is also mentioned. ἰδού μ’ ἀναταράσσει, εὐοῖ,

|| 198 As with εὐαί, the manuscript readings of εὐοῖ are uncertain regarding the aspiration (of both syllables). Apollonius Dyscolus gives εὐοἵ throughout, sorting it with εἶἑν, εὔἁν (and ταὧς) as the peculiar words which have internal aspiration.

Semantics—Category 1 | 151

ὁ κισσὸς ἄρτι Βακχίαν ὑποστρέφων ἅμιλλαν. ἰὼ ἰὼ Παιάν· ἴδε ἴδ’, ὦ φίλα γύναι· [CHORUS] See the ivy excites me—Euoi!—whirling me around in the Bacchic rush! Oh, oh, Paean! See, see, dear lady! S. Tr. 219

In Euripides, Barlow (E. Tro. 326) notes that the cries εὐὰν εὐοῖ are “used in Bacchanalian revels”, and refers to Hesychius, who notes that “Euhan comes from an Indian word for ivy, a plant sacred to Dionysus.” It is therefore unsurprising that we find an occurrence of εὐοῖ in Bacchae, as well. ἱέμενος εἰς ὄρεα Φρύγια Λύδι’ †ὁ δ’ ἔξαρχος† Βρόμιος· εὖοἷ. ῥεῖ δὲ γάλακτι πέδον, ῥεῖ δ’ οἴνωι, ῥεῖ δὲ μελισσᾶν νέκταρι. [CHORUS] … rushing to the mountains of Lydia, this leader of ours, Bromios: euhoi! The ground runs with milk, runs with wine, runs with the nectar of bees. E. Ba. 141

In comedy, we have already seen two occurrences of εὐοῖ in the section on εὐαί (above, 3.6.5.2). In addition to these, there is one more example which follows the pattern set in the examples from tragedy, in conjunction with an invocation to Dionysus. Austin and Olson (Ar. Th. 994) state that εὐοἷ is an “excited interjection … associated with the worship of Dionysos and similar deities”. †εὔιον ὦ Διὸς σὺ Βρόμιε καὶ Σεμέλας παῖ, χοροῖς τερπόμενος κατ’ ὄρεα Νυμφᾶν ἐρατοῖς ἐν ὕμνοις, ὦ Εὔι’ Εὔι’ εὐοῖ, ἀναχορεύων [CHORUS] Euius, you Noisemaker, son of Zeus and Semele, who enjoys the dances of Nymphs at their charming songs as you ramble over the mountains— Euius, Euius, euoi!— striking up the dances all night long; Ar. Th. 994

152 | Semantics It seems that εὐοῖ is a cry primarily associated with the cult of Dionysus, but it is also used in songs directed to Paean, which is usually another name for Apollo or Asclepius. The examples all have in common that they are uttered in a state of excitement, a kind of positive, joy-related emotion, and because of the passages where εὐοῖ is combined with εὐαί and ἰαί, I find it reasonable to place them all in the same group. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am in a state of (religious) excitement]

3.6.5.4 ἰαί—iai There are only four occurrences of ἰαί, one in Sophocles and three in Aristophanes. The occurrence in Sophocles is a fragment, based on a mention in Hesychius, s.v. Ἴαινα, where “ιαι” is labeled a βάρβαρον θρήνημα, “a foreign lament”. The three occurrences in Aristophanes, mentioned in full in the treatment of εὐαί (above, 3.6.5.2), all point incontestably to an interjection expressive of joy. In this case the example in Sophocles can hardly be ascribed an equal amount of importance as the examples in Aristophanes, not least since the occurrence in tragedy is labeled “foreign”. Proposed informational equivalent: [I am in state of joy]

3.6.5.5 Core meaning In conclusion, I propose the following core meaning for this group. Now speaker is EXPERIENCER of joy Proposed informational equivalents for the individual items:

ἀλαλαί εὐαί εὐοῖ ἰαί

[I am in a state of joy] [I am in a state of joy] [I am in a state of (religious) excitement] [I am in a state of joy]

3.6.6 Hapax legomena It is futile to attempt to sort the following hapax legomena into the subcategories, although it does seem reasonable to sort them under category 1. The items are presented alphabetically.

Semantics—Category 1 | 153

Tab. 9: Hapax legomena Lemma

Passage

εὐάν

E. Tro. 326

ἰαυοῖ

Ar. Ra. 1029

ἰόφ

A. Supp. 826

ὀπποποῖ

S. Fr. 314.197

πόπαξ

A. Eu. 143 (also only in combination)

ὗ ὗ ὗ, ψ ψ, ἆ ἆ

S. Fr. 314.176

3.6.6.1 εὐάν—euhan εὐάν is an item associated with ritual—possibly connected to the cult of Dionysus, because of Hesychius’ explanation that εὐάν is another word for ivy, alongside its co-occurrence with εὐοῖ.199 The passage is part of a wedding-related hymn directed at the lord of marriage, Hymenaeus, and is sung by “my mad daughter Cassandra” (Hecuba’s words, lines 306–307). Barlow (E. Tro. 326) identifies the cries as “used in Bacchanalian revels”, referring to other passages which include εὐοῖ; none of these, however, also have εὐάν. πάλλε πόδ’ αἰθέριον, ἄναγε χορόν — εὐὰν εὐοῖ— ὡς ἐπὶ πατρὸς ἐμοῦ μακαριωτάταις τύχαις. ὁ χορὸς ὅσιος. [CASSANDRA] Lift your foot and shake it, strike up the dance (Euhan! Euhoi!) just as in my father’s happiest days! E. Tro. 326

3.6.6.2 ἰαυοῖ—iauoi ἰαυοῖ occurs in a quotation by Dionysus in Aristophanes’ Frogs. It is an example of a word of Persian origin; more specifically, the character Aeschylus is speaking of his own production of Persians, and Dionysus gives a comment on it. This has forced commentators to check the correctness of the claim. Stanford (Ar. Ra. 1028–1029) indicates that it in fact does not occur in Persians, but suggests that

|| 199 As with εὐαί and εὐοῖ, the manuscript reading of εὐάν is uncertain regarding the aspiration (of both syllables). Cf. above on εὐαί (3.6.5.2).

154 | Semantics Aristophanes possibly “has deliberately distorted this cry to give it a barbaric effect”, and also gives the alternative explanation, that “possibly the Chorus in Persians did in fact pronounce ἰωά very like ἰαυοῖ”. Dover (same passage) concludes: “the chorus of Persians does not actually say [ἰαυοῖ], but as it says ἠέ, οἴ, ὀᾶ and ἰωά200 we should not quibble over a few vowels.” Δι. ἐχάρην γοῦν, ἡνίκ’ †ἤκουσα περὶ† Δαρείου τεθνεῶτος, ὁ χορὸς δ’ εὐθὺς τὼ χεῖρ’ ὡδὶ συγκρούσας εἶπεν· “ἰαυοῖ.” DIONYSUS I certainly enjoyed it when they listened to the dead Darius, and right away the chorus clapped their hands together like this and cried “aiee!” Ar. Ra. 1029201

3.6.6.3 ἰόφ—ioph According to the scholion to the passage (A. Supp. 826), ἰόφ is an imitative item, labeled an ἀποπτυσμοῦ μίμημα, an “imitation of spitting”. However, considering the total absence of other items of this kind in Aeschylus, it seems highly unlikely that one should occur here. Therefore I have tentatively placed it in category 1. The passage is “very corrupt” (Sommerstein 2008a: 395), and has little or no coherence.202 In the same passage we also find the rare exclamation ό ό ό ά ά ά, noted below, as well as two examples of the equally rare and Aeschylus-specific ἠέ.

3.6.6.4 ὀπποποῖ—oppopoi ὀπποποῖ, which occurs only in Sophocles’ Ichneutae (= fr. 314), is possibly related to ἀππαπαῖ, ἀτταταῖ and ὀττοτοῖ; see discussion on ἀτταταῖ above (3.6.3.1). ἐφέπου, ἐφέπου μ.[ ὀπποποῖ· ἆ μιαρέ, γε̣[ ἦ τάχ’ ὁπόταν ἀπίη[ις

|| 200 It seems that Dover considers ἰωά, which only occurs twice in Persians 1070–1071, to count among the interjections made up only of vowels. This may be the case, but I am of another opinion. Sommerstein follows West’s emendation ἰῷα for the manuscript reading ἰωὰ (sometimes ἰὼ), and translates “Let ‘ió’ be heard throughout the city”, taking it to be a verb, not an interjection. 201 Henderson’s translation follows Sommerstein’s emendation ἐπήκουσαν τοῦ; Sommerstein, in turn, claims Dover as his forerunner. 202 Hoernle suggested ἰὼ φεῦ, but that combination would also be a hapax legomenon.

Semantics—Category 1 | 155

Follow, follow m[e... Oppopoi! Oh, you scum, ... Truly, as soon as you leave...203 S. Fr. 314.197

3.6.6.5 πόπαξ—popax This item occurs in combination, ἰοὺ ἰοὺ πόπαξ, in a lyrical passage in Aeschylus’ Eumenides. Therefore I consider it to belong to the formal register. Garvie (A. Eu. 143) deems the item as “evidently an expression of horrified astonishment” and calls it “an intensified form of πόποι”. I find it difficult to confirm this claim; it is possible that πόπαξ in fact is a variant form of πόποι, which seems to be supported by the fact that forms ending in -αξ only occur in combinations.204 ἰοὺ ἰοὺ πόπαξ· ἐπάθομεν, φίλαι· ἦ πολλὰ δὴ παθοῦσα καὶ μάτην ἐγώ· CHORUS Iou, iou, popax! We have suffered, my friends— [SECOND VOICE] Ah, how much have I suffered, and for nothing! A. Eu. 143

3.6.6.6 ὗ ὗ ὗ, ψ ψ, ἆ ἆ—hu hu hu, ps ps, a a The unique combination ὗ ὗ ὗ, ψ ψ, ἆ ἆ is the second hapax legomenon which is found in Sophocles’ Ichneutae (= fr. 314). It is difficult to make any sense of it, since there are no comparable items. The translation by Lloyd-Jones is more or less to be treated as a conjecture. ἀλλ’ εἷ’ [ἐ]φίστω τριζύγης οἵμου βάσιν· ἐγὼ δ’ ἐν [ἔ]ρ̣γ̣οις παρμένων σ’ ἀπευθυνῶ. Χο. ὗ ὗ ὗ, ψ ψ, ἆ ἆ. λέγ’ ὅ τι πονεῖς. τί μάτην ὑπέκλαγες, ὑπέκριγες, ὑπό μ’ ἴδες; SILENUS … Come on, take your stand where the three paths meet, and I will stand at the scene of action and set you on your way! CHORUS (sundry noises of alarm and encouragement) Say, what is your trouble? What’s the use of groaning and gibbering and glowering at me? S. Fr. 315.176

|| 203 This is my own translation; the passage is left untranslated as “fragments” by Lloyd-Jones. 204 Cf. above, 2.1.2.2.

156 | Semantics 3.6.7 Rare and special cases The items which are labeled “rare” frequently occur only in one author, which makes them more difficult to analyze. Tab. 10: Rare and special cases Lemma

IntPs

Aeschylus

Sophocles

Euripides

Aristophanes

ἠέ

10

10

0

0

0

ἠὴ ἠή

2

2

0

0

0

όόό

2

1

0

0

1

ὀᾶ

7

7

0

0

0

τοτοῖ

3

2

1

0

0

ὓὗὕὗ

1

0

1

0

0

φῦ

2

0

0

0

2

Total

27

22

2

0

3

3.6.7.1 ἠέ—ēe ἠέ occurs ten times in Aeschylus, four times in Persians, four times in Seven Against Thebes and twice in Suppliant Women. Friis-Johansen and Whittle (A. Supp. 830–831) seem sure of the denotation of ἠέ, and label it “a specifically Aeschylean exclamation of grief and desperation”. However, they point at the uncertainty of the forms, and enumerate some conjectures made by previous scholars: The Aeschylean use of exclamations being, as far as one can see, highly individual and both the orthography and the prosody of such “words” being in general variable and/or unascertainable, it is a futile game to introduce corrections like ἐή (Dindorf in Sept. 966 and 978), ἒ ἔ (Wilamowitz, app. on Sept. 966; put in the text of Sept. 966 and 978 by Groeneboom and conjectured here by Untersteiner), or ἠεί (Murray, app. on Sept. 966).

It is worth noting that the use of ἠέ in Persians is found in a recurrent theme of interjections, together with φεῦ and ὀᾶ. τοὶ δ’ ἄρα πρωτομόροιο φεῦ ληφθέντες πρὸς ἀνάγκας ἠέ ἀκτὰς ἀμφὶ Κυχρείας

Semantics—Category 1 | 157

ὀᾶ ἔρρανται· … γναπτόμενοι δ’ ἁλὶ δεινᾶι φεῦ σκύλλονται πρὸς ἀναύδων ἠέ παίδων τᾶς ἀμιάντου, ὀᾶ, [CHORUS] But those who were seized–pheu!– by Necessity and made to die first–ehhh-e!205 – now lie smashed–o-aaah!– around the shores of Cychreus’ island. … Terribly lacerated by the sea–pheu!– they are being savaged by the voiceless children–ehhh-e!– of the Undefiled–o-aaah! Α. Pers. 569 and 577

3.6.7.2 ἠὴ ἠή—ēē ēē This is another “specifically Aeschylean exclamation”, which probably also is to be considered one of “grief and desperation”, and occurs only in two lines at the the end of Persians.206 Sommerstein (2008a: 137, n. 152) refers to West’s suggestion that two lines have been lost here, “each probably beginning with yet another cry of woe; without the lacuna, the change of topic is extremely abrupt, and ὀλόμενοι has no construction.” Ξε. ἠὴ ἠὴ τρισκάλμοισιν ἠὴ ἠὴ βάρισιν ὀλόμενοι. XERXES Ehhh-ehhh, ehhh-ehhh–the triple-oared– CHORUS Ehhh-ehhh, ehhh-ehhh–boats destroyed them! Α. Pers. 1075

3.6.7.3 ό ό ό ά ά ά—o o o a a a The unique sequence ό ό ό ά ά ά is found in a corrupt passage in Aeschylus Suppliant Women (825). Friis-Johansen and Whittle comment extensively on this || 205 Sommerstein’s note to his own translation, ad loc.: “This is a long wail, a prolonged vowel [ε:] followed by a shorter, slightly closer vowel [e].” 206 The wordings are borrowed from Friis-Johansen and Whittle (A. Supp. 830–831).

158 | Semantics passage, calling it “an exclamation”, and suggesting that the “transmitted six letters can with some probability be interpreted as representing a single long shriek, i.e. a protracted form of ὀᾶ …, and be written ὀοοοααᾶ”. There is a similar occurrence in Aristophanes’ Women at the Thesmophoria 1191, ὂ ὂ ὄ, which Austin and Olson claim must “be intended to express an emotion (pained excitement or the like)”. Το. οὐκὶ πιλῆσι πρῶτά με; Ευ. πάνυ γε· φίλησον αὐτόν. Το. ὂ ὂ ὂ παπαπαπαῖ, ὠς γλυκερὸ τὸ γλῶσσ’, ὤσπερ Ἀττικὸς μέλις. ARCHER Won’ she give me a kiss first? EURIPIDES Sure. Kiss him. ARCHER Woo woo woo! Boyoboy! What a sweet tongue, like Attic honey! Ar. Th. 1191

3.6.7.4 ὀᾶ—oa This item also only occurs in Aeschylus, and has a total of seven occurrences, six in Persians and one (conjecture) in Seven Against Thebes. As with the previous items, this also is used in contexts of grief and lamentation. Broadhead (A. Pers. 117–119) states that the expression ὀᾶ Περσικοῦ στρατεύματος “seems to be the cry that the Chorus fear may soon be raised by the people of Susa and be answered by the ὀᾶ of the Cissians (122)”, thus pointing out that the occurrences in the fourth strophe 117 and its antistrophe 122 are in fact quotations. ταῦτά μου μελαγχίτων φρὴν ἀμύσσεται φόβωι, ὀᾶ, Περσικοῦ στρατεύματος, τοῦδε μὴ πόλις πύθηται κένανδρον μέγ’ ἄστυ Σουσίδος· καὶ τὸ Κισσίων πόλισμ’ ἀντίδουπον ἄισεται, ὀᾶ, τοῦτ’ ἔπος γυναικοπληθὴς ὅμιλος ἀπύων, βυσσίνοις δ’ ἐν πέπλοις πέσηι λακίς. [CHORUS] For that reason my mind is clothed in black and torn with fear: “Woe for the Persian army!”—I dread that our city may hear this cry— “The great capital of Susiana is emptied of its manhood!”— and that the city of the Cissians will sing in antiphon, a vast throng of women howling out that word “woe!”, and their linen gowns will be rent and torn. A. Pers. 115–125

The following four examples in Persians are also in lyrical passages, occurring in the same positions in strophe and antistrophe as in the previous exam-

Semantics—Category 1 | 159

ple, this time accompanied by φεῦ and ἠέ repeated in the same way. The single occurrence in Seven Against Thebes is a conjecture by Maas.

3.6.7.5 ποποῖ and τοτοῖ—popoi and totoi As with ὀᾶ, the sound examples we have of ποποῖ and τοτοῖ only occur together in strophe and antistrophe respectively, and only once, again in Persians. It seems that there is a large number of interjections unique to this play, which may be explained by the fact that it portrays a foreign culture. With that aim in mind, the author may have tried to accentuate their foreignness by using unusual or strange interjections in their lamentations. The scholia to this passage indicate a difference in meaning depending on the accentuation of the words: if they are accentuated πόποι and τότοι, they are interjections of pain and vexation, used like φεῦ; however, if they are accentuated ποποῖ and τοτοῖ, they denote ποῦ (where) and ἐκεῖσε (there or thither) respectively. This distinction is however not maintained by any editor. νῦν γὰρ δὴ πρόπασα μὲν στένει γαῖ’ Ἀσὶς ἐκκεκενωμένα· Ξέρξης μὲν ἄγαγεν, ποποῖ, Ξέρξης δ’ ἀπώλεσεν, τοτοῖ, Ξέρξης δὲ πάντ’ ἐπέσπε δυσφρόνως βαρίδεσσι ποντίαις. … πεζοὺς γάρ τε καὶ θαλασσίους λινόπτεροι κυανώπιδες νᾶες μὲν ἄγαγον, ποποῖ, νᾶες δ’ ἀπώλεσαν, τοτοῖ, νᾶες πανωλέθροισιν ἐμβολαῖς· διὰ δ’ Ἰαόνων χέρας [CHORUS] For now all, yes all, the emptied land of Asia groans: Xerxes took them—popoi! Xerxes lost them—totoi! Xerxes handled everything unwisely, he and his sea-boats. … Land-soldiers and seamen—the dark-faced, equal-winged ships brought them—popoi!– ships destroyed them—totoi!– ships, with ruinous ramming, and driven by Ionian hands! Α. Pers. 548–564

There is also one further example, with an alternative form, which is found in Sophocles. This particular item might have been listed under ὀτοτοτοῖ. Da-

160 | Semantics vies (S. Tr. 1010) calls this use a Klangeffekt, comparing it to the use of αἰαῖ in E. Hipp. 1370–1371, and making a reservation to the form because of the common corruption in the manuscripts of “such exclamations”. ἧπταί μου, τοτοτοῖ, ἅδ’ αὖθ’ ἕρπει. πόθεν ἔστ’, ὦ Ἕλλανες πάντων ἀδικώτατοι ἀνέρες, οἷς δὴ πολλὰ μὲν ἐν πόντῳ, [HERACLES] It has hold of me, ah, ah, here it comes again! What are your origins, Greeks, unrighteous of all men, for whom I destroyed myself… S. Tr. 1010

3.6.7.6 ὕ ὗ ὕ ὗ—hu hu hu hu ὕ̣ [ὗ] ὕ̣ ὗ̣ is yet another hapax legomenon found in Sophocles’ Ichneutae (fr. 314). The reading is uncertain, and not much can be done of it in the present state. Again, the translation is, at best, a good guess. [τ]ί ταῦτα; ποῦ γ̣ῆς ἐμάθετ’; ἐν πο̣[ί]ῳ τόπῳ; σ̣[η]μήνατ’· ο̣ὐ γ̣ὰρ ἴδρις εἰμὶ τοῦ τρόπου. ὕ̣ [ὗ] ὕ̣ ὗ̣. τ̣[ί........] τ̣ίνα φοβῇ; τίν’ εἰσορᾷς; τ̣[ί........]ις; τί ποτε βακχεύεις ἔχων; [SILENUS] What is this foolery? Where on earth did you learn it? Tell me! I never heard of such behaviour! Ow! ow! ow! ow! What are you howling for? Who’s frightening you? Whom are you looking at? What’s the bogey that you see? S. Fr. 314.131

3.6.7.7 φῦ—phu We have two occurrences of this item, again occurring together in strophe and antistrophe respectively, and it is difficult to decide on their meaning. Henderson (Ar. Lys. 295) deems the word to be either an imitation of “the sound of blowing up the coals”, following the scholion on the passage and noting the rare occurrence in Pseudo-Lucians’ Philopatris 2.24. It may also be a reaction to the smell (cf. Ar. Th. 245 and Denniston and Page on A. Ag. 1307–1308207).

|| 207 Denniston and Page (A. Ag. 1307–1308): “Since φεῦ normally expresses either (a) grief or (b) astonishment or admiration, and the sequel shows that what Cassandra uttered was a cry of disgust, it is quite a problem that φῦ φῦ and ἔφυξας (Heyse) should be written here (cf. Ar.

Semantics—Category 1 | 161

φῦ φῦ. ἰοὺ ἰοὺ τοῦ καπνοῦ. [MEN’S CHORUS] Ouch, ugh! The smoke! Ar. Lys. 295 = 305

3.6.8 Items occurring only in combinations Two items, δᾶ and πόποι, are regularly used in IntPs, but never occur on their own. Instead, they always occur in certain combinations, some more common than others. Tab. 11: Items occurring only in combinations Lemma

IntPs

Aeschylus

Sophocles

Euripides

Aristophanes

δᾶ

8

6

0

1

1

πόποι

10

8

2

0

0

Total

18

14

2

1

1

3.6.8.1 δᾶ—da δᾶ has eight occurrences, six in Aeschylus, one in Euripides and one in Aristophanes.208 It is combined with four other interjections, ἆ, οἰοῖ, φεῦ, πόποι, the

|| Thesm. 245 φεῦ cod., φῦ Dindorf); but perhaps the freer use of φεῦ is sufficiently defended by such examples as PV 124, 687.” 208 Some of the relatively few extant occurrences have unstable textual situations. The passage in A. Ch. 405 is a conjecture by Bamberger, and the passage in PV is also disputed; M has ἀλευάδα as a graphetai variant, which, according to the scholia, is a form of the patronymic Aleuas, descendant of Heracles and mythical king of Thessaly. The passage in Euripides also has divergent sources, inter alia including the variants δὴ and γῆ. The oldest explanation of the word comes from the scholia, according to which it is a Doric word for earth, thus in effect constituting an invocation. Later, scholars have contested this view; LSJ relates the word to a Doric vocative of Zeus, while, according to another view, it is called an expression of horror; A. Ag. 1072 (Denniston & Page) and A. PV 567 (Griffith). This is, however, not necessarily the typical use of the word, which points us in two directions; either this might be an example of a foreign word, i.e. of obscure origin, one argument being that all speakers are typically portrayed as “foreign” (Cassandra in A. Ag., Io in A. PV, the choruses in A. Eu. and E. Ph.—the cry of Orestes in A. Ch. 405 is probably faulty, cf. below), another that no other Greek interjection includes the letter delta, let alone has it initially, bringing an otherwise

162 | Semantics last of which also never occurs on its own. It is perhaps of invocational, perhaps of “exotic” origin, adding a “foreign” quality to its utterance. Sommerstein (A. Eu. 842) deems δᾶ to be “a cry of distress”, while Griffith (A. PV 567) calls it “an expression of terror”. Fraenkel (A. Ag. 1072) comments extensively on the etymologies proposed in the scholia, which bring together δᾶ with the Doric γᾶ, “earth”: So I believe that we must follow those commentators who, like, e.g. Headlam in his prose translation (he has, however, in his verse translation “O Earth”) and L-S (“prob. an exclamation of horror”), see in δᾶ nothing but an exclamation. Such half-barbaric cries may have had their place at Athens, for example in the ritual of the Carian mourning-women.

The anger (rather than “distress”) of the Erinyes in the Eumenides—when they are bereaved of their ancient powers—is expressed in a rare combination of words: πνέω τοι μένος ἅπαντά τε κότον· οἰοῖ δᾶ φεῦ· [CHORUS] I breathe out total fury and total wrath! Oioi, dah, pheu! A. Eu. 841 (= 874)

Mastronarde (E. Ph. 1296) is the first to note the use of δᾶ for reinforcing other cries. φεῦ δᾶ φεῦ δᾶ, δίδυμοι θῆρες, [CHORUS] O woe, O woe, twin beasts, E. Pho. 1296

In comedy, Henderson (Ar. Lys. 198) labels the expression φεῦ δᾶ “[t]ragic (only here in comedy), expressing astonishment; origin obscure”. Since δᾶ only is used in combination with other interjections, it is not possible to suggest an informational equivalent of its own. Most likely, this is a case of a sort of auxiliary interjection, the main function of which is (in one way or another) to reinforce the head word of the IntP (ἆ, οἰοῖ, ὀτοτοτοτοῖ and φεῦ, respectively). This view, first presented by Mastronarde (1994), consequently renders Bamberger’s conjecture on A. Ch. 405 impossible, since πόποι (below || unusual construction with it (cf. 3.6.8.2, on πόποι), or it needs to be explained otherwise. As it seems that δᾶ can not occur free-standing, it does not fulfil the formal criteria to be considered an interjection. However, since the word never occurs outside of IntPs, it ought to be treated alongside proper interjections.

Semantics—Category 1 | 163

3.6.8.2) shares this auxiliary characteristic with δᾶ. An interesting detail is that all textually certain occurrences of δᾶ are spoken by characters who are foreign or in some respect strange to Athenians: Cassandra is from Troy, the Erinyes are from another world, the chorus in Phoenician Women is Phoenician and Lampito in Lysistrata is a Spartan.209

3.6.8.2 πόποι—popoi There are ten occurrences of πόποι, eight in Aeschylus and two in Sophocles. It is only used in lyrical passages in tragedy, where we also find the item without ὦ. In Aeschylus, it is found in Persians, spoken by the Ghost of Darius: Βα. πρὸς τάδ’ ὡς Σούσων μὲν ἄστυ πᾶν κενανδρίαν στένειν. Δα. ὦ πόποι κεδνῆς ἀρωγῆς κἀπικουρίας στρατοῦ. QUEEN So that on account of this, the whole city of Susa is grieving because it is empty of men— GHOST OF DARIUS Ah me, our army, our valiant aid and protector! A. Pers. 731

It also occurs in the famous passage in Agamemnon, where Cassandra finally breaks her long silence. Here it is combined with another interjection which never occurs on its own, δᾶ. ΚΑΣΣΑΝΔΡΑ ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ· ὤπολλον ὤπολλον. CASSANDRA Ototototoi, popoi, dah! Apollo! Apollo! A. Ag. 1072 (= 1076)

In Sophocles, Easterling (S. Tr. 853) calls it “an expression of pain, registering anger, surprise or shock according to the context.” ἔρρωγεν παγὰ δακρύων, κέχυται νόσος, ὦ πόποι, οἷον ἀναρσίων οὔπω ἀγακλειτὸν

|| 209 It may also be mentioned that the next occurrence of δᾶ is not found until in the writings by Eustathius, from the twelfth century.

164 | Semantics [CHORUS] The flood of tears has burst forth; the plague streams over him, alas; so piteous an affliction have his enemies never brought upon his glorious form. S. Tr. 853

πόποι is perhaps one of the oldest extant interjections, it is found already in the Homeric poems. Even there it always occurs combined with ὦ. The scholia (in Od. 1.32) liken the expression ὦ πόποι to ὦ παπαῖ, a combination which is not found elsewhere. ὦ πόποι is also glossed with βαβαί, φεῦ φεῦ and ὦ φίλοι. And, apart from noting that πόποι is the word for “gods” in the Dryopian language, πόποι is also considered “an adverb, as a replacement for φεῦ”. It may very well have been a regular interjection with the capacity to occur on its own. However, there is no evidence pointing in that direction. A peculiar detail is that it in addition to never occurring by itself, it also occurs in an unusually large number of combinations: apart from the homeric ὦ πόποι, we find ἰὼ πόποι, ἰὼ ἰὼ πόποι, ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ and πόποι δᾶ.

3.7 Semantics—Category 2 Typically, interjections in category 2, conative interjections, implicitly contain an AGENT and a PATIENT together with a THEME, which is a predicate expressing what the AGENT wants the PATIENT to do. Interjections in category 2 are therefore indexical, referring to the speaker as well as to an auditor, a (potential) listener or the speaker him- or herself. The speaker is typically the AGENT and another person in close vicinity is the PATIENT. The patient may also be a reflexive, referring back to the speaker, common in jussives (e.g. self-exhortations). In most instances, there is also a THEME, which refers to some action the AGENT wants the PATIENT to perform. This THEME is explicitly uttered in a following imperative or other verb with reference to a future action; however, the desirable action to be performed may also be implicitly understood by context.210 As with the items in category 1, the utterance itself of an item in category 2 indexes its own content as most relevant at the TIME of utterance, i.e. now.

|| 210 Isačenko’s definition of conation (1964: 91, quoted in Ameka 1992a: 112): “The aim of conation is to provoke a reaction on the part of the listener”.

Semantics—Category 2 | 165

3.7.1 Explicit semantic analysis According to Ameka’s classfication, the items in category 2 fall into two main subgroups: (1) items which are “aimed at getting someone’s attention”, as in the first example (E. Hel. 1180): ὠή, Ah, [I want you AGENT

τίς οὗτος; who are you? to pay attention to me]

PATIENT THEME

and (2) items which “demand an action or response from someone of a speaker’s wants”, as in the second example (E. IA 111): ἀλλ’ εἷα But come now, [I want you AGENT

χώρει τάσδ’ ἐπιστολὰς λαβὼν | πρὸς Ἄργος. take this letter and bear it to Argos to perform the following action]

PATIENT THEME

Thus, I suggest the following core meaning for all items in category 2, expressed with the aid of semantic roles: NowTIME speakerAGENT wants auditorPATIENT to perform actionTHEME

The semantic criteria for category 2 interjections may thus be thought of as more or less equivalent to the properties of imperatives and vocatives respectively. Thus we have two basic subgroups of conative interjections, i.e. those of calling and commanding. This analysis may seem intuitively unsatisfactory, since so much information is implicit in the item. However, we may compare the analysis to that of an example from modern English, hey!. I understand hey! as carrying two indexical elements, referring to the addressee or auditor (similarly to an imperative) and to the speaker. There is also an implicit reference to a desirable action, in this case “to pay attention to me”. Normally, for an imperative to be felicitous, the addressee needs to actually hear the utterance; this is not necessary, however, in the case of these items. It seems that the items in category 2 to a lesser extent than the items in categories 1 and 3 are sound symbolic. Except for the notable passages in Peace, where the cries most likely are meant to accompany a simultaneous action of hauling, possibly even of heaving, the form of the items in this category has little or no relation to their meaning. All the same, all three categories have a share in the fact that the actual sound of the word to some extent is meant to

166 | Semantics “represent” the meaning of the word. A prolonged feeling, of any sort, can result either in repetition, prolongation or combination with other words. As with the expressive words in category 1, the items in category 2 can be divided into subgroups, each containing items with a similar or related meaning. Again, Kaplan’s information equivalence is used to summarize the core meaning for each item. The interjections in category 2 can be divided into two groups, expressing (1) calls for attention or summons, and (2) exhortation or command. Tab. 12: Category 2. Conative interjections IntPs Calls for attention

14

Exhortations

68

Total

82

3.7.2 Interjections expressing calls for attention In the first subgroup, which contains interjections expressing calls, we find two primary items. The source material is very sparse, which may be due to the large number of various forms of address available in Ancient Greek.211 Tab. 13: Interjections expressing calls for attention Lemma

IntPs

Aeschylus

Sophocles

Euripides

Aristophanes

ἤ

3

0

0

1

2

ὠή

11

1

1

9

0

Total

14

1

1

10

2

3.7.2.1 ἤ—ē This item only has three occurrences, one in Euripides and two in Aristophanes, which justifies their reproduction in full. Two of them are doubled. The occur-

|| 211 Cf. Dickey (1996: 43–189 = Chapter 3: Forms of address).

Semantics—Category 2 | 167

rence in Euripides (Her. 906) has been understood in various ways: LSJ (s.v.) calls it “an exclamation expressing disapproval”, while Bond identifies a “cry of surprise”, and Dover (on Ar. Ra. 271) “a repressive exclamation, not a cry from afar”, which he also intends for the occurrence in Clouds. The sole occurrence of single ἤ is explained as “to call attention” (LSJ, s.v.). ἰδοὺ ἰδού, θύελλα σείει δῶμα, συμπίπτει στέγη. Αμ.212 ἢ ἤ· τί δρᾶις, ὦ Διὸς παῖ, μελάθρωι; [CHORUS] Look, look! A mighty wind is shaking the house, the roof is falling in! Ah, ah! Son of Zeus, what are you doing in the house? E. Her. 906 Φε. αἰβοῖ, πονηροί γ’, οἶδα. τοὺς ἀλαζόνας, τοὺς ὠχριῶντας, τοὺς ἀνυποδήτους λέγεις, ὧν ὁ κακοδαίμων Σωκράτης καὶ Χαιρεφῶν. Στ. ἢ ἤ, σιώπα. μηδὲν εἴπῃς νήπιον. PHIDIPPIDES Yuk! That scum. I know them: you mean the charlatans, the pasty-faced, the unshod, like that miserable Socrates, and Chaerephon. STREPSIADES Hey, hey! Be quiet, don’t say anything so childish! Ar. Nu. 105 Δι.

ἔχε δὴ τὠβολώ. ὁ Ξανθίας. ποῦ Ξανθίας; ἤ, Ξανθία. Ξα. ἰαῦ. Δι. βάδιζε δεῦρο. Ξα. χαῖρ’, ὦ δέσποτα. DIONYSUS Here’s your two obols. [CHARON punts away and exits by a parodos.] Xanthias! Where’s Xanthias? Hey Xanthias! XANTHIAS (off) Yo! DIONYSUS Get over here! [Reenter XANTHIAS by the other parodos, as having walked around the lake.] XANTHIAS Hello, master. Ar. Ra. 271

Seeing that all three examples occur alongside imperatives or vocatives, it is possible that they express the calling on somebody’s attention. This interpretation is however highly uncertain. The example in Clouds is the most doubtful,

|| 212 Diggle attributes lines 906–909 to Amphitryon, whereas Kovacs lets the Chorus keep speaking.

168 | Semantics and may perhaps be explained as a secondary use of the item, expressing a warning or prohibition, similarly to ἆ (see above, 3.6.2.1). Proposed informational equivalent: [I want you to pay attention to me]

3.7.2.2 ὠή—ōē There are a total of 11 occurrences of ὠή: one in Aeschylus, one in Sophocles and nine in Euripides. There are no variant forms, but there is one repeated occurrence (E. Pho. 1067–1069) with the addition of μάλ’ αὖθις. Podlecki (A. Eum. 94) notes that the word is known from Xenophon as a hunting call, and Sommerstein (also A. Eum. 94) labels it “calling attention”. εὕδοιτ’ ἄν, ὠή· καὶ καθευδουσῶν τί δεῖ; seeing the furies sleeping peacefully] Do please sleep on! Ahoy! [They do not stir.] And what are you good for, asleep? A. Eum. 94 GHOST OF CLYTAEMESTRA [Sarcastically,

The one occurrence in Sophocles is found in a fragment of Inachus (fr. 269c), and it seems that the cry is followed by a question to an auditor. ὠή̣· ἐσορᾷς †ει̣σ̣τ̣ον̣α̣..† π̣όδ’ ἔχειν, μανία τάδε κλύειν· Ho! Do you see? It’s best to keep away! It drives you mad to hear it! S. Fr. 269c.25

In Euripides, several examples are directed at gate-keepers, and Kannicht (E. Hel. 435–436) argues that ὠή “wird immer dann verwendet, wenn der Gerufene nicht sichtbar ist, also häufig vor dem verschlossenen Tor und dann an die Adresse des Pförtners, also einer niederen Person [is always used when the person called upon is not visible, therefore often outside a closed gate in the address of the gate-keeper, i.e. a person of lower social status]”. Regarding the final remark, it seems that there is no restriction as to whom the call can be directed, cf. Ion 907, where it is directed at the son of Leto, i.e. Apollo. ὠή· τίς ἂν πυλωρὸς ἐκ δόμων μόλοι, ὅστις διαγγείλειε τἄμ’ ἔσω κακά; [MENELAUS] Ho there! Gatekeeper! Come out of the house so that you may carry inside the message of my griefs! E. Hel. 435

Semantics—Category 2 | 169

ὠή, τὸν Λατοῦς αὐδῶ, [CREUSA] You there, I mean the son of Leto... E. Ion 907

The example in Phoenician Women 269, ὠή, τίς οὗτος;, does not necessarily need to be translated “Ah, who is that?” (Kovacs), but could also be translated “Ah, who are you?”, since οὗτος can be used as an attention-getting vocative.213 Finally, the example in Cyclops shows that the addressee can be in sight, and not only invisible for the speaker. Here, the addressee is also a sheep. ὠή, ῥίψω πέτρον τάχα σου· [CHORUS] You there, I shall soon throw a stone at you. E. Cyc. 51

It seems fairly uncontroversial to conclude that the core semantics of ὠή contain the desire of the speaker that the addressee pay attention. Proposed informational equivalent: [I want you to pay attention to me]

3.7.2.3 Core meaning In conclusion, I propose the following core meaning for this group. Now speaker wants auditor to pay attention Proposed informational equivalents for the individual items

ἤ ὠή

[I want you to pay attention to me] [I want you to pay attention to me]

3.7.3 Interjections expressing exhortation or command In the second subgroup, containing the commanding interjections, we find four primary items, εἶα (εἷα), ἤν, ψύττ’ and ὢ ὄπ. This is also where the secondary items ἄγε, ἰδού, ἴθι and φέρε belong.

|| 213 Dickey (1996: 154) elaborates further on οὗτος: “In most of these cases the speaker is trying to get the addressee’s attention, and indeed οὗτος can also be used in Aristophanes as an attention-getting vocative standing entirely on its own.”

170 | Semantics Tab. 14: Interjections expressing exhortation or command Lemma

IntPs

Aeschylus

Sophocles

Euripides

Aristophanes

εἶα (εἷα)

58

5

4

21

28

ἤν

5

0

0

1

4

ψύττ’(α)

1

0

0

0

1

ὢ ὄπ

4

0

0

0

4

Total

68

5

4

22

37

3.7.3.1 εἶα (εἷα)—eia (heia) εἶα is by far the most common item in category 2, with a total of 58 occurrences: five in Aeschylus, four in Sophocles, 21 in Euripides and 28 in Aristophanes. As was noted above in 4.1 (chapter 2), εἶα never occurs completely on its own, but is always combined with some other word. In Aeschylus, Fraenkel (A. Ag. 1650) calls it a “provocative word of command”, and notes that while εἶα δή occurs in both tragedy, comedy and satyric drama, Euripides and Aristophanes show a particular liking of ἀλλ’ εἶα. Χο. εἶα δή, φίλοι λοχῖται, τοὖργον οὐχ ἑκὰς τόδε. Αι. εἶα δή, ξίφος πρόκωπον πᾶς τις εὐτρεπιζέτω. CHORUS Ho there, my friends of the guard, your duty is close at hand here! AEGISTHUS Ho there, everyone, hold swords at the ready, hilt forward! A. Ag. 1650–1651

The four occurrences in Sophocles are all found in the fragments. The most interesting feature of these is perhaps they convinced Radt that the item should be written with rough breathing, εἷα. In Euripides, Mastronarde (E. Med. 401) notes that ἀλλ’ εἷα “often marks a shift from comment to command or exhortation.” Bond (E. Her. 622) suggests that εἶα “may be mildly colloquial”. Dale (E. Hel. 1429) notes that an “imperative [is] required with this hortatory exclamation”. ἀλλ’ εἶα φείδου μηδὲν ὧν ἐπίστασαι, Μήδεια, βουλεύουσα καὶ τεχνωμένη· [MEDEA] Come, Medea, spare nothing of the arts you are mistress of as you plot and contrive! E. Med. 401

Semantics—Category 2 | 171

In comedy, Olson (Ar. Ach. 494–496) translates εἶα “Come on!”. ἁνὴρ οὐ τρέμει τὸ πρᾶγμ’. εἶά νυν, ἐπειδήπερ αὐτὸς αἱρεῖ, λέγε. [CHORUS] The man does not tremble at this task. Very well: since you’ve made the choice yourself, speak! Ar. Ach. 495

In his translation of Peace, Henderson has chosen to render ὦ εἶα and the other similar utterances by Heave ho! and similar expressions. However, I follow the view of Olson (Ar. Pax 459–463), that Heave ho! “is over-precise, since nothing in the text suggests that Tr[ygaeus] and the Chorus are alternately pulling and resting rather than applying a constant, steady force to the ropes.” Rather, I believe that εἶα is similar to the English heigh and hey.214 It seems likely that εἶα in fact represents two different lexical items, one being verb-like (εἶα δή or νῦν), inter alia employing adverbs, and the other instead having primarily iconic properties (ὢ εἶα), at the same time mimicking and urging on the action itself. ὢ ὄπ has similar properties as this second type of εἶα. However, I believe that these are one and the same item semantically, expressing the speaker’s wish that the auditor (who can be the speaker him- or herself) do something, which is either explicitly expressed by an imperative, or understood by extra-linguistic context. Proposed informational equivalent: [I want you to do this]

3.7.3.2 ἤν—ēn There are five occurrences of ἤν, one in Euripides and four in Aristophanes. There are only two without a following ἰδού, and this combination therefore seems to be the common formula. A variant of this formula occurs in a later lexicalized variant form, ἠνίδε. ἰδού is a lot more common on its own, although both items seem to bear roughly the same meaning: see (with your eye or mind). The example in Euripides has ἢν ἰδού, which is used by Lyssa in a narrative passage, relating her vision of slaying Heracles. ἢν ἰδού· καὶ δὴ τινάσσει κρᾶτα βαλβίδων ἄπο... [LYSSA] See! He has left the starting gate. He shakes his head about … E. Her. 867 || 214 Cf. OED s.v. “hey, int. (and n.)”. ὦ εἶα is also remarkably similar to the modern Swedish å hej, which can also be used as an encouragment to heaving.

172 | Semantics In comedy, Olson (Ar. Pax 327–328) states that ἢν ἰδού literally means “look! look!”, but in this passage it is “a formular indication of compliance with a command”. The passage in Knights shows an example of ἢν without ἰδού, with a clear meaning of “see?”. ὥσπερ δεφόμενος νῦν ἀτρέμα πρῶτον λέγε τὸ “μο–λω–μεν”, εἶτα δ’ “αὐ–το”, κᾆτ’ ἐπάγων πυκνόν. Δη. μο–λω—μεν αὐ–το μο–λω–μεν αὐτομολῶμεν. Νι. ἤν, οὐχ ἡδύ; [SECOND SLAVE] Now, as if you were masturbating, slowly say “wallets” first, then “go way”, and then start speeding it up fast. FIRST SLAVE Wallets, go way, wallets go way, lets go AWOL! SECOND SLAVE There, wasn’t that nice? Ar. Eq. 26 Αι. ἀλλ’ ἕτερον εἰπάτω τι κἀντιστησάτω. Δι. λάβεσθε τοίνυν αὖθις. Αι. Ευ. ἢν ἰδού. Δι. λέγε. EURIPIDES Well, let him speak another one and weigh it against mine. DIONYSUS Then take hold again. AESCHYLUS AND EURIPIDES Ready! DIONYSUS Speak. Ar. Ra. 1390215

The second example without ἰδού is found in Wealth: Πλ. μέθεσθέ νύν μου πρῶτον. Χρ. ἤν, μεθίεμεν. Πλ. ἀκούετον δή· WEALTH Then take your hand off me first. CHREMYLUS All right, they’re off. WEALTH Now listen; Ar. Pl. 75

|| 215 Wilson attributes 1389 to Aeschylus, following Reiske’s conjecture. Henderson follows the manuscript readings and attributes it to Euripides.

Semantics—Category 2 | 173

ἤν resembles the modern English there,216 which expresses the speaker’s desire for the listener to notice something. Proposed informational equivalent: [I want you to notice this]

3.7.3.3 ψύττ’(α)—psutt’(a) This item is a hapax legomenon, but its meaning seems to be sufficiently clear from the context as well as from later use, especially in Theocritus (4.45 and 5.100). Seaford (E. Cyc. 49–50) states that ψύττ(α) is “the onomatopoeic -st-, common to many languages and still uttered by Greek shepherds.” He continues: “The -α is phonetic rather than etymological …: then as now the Greeks found it difficult to end a word with a consonant other than σ, ν, or ρ.” ψύττ’· οὐ τᾶιδ’, οὔ; οὐ τᾶιδε νεμῆι κλειτὺν δροσεράν; [CHORUS] Shoo! This way, this way! Feed along the dewey slope here! E. Cyc. 49 Proposed informational equivalent: [I want yousheep to move]

3.7.3.4 ὢ ὄπ—ō op ὢ ὄπ occurs only three times, all in Aristophanes. Dunbar (Aristophanes’ Birds) and Dover (Aristophanes’ Frogs) comment extensively on the passages where this item occurs. In the passage in Birds (Ar. Av. 1395), Peisetaerus says ὢ ὄπ to Cinesias, apparently because he wants him to stop singing. ὦ ὄπ: “Whoa!”, “Stop!”, repeating Peis[etaerus]’ refusal to listen (1391) and leading up to the explicit καταπαύσω of 1397; Σ explains it as an order to rowers to stop rowing (κέλευσμα . . . τῶν ἐρεσσόντων καταπαῦον τὴν κωπηλασίαν); this would also fit the later ὦ ὄπ at Ra. 180 (Charon bringing his boat to land, to imaginary rower: ὦ ὄπ, παραβαλοῦ, “… lay her alongside”), but at Ra. 208 Charon’s ὦ ὄπ· ὄπ. ὦ ὄπ· ὄπ is clearly setting the stroke for Dionysos, not telling him to stop. The most probable explanation is that the triple call ὦ ὄπ ὄπ marked three movements (on ὦ the oar is pulled through the water, on ὄπ1 lifted clear, on ὄπ2 brought back to position; so T. F. Higham’s Oxford lectures, cit. Stanford on Ra. 208; cf. S. F. Weiskittel, Report of Sea Trials, ii. Poros 1988 (Geneva, NY, 1989),

|| 216 Cf. OED s.v. “there adv. (adj. and n.)”: “7. Used interjectionally, usually to point (in a tone of vexation, dismay, derision, satisfaction, encouragement, etc.) to some fact, condition, or consummation, presented to the sight or mind. Hence there-there vb. trans., to soothe or comfort by saying these words.”

174 | Semantics 29, cit. Dover ad loc.), and that ὦ ὄπ, omitting ὄπ2, was the usual final call, when the oar was not to be returned to position for the next stroke. (Dunbar on Ar. Av. 1395)

A feature of ὢ ὄπ, similar to that of εἶα, is that it can be used in selfcommand, possibly used as an aid for timing the strokes of the oar. Proposed informational equivalent: [I want you to row] or [I want you to stop (rowing)]

3.7.3.5 Core meaning In conclusion, I propose the following core meaning for this group. Now speaker wants auditor to perform a certain action Proposed informational equivalents for the individual items

εἶα (εἷα) [I want you to do this] ἤν [I want you to notice this] ψύττ’(α) [I want yousheep to move] ὢ ὄπ [I want you to row] or [I want you to stop (rowing)]

3.8 Semantics—Category 3 Though very few, the items in category 3 form a legitimate category of their own, because they fulfil our formal and semantic criteria. Their common characteristic is to act as response words, uttered as reactions to some external event, such as an utterance by another speaker. The response is always one of affirmation, or some related meaning, such as concession, compliance or approval. This is due to the fact that there is no negative response word, “no”, in Ancient Greek.217 In conformity with the previous categories, I suggest a common core meaning for the category as a whole, as well as for each sub-group, followed by informational equivalents for the individual members of each subgroup. The two subgroups each contain an item or two with a similar or related meaning to the other. Again, Kaplan’s information equivalence is used to illustrate the core meaning for each item. The interjections in category 3 can be divided into two groups, expressing (1) agreement, and (2) compliance.

|| 217 Rijksbaron (2012: 152): “… οὐ in answers everywhere functions as an elliptic negative proposition particle.”

Semantics—Category 3 | 175

3.8.1 Explicit semantic analysis Interjections in category 3 contain an AGENT, and as in the other categories the items become indexical through their utterance. As in the other categories, again, the utterance itself emphasizes the TIME of utterance as especially relevant, which is marked by now. However, these interjections lack the obvious indexicality which is observable in category 1, where we find explicit reference to the first person by means of co-uttered pronouns or adjectives. The affirmation is basically an agreement with the preceding utterance. In the following example we find such a basic use of an affirmative item (E. Or. 148): Χο. ἴδ’ ἀτρεμαῖον ὡς ὑπόροφον φέρω βοάν. CHORUS See how gentle is the voice I bring indoors! Ηλ. ναί, οὕτως· ELECTRA Yes, that’s the way: AGENT THEME

Thus, I suggest the following core meaning for all items in category 3, expressed with the aid of semantic roles: NowTIME speakerAGENT expresses affirmation of preceding utteranceTHEME

The category also finds space for certain interactional routines, such as an expression of the speaker’s intention to proceed in an argument, i.e. having a discourse regulating function. This is examined further in the chapter on pragmatics. Tab. 15: Category 3. Phatic interjections IntPs Agreement

57

Compliance

43

Total

100

3.8.2 Interjections expressing agreement In the first subgroup, which contains interjections expressing affirmation, we find two primary items. The source material is surprisingly sparse, no doubt due to the very common occurrence of various other expressions used for the same

176 | Semantics purpose, such as e.g. informal oaths. These are however not treated in the present study, since they are considered to be secondary interjections, consisting of particles in combination with noun phrases. Consequently, all oaths spoken in other dialects than Attic, including Megarian in Acharnians (six occurrences), Laconian in Peace (one occurrence) and Lysistrate (11 occurrences), as well as the quote of the Sybarite woman in Wasps (one occurrence), are also left untreated.218 However, I have included the examples of ναί and ναίκι spoken by the Scythian in Women at the Thesmophoriae, since I consider him to be speaking Attic, albeit broken. The removal of these examples of ναί in “foreign dialects” results in no changes in the tragedians. The change in Aristophanes, however, is considerable; the 19 occurrences removed constitute almost half of the total 43 occurrences, leaving 24. Tab. 16: Interjections expressing agreement Lemma

IntPs

Aeschylus

Sophocles

Euripides

Aristophanes

ἰαῦ

1

0

0

0

1

ναί

56

2

9

21

24

Total

57

2

9

21

25

3.8.2.1 ἰαῦ—iau This item is a hapax legomenon, and offers somewhat of an interpretive challenge. In Aristophanes Frogs, Dionysus calls for Xanthias, who at that moment seems not to be on stage. Xanthias’ first response consists in the word itself. ὁ Ξανθίας. ποῦ Ξανθίας; ἤ, Ξανθία. ΞΑ. ἰαῦ. ΔΙ. βάδιζε δεῦρο. ΞΑ. χαῖρ’, ὦ δέσποτα. [DIONYSUS] Xanthias! Where’s Xanthias? Hey Xanthias! XANTHIAS (off) Yo! DIONYSUS Get over here! Reenter XANTHIAS by the other parodos, as having walked around the lake.

|| 218 Colvin (1999: 230) notes that the ναί [e.g. τὼ σίω] frequently used by the Laconian Lampito in Lysistrate “seems to be equivalent to Attic νή [τὼ θεώ]”.

Semantics—Category 3 | 177

XANTHIAS Hello, master.

Ar. Ra. 272

It seems uncontroversial to claim that this item belongs in this category, although there is only a single instance of it. It appears to be a back-channeling or feedback signaling vocalization in accordance with Ameka’s specification.219 Proposed informational equivalent: [I agree with that utterance]

3.8.2.2 ναί—nai There are 56 occurrences of ναί, most of which are found in comedy, even though there are examples in all three tragedians: two in Aeschylus, nine in Sophocles, 21 in Euripides and 24 in Aristophanes. There is also a variant form, ναίχι (also without aspiration, in a dialectal use, ναίκι).220 The most pronounced characteristic of ναί is its use as an affirmation of a preceding utterance, be it a statement, a question or an exhortation. It also occurs as a formulaic word in response to polar questions, like English yes. In Aeschylus, the only two occurrences are both found in Persians. In the first one, the Persian queen Atossa confirms the safe arrival of Xerxes at the bridge over the Hellespont. Δα. καὶ πρὸς ἤπειρον σεσῶσθαι τήνδε, τοῦτ’ ἐτήτυμον; Βα. ναί, λόγος κρατεῖ σαφηνὴς τοῦτό γ’· οὐκ ἔνι στάσις. GHOST OF DARIUS And has come safe back to our continent? Is that really true? QUEEN Yes, that is the prevalent and definitive report; there is no dispute about it. A. Pers. 738

In the second occurrence we find ναί doubled and placed finally. Again, the item is used to confirm the preceding speech, this time a kind of exhortation, which the chorus also repeats itself. Ξε. ἰωὰ δὴ κατ’ ἄστυ. Χο. ἰωὰ δῆτα, ναὶ ναί. XERXES Let ió indeed be heard throughout the city– CHORUS Let ió be heard indeed, yes, yes! A. Pers. 1072

|| 219 (Ameka 1992a:114) 220 Rijksbaron (2012: 156, Appendix) claims that ναίχι is the emphatic form of ναί, drawing a parallel to οὔχι and οὐ.

178 | Semantics In Sophocles, the confirming ναί is used on all occasions. In Oedipus Tyrannus the chorus uses the variant form ναίχι when responding to Iocaste’s question.221 Ιο. ἀμφοῖν ἀπ’ αὐτοῖν;

Χο. ναίχι. Ιο. καὶ τίς ἦν λόγος; IOCASTE It came from both? CHORUS Yes! IOCASTE And what was said? S. OT 683

In Euripides, we find the confirming ναί most frequently. Parker (on E. Alc. 1119–1120) characterizes it as “a very strong affirmation”. There are, however, also slightly different examples. In Hippolytus 605, Phoenician women 1665 and Iphigenia at Aulis 1247, ναί is used as a formula of entreaty, combined with the more typical πρὸς θεῶν, or a variant thereof. Barrett (on Hippolytus 605) suggests that “ναί imploring a person to relent from a refusal is colloquial Attic”. Τρ. σίγησον, ὦ παῖ, πρίν τιν’ αἰσθέσθαι βοῆς. Ιπ. οὐκ ἔστ’ ἀκούσας δείν’ ὅπως σιγήσομαι. Τρ. ναί, πρός σε τῆσδε δεξιᾶς εὐωλένου. NURSE Silence, my son, before someone hears your shout! HIPPOLYTUS I have heard dread things: I cannot now be silent. NURSE She kneels as a suppliant before hippolytus and tries to grasp his hand. Do so, I beg you by your fair right hand! E. Hipp. 605

This may also be the intended use in Medea 1277, where the children are struggling for their lives. Χο. παρέλθω δόμους; ἀρῆξαι φόνον. δοκεῖ μοι τέκνοις. Πα.α ναί, πρὸς θεῶν, ἀρήξατ’· ἐν δέοντι γάρ. CHORUS Shall I enter the house? I am determined to stop the death of the children. FIRST CHILD (within) Yes, in heaven’s name, stop it! Now is the time! E. Med. 1277

|| 221 Remarkably the word has the same place and the same meaning in the antistrophe as the οἶδα, “Yes!” in the strophe (S. OT 655), which is the chorus’ response to Oedipus’ question οἶσθ’ oὖν ἃ χρῄζεις;, “Then you do know what it is you wish for?”

Semantics—Category 3 | 179

In Aristophanes, if all occurrences in foreign dialects are excluded, most remaining examples of ναί point in the same direction, denoting a confirmation of some kind. In Acharnians, Dicaeopolis gets help from Euripides in remembering a name. Ευ. οἶδ’ ἄνδρα, Μυσὸν Τήλεφον. Δι. ναί, Τήλεφον· EURIPIDES I know the man: Mysian Telephus! DICAEOPOLIS Yes, Telephus! Ar. Ach. 430

The “imploring” use previously seen in Euripides is also found in Aristophanes’ Clouds, when Strepsiades begs Socrates to continue being his teacher. Σω. ὑθλεῖς· ἄπερρ’, οὐκ ἂν διδαξαίμην σ’ ἔτι. Στ. ὁτιὴ τί; ναί, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν, ὦ Σώκρατες. SOCRATES You’re blathering. Get lost! I’m not going to be your teacher any longer. STREPSIADES Why not? In heaven’s name, please, Socrates! Ar. Nu. 784

This use is closely related to the encouraging or agreeing use also found in Aristophanes. In Knights, Paphlagon tries to persuade Demos to determine who is most devoted to him, and is eagerly supported by the Sausage seller to do so. Πα. καὶ μὴν ποιήσας αὐτίκα μάλ’ ἐκκλησίαν, ὦ Δῆμ’, ἵν’ εἰδῇς ὁπότερος νῷν ἐστί σοι εὐνούστερος, διάκρινον, ἵνα τοῦτον φιλῇς. Αλ. ναὶ ναί, διάκρινον δῆτα, πλὴν μὴ ’ν τῇ Πυκνί. PAPHLAGON I suggest that you hold an Assembly right away, Mr. Demos, to find out which of us is more devoted to you, and decide, so you can cherish that one. SAUSAGE SELLER Yes, yes, do decide between us, but not on the Pnyx. Ar. Eq. 749

Fairly frequently, viz. in 13 of the 24 occurrences in Aristophanes, ναί is combined with the informal oath μὰ Δί(α), which functions as an intensifier, or a strengthening device, with Olson’s (Ar. Ach. 88) words, “a banal colloquial oath”. Βλ.

ἀτὰρ γεγένηται;

ναὶ μὰ Δί’. οὐκ ᾔδησθά με φράσαντά σοι χθές; PRAXAGORA … So an Assembly was held?

180 | Semantics BLEPYRUS God yes. Don’t you remember my telling you about it yesterday?

Ar. Ec. 551

It seems that most occurrences of ναί employ the expected back-channeling or feedback signaling use, as well as formulaic word in response to polar questions, very similarly to modern English “yes”. In Euripides and Aristophanes, however, we find examples bordering on conative items, which seem to function as an imploration or exhortation. These examples also occur in moments of high emotional intensity. Nevertheless, it seems uncontroversial to suggest that the core meaning of ναί is one of agreement. Proposed informational equivalent: [I agree with that utterance]

3.8.2.3 Core meaning In conclusion, I propose the following core meaning for this group. Now speaker agrees with the preceding utterance Proposed informational equivalents for the individual items

ἰαῦ ναί

[I agree with that utterance] [I agree with that utterance]

3.8.3 Interjections expressing compliance Since there is only one member in this group, I proceed directly to the description and analysis of it. Tab. 17: Interjections expressing compliance Lemma

IntPs

Aeschylus

Sophocles

Euripides

Aristophanes

εἶἑν

47

4

6

26

10

Semantics—Category 3 | 181

3.8.3.1 εἶἑν—eihen εἶἑν occurs in all four authors: four in Aeschylus, six in Sophocles, 26 in Euripides and 10 in Aristophanes.222 εἶἑν is frequently commented on by editors, most often regarding its discourse regulating functions. Very few, however, comment on its meaning. In Aeschylus, εἶἑν is always uttered speech-initially, in direct response to a preceding statement. In the other three authors, it is equally often uttered in the middle of a monologue, and in these cases it often acts as a discourse marker. The examples in Aeschylus exhibit four quite different uses. In LibationBearers, Orestes is knocking on the door and calling for someone to open up, when a doorkeeper responds to his call with the following words, effectively establishing a communicative contact. ΟΙΚΕΤΗΣ εἶἑν, ἀκούω· ποδαπὸς ὁ ξένος; πόθεν; the door, not opening it] All right, all right, I can hear you. Where’s the visitor from? Where, I say? A. Ch. 657 DOORKEEPER [behind

Later on, in the same play, the chorus begin an interlude with the word, followed by an imperative question. Sommerstein likens this use to a passage in Euripides, which Barrett describes as marking that “it indicates (with or without a hint of impatience) that he is waiting on someone else” (E. Hipp. 297). Χο. εἶἑν, φίλιαι δμωίδες οἴκων, πότε δὴ στομάτων δείξομεν ἰσχὺν ἐπ’ Ὀρέστηι; CHORUS Come now, dear serving-women of the house, when, pray, shall we display the power of our lips in aid of Orestes? A. Ch. 719

In the next example, the word is again uttered by the chorus, but this time at the detection of Orestes’ tracks, characterized by Sommerstein (as translator) as a “cry of satisfaction”.

|| 222 What separates εἶἑν, and to a lesser extent ναί, from interjections in the other categories is its frequent use in prose, especially in the dialogues of Plato, but also in oratory and Menander’s comedy. An adequate analysis of these items therefore requires a closer inspection of sources outside of the study’s corpus, which there is no room for in the present study.

182 | Semantics Χο.εἶἑν· τόδ’ ἐστὶ τἀνδρὸς ἐκφανὲς τέκμαρ· CHORUS Aha! This is the clear track of the man! Follow the guidance of the voiceless informant! A. Eu. 244

The last example in Aeschylus is found in Prometheus Bound, where Power impatiently reacts to Hephaestus’ hesitance. Κρ. εἶἑν, τί μέλλεις καὶ κατοικτίζηι μάτην;

POWER Well, then, why are you waiting and grieving to no purpose?

A. PV 36

In Sophocles, Stanford (on Ajax 101) calls it “a colloquial expression … to introduce a new topic non-committally”, likening it to all remaining passages, save the one in the fragments: Electra 534, Philoctetes 1308, and Oedipus at Colonus 476 and 1308. Αι. θανόντες ἤδη τἄμ’ ἀφαιρείσθων ὅπλα. Αθ. εἶἑν· τί γὰρ δὴ παῖς ὁ τοῦ Λαερτίου; AJAX Let them deprive me of my arms, now that they are dead! ATHENA So! But what of the son of Laertes? S. Aj. 101

The passage in Electra is different from the preceding examples, since it occurs in the middle of a speech. Kells notes that the word is “used by orators introducing a discussion”, and this is what Clytemnestra is doing, when speaking to her daughter Electra. … ἐπεὶ πατὴρ οὗτος σός, ὃν θρηνεῖς ἀεί, τὴν σὴν ὅμαιμον μοῦνος Ἑλλήνων ἔτλη θῦσαι θεοῖσιν, οὐκ ἴσον καμὼν ἐμοὶ λύπης, ὅτ’ ἔσπειρ’, ὥσπερ ἡ τίκτουσ’ ἐγώ. εἶἑν· δίδαξον δή με · τοῦ χάριν ἔθυσεν αὐτήν; πότερον Ἀργείων ἐρεῖς; [CLYTEMNESTRA] Why, that father of yours, whom you are always lamenting, alone among the Greeks brought himself to sacrifice your sister to the gods, though he felt less pain when he begot her than I did when I bore her. So, explain this! For whose sake did he sacrifice her? S. El. 534

In Euripides, Dale (E. Alc. 299) states that εἶἑν “dismisses one line of argument and turns to a new angle of the matter in question”, while Parker (same passage) calls it a “conversational interjection which concludes what has been said so far and marks a new stage in the argument”.

Semantics—Category 3 | 183

… ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν θεῶν τις ἐξέπραξεν ὥσθ’ οὕτως ἔχειν. εἶἑν· σύ νύν μοι τῶνδ’ ἀπόμνησαι χάριν· [ALCESTIS] But some god has brought these things to pass. Well, then. Remember to show your gratitude for this. E. Alc. 299

The general description put forth by Barrett (E. Hipp. 297) also corresponds to this view. … when the speaker is ready to proceed to the next point or the next step; usually he proceeds to it himself forthwith, and εἶἑν then serves to preface a new topic or a new development in the argument or the announcement of a course of action; but sometimes it indicates (with or without a hint of impatience) that he is waiting on someone else, and so here… (Barrett 1964) … εἰ δ’ ἔκφορός σοι συμφορὰ πρὸς ἄρσενας, λέγ’, ὡς ἰατροῖς πρᾶγμα μηνυθῆι τόδε. εἶἑν, τί σιγᾶις; οὐκ ἐχρῆν σιγᾶν, τέκνον, [NURSE] If your misfortune may be spoken of to men, speak so that the thing may be revealed to doctors. (Phaedra is silent.) Well, why are you silent? You ought not to be silent, child… E. Hipp. 297

Finally, we also find a passage similar to the formulaic use in Aeschylus. Teiresias is helped by Menoeceus to face Creon, who has summoned him. Τε. εἶἑν, πάρεσμεν· τί με καλεῖς σπουδῆι, Κρέον;

TEIRESIAS Well then, here I am. Why did you summon me so urgently, Creon?

E. Ph. 849

Mastronarde (E. Ph. 1615) notes that speech-internal and speech-initial εἶἑν show a slight difference in use; while the former “normally marks the disposal of one topic and transition to another”, the latter marks a “readiness to move the discussion and action forward after a lyric or messenger’s narrative or other delaying element”, as well as the three other uses found in Aeschylus (colloquial formula, scene-transition and detection of tracks). In comedy, the first example in Knights demonstrates a simple affirmation, or a token of having heard (and possibly also understood), while the second resembles the common use in Euripides, moving on to another topic, which also occurs in Clouds 1075. Αλ. ἀλωπεκίοισι τοὺς στρατιώτας ᾔκασεν, ὁτιὴ βότρυς τρώγουσιν ἐν τοῖς χωρίοις.

184 | Semantics Δημ. εἶἑν. τούτοις ὁ μισθὸς τοῖς ἀλωπεκίοισι ποῦ; SAUSAGE SELLER Soldiers are like fox cubs because they eat grapes in the farmlands. DEMOS Aha. And where’s the pay for these fox cubs? Ar. Eq. 1078

Πα. πῶς εἶπας; ὥς μοὐ χρησμὸς ἅπτεται φρενῶν. εἶἑν. ἐν παιδοτρίβου δὲ τίνα πάλην ἐμάνθανες; PAPHLAGON What’s that you say? How the oracle bites me to the quick! Now then: at the wrestling school, what technique did you learn? Ar. Eq. 1237

Dover (Ar. Nu. 176) translates “well, well!”, and characterizes the item as “expressing surprised interest”, although I find it very similar to the first example in Knights above, simply expressing having heard and understood. Μα. ἐχθὲς δέ γ’ ἡμῖν δεῖπνον οὐκ ἦν ἑσπέρας. Στ. εἶἑν. τί οὖν πρὸς τἄλφιτ’ ἐπαλαμήσατο; PUPIL Yes, and last night we had no dinner to eat. STREPSIADES Aha. So how did he finagle your eats? Ar. Nu. 176

In Peace (663) we find the same exact words used by the doorkeeper in Aeschylus. This time Hermes is about to hear the from Peace why she has kept silent for so long, and marks his readiness with the words “εἶἑν, ἀκούω”, which in my view is correctly translated by Olson (1998) as “all right—I’m listening”. It is clear that εἶἑν is used as a response word in all four authors, denoting the speaker’s attitude towards the on-going discourse. However, εἶἑν is also frequently used as a discourse regulating item, marking the speaker’s disposition of his or her own speech, with little or no propositional content. This is understood as a secondary use. Additionally, we find the peculiar occurrence in Aeschylus, where it seems to denote surprise. This may however be explained as a secondary use, as well. Proposed informational equivalent: [I comply with the preceding utterance]

3.8.3.2 Core meaning In conclusion, I propose the following core meaning for this word. Now speaker complies with the preceding utterance

Concluding remarks | 185

Proposed informational equivalent for the only item in the category

εἶἑν

[I comply with the preceding utterance]

3.9 Concluding remarks In the semantics chapter I have shown that the three proposed categories are highly dissimilar semantically. Furthermore, all three categories have been shown to form clauses or complete sentences. With the aid of Kaplan’s notion of informational equivalence and inspired by Davidson’s notion of core meaning, I have provided a theoretical framework as an alternative to Ameka’s. The application of IEs for the singular items turned out to be a successful method of sorting and analyzing the corpus material. Interjections in category 1 all seem to have elements of what Ameka calls cognitive interjections, since their utterance can be considered to express “I now know this” to some extent—if the speaker had not experienced the event that preceded the utterance, s/he would not have uttered it in the first place. The interjections which I consider expressive of surprise come closest to Ameka’s cognitive sub-category. The other three sub-categories are varieties of emotive interjections, which are expressive of pain and vexation, lamentation and joy. There are only a handful of primary interjections in category 2, which all seem to follow Ameka’s criteria well—they are directed at an auditor, not a specified addressee and express the wish of the speaker that someone does something, either pays attention or performs a certain action. Category 3 contains even fewer primary items than category 2. Semantically, these items in this category are most similar to the items in category 1, since they primarily are expressions of the speaker’s attitude. However, since this attitude in practice consists of agreement, their primary illocution is declarative, rather than expressive or conative. The procedural meaning, which becomes clear in several examples of these items, is understood as a secondary function. This is explained more fully in the next chapter.

3.9.1 Primary illocutions Viewed as sentences, interjections were shown to have the following primary illocutions (PIs). The items in category 1 have an expressive PI, uttered with or without exclamative force.

186 | Semantics The items in category 2 have an imperative PI, again with more or less exclamative force. The items in category 3 have a declarative PI. As with any language, they may or may not have exclamative force.

3.9.2 Core meanings With the aid of semantic roles, I have provided the following explicit core meaning of interjections in the first two categories: Category 1 NowTIME speaker is EXPERIENCER of a mental state because of SOURCE

The speaker / EXPERIENCER in category 1 is always a person.223 Category 2 NowTIME speakerAGENT wants auditorPATIENT to perform actionTHEME

The interjections in category 2 thus have an AGENT and a PATIENT, both (normally) being persons, and includes reference to a verb-like event, the THEME. Category 3 NowTIME speakerAGENT expresses affirmation of preceding utteranceTHEME

The interjections in category 3 only have an AGENT, which is always a person. They also include reference to a verb-like event, the THEME, which is the preceding utterance. Contrary to the case in category 2, the utterance of a phatic interjection may involve an auditor, but only passively, as a recipient of information. Interjections of all categories operate within a certain time-frame; event time and speaker time is always one and the same—i.e., they all have a nowrelevance to a certain degree. The utterance of any interjection indicates that its semantic content is at its highest point of significance at the exact time of its utterance. Among the items in category 1, we found several which seemed to have more than one meaning. In the following chapter, it will be shown that it in|| 223 In the biblical (LXX and NT) use of οὐαί the interjection is used as a Noun Phrase functioning as the subject, with a meaning similar to how οἰμὠζω (roughly you’ll be sorry) is used by the classical authors.

Concluding remarks | 187

stead rather is a case of more than one use. Variant uses may be due to formal and informal register, as well as genre-based use, ritual and non-ritual use or depending on the gender, dialect or rank of the speaker.

4 Pragmatics In this chapter, Ameka’s pragmatic definition is found to be in need of further development. This is achieved by means of applying later research by Fraser and Trillo. The primary function of interjections is understood as the expression of their core semantics in a specified context. Some interjections are shown to be able to function secondarily as items of another category, in addition to their primary function. Felicity conditions, which need to be fulfilled in order for the utterance of an interjection to accomplish its primary function, are proposed. Finally, it is shown that interjections, alongside items from other parts of speech, also can be used as pragmatic markers, either basic, signaling speaker’s intended use of the utterance, commentary, presenting an attitude or adding emphasis or intensity to a co-utterance, or as discourse markers, which specify how the following discourse is related to the foregoing.

4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 What is pragmatics? Pragmatics can be explained by the Saussurean idea of parole, which is language in use, divided into what we may call utterances. Utterances, in turn, commonly occur in contexts and therefore carry contextual information, which necessitates knowledge about this context, the status of those involved, various inferences etc., for a successful interpretation to be made. It was suggested in the previous chapter that interjections carry semantic information, and that even when they are completely on their own, most of them can still be separated fairly clearly from each other. However, it was also shown that the interpretation of particular interjections can differ quite a lot. This depends on various factors connected to use, a matter which then is separate from semantics. As stated in the semantics chapter, I employ a strict division between semantics and pragmatics, considering the core meaning of each interjection to be independent of the context of its utterance. Pragmatics, then, supplies the means to deal with the items when these contexts are added. Other scholars may follow a different approach on the interplay between semantics and pragmatics, and therefore claim that interjections do not have

Introduction | 189

any denotative meaning semantically: “their use is defined rather by their pragmatic function”224. Such a claim is similar to Kaplan’s claim that “meaning is use”. According to this view, it is not until the interjections are in active use that we can fully understand and interpret them. Is meaning, then, separate from, or equal to, use? I agree with Kaplan’s view, that a complete analysis of interjections cannot normally be made without placing them in a context, i.e. putting them in use. However, I do believe that there is a context-free meaning to each item which is significant and relevant to pinpoint in order to fully understand how they are primarily used. This meaning may often be wide, but, because of the common presence of iconic qualities, it is not necessarily arbitrary, as is normally the case with other words. In contrast to Kaplan, I claim that the core semantics of an interjection sometimes is sufficient for making a correct interpretation of it; however, as with any linguistic items, there is always a need of pragmatics, i.e. situating utterances in context, to analyze utterances of any sort completely. With conceptual tools taken from pragmatic theory, such as conventionality, appropriateness, felicity conditions and pragmatic markers, I will shed light on certain aspects of the interjections in Ancient Greek which up till now have been unclear. And, unlike in the semantics chapter, where I focused on the specific description of the singular items in each category, in the pragmatics chapter I draw broader strokes, being mainly concerned with general properties of the larger groups of interjections.

4.1.2 Primary and secondary functions I follow the hypothesis that the interjections in the three proposed categories have a primary function, which has an intimate connection to the core semantics of each item, and which is fully analyzable after the identification of the context and arguments. In order to make this primary function clear, I provide felicity conditions, which are applicable to individual items and groups of items respectively. These include what kind of situations the item can be uttered in, who the speaker needs to be, and what information the speaker and auditor need to have to be able to utter and interpret the item correctly. If these conditions are fulfilled, the

|| 224 Biber et al. (1999: 1082)

190 | Pragmatics item will successfully be expressive of its core semantics in the specified context. Furthermore, I argue that interjections have various secondary functions, explaining the many senses certain items seem to have. Accordingly, pragmatic markers are presented, a function explaining some of the secondary uses. Fraser’s theory of such pragmatic markers is discussed and subsequently applied on the material. There is also room for some modifications from Norrick and Trillo.

4.1.3 Hypotheses for primary functions The hypothesis for interjections in category 1 is that their primary function is to express a certain speaker’s experience of a particular emotion or cognition, in certain situations. The hypothesis for interjections in category 2 is that their primary function is to express a certain speaker’s wish for a certain action from some addressee or auditor, in certain situations. The hypothesis for interjections in category 3 is that their primary function is to express a certain speaker’s mental attitude towards the preceding utterance, in certain situations.

4.1.4 Questions under study In this chapter, I deal with the following questions. How does the sense of an interjection vary, depending on whether it is uttered free-standing, or in combination with other linguistic items? What needs to be the case, and who must the speaker be, for an interjection to be uttered felicitously? Can an interjection change the illocutionary point of an utterance? Do certain items belong in certain situations or contexts? Does it matter who the addressee or auditor is? Some items seem to “move” from one category to another—is this a result of meaning or use? For example, in the case of ἰώ used as a hortation, is the core meaning still to be understood as belonging in category 1, or are we dealing with two separate items? The idea that one item at the same time is able to express an experience of positive and negative emotion has been problematic ever since Antiquity; we simply have a hard time accepting that an item which we associate with one of these can also function as the other. The most prominent example in the mate-

Theoretical background | 191

rial is the use of οἴμοι, which a scholiast claims is an interjection of joy, whereas we commonly rather associate it with vexation. Among related examples we find the twofold meaning of ἰοὺ ἰού, similar to that of οἴμοι; the highly frequent expressive ἰώ is used both as a cry of grief and as a greeting, as became clear in the semantics chapter. There is also the strengthening function, which is understood as an intensifying device. Pragmatically, secondary interjections in modern English often have the function of intensifiers, rather than being expressive of particular mental states.

4.2 Theoretical background 4.2.1 Definitions The basic definition of interjections given by Ameka is based on morphology and semantics and covers all items belonging in the grammatical class. His classification, however, is “based on the specific communicative functions they fulfil and according to the types of meaning they predicate”.225 It seems, therefore, that his definition is one of semantics, whereas his classification is rather based on pragmatics, i.e. the communicative function of the various items. However, the distinction Ameka makes between semantics and pragmatics is not entirely clear: From a pragmatic point of view, interjections may be defined as a subset of items that encode speaker attitudes and communicative intentions and are context-bound. In this approach interjections are a sub-class of a larger class of pragmatic markers (cf. Fraser 1990).226

In the light of this view, there is obvious need to specify what is meant by context. I call context the specification of the situation of an utterance and the speaker, and in some cases also an auditor or addressee. The situation, more specifically, includes what has been said before, i.e. extra-linguistic entities such as the time and place of the utterance, as well as persons and objects. Several of these are referred to by means of deictic elements, such as this, here, now, that etc., which bind the expression to a certain situation. These items are also commonly called indexicals. Next, the specification of the speaker also || 225 Ameka (1992a: 113). 226 Ameka (1992a: 107).

192 | Pragmatics provides information on what to expect, in terms of social marking, gender etc. (e.g. a tragic chorus, or a sausage salesman). A certain situation may also specify the expected register to be used by the speakers in it. Furthermore, if there is a specified addressee in addition to the speaker, we may also be informed on the interpersonal relations these persons have, e.g. through choice of T/Vwords. As readers (or listeners) of a text, we are thus informed about several different features on several different levels. In Ameka’s ELL article, interjections are said to embody “presuppositions about discourse and social context that could be explicated in terms of propositions”. Ameka then goes on to give the example of ouch, which, if uttered by an English speaking person, “indexes himself or herself as experiencing a sudden or sharp pain. Once the speaker is identified, this utterance can be fully interpreted.”227 The basic way to identify the meaning of an utterance consisting of an interjection is to first identify all referents, normally the context and the speaker, as in the example above. This identification reveals the primary function of interjections, applicable to the first two categories. In the utterance of οἴμοι, the speaker typically indexes him- or herself as experiencing grief, while in the utterance of ὠή the speaker indexes him- or herself, as well as an auditor, as wanting this person to pay attention. In the utterance of ναί, finally, the speaker indexes him- or herself as affirming the preceding utterance. Ameka continues: The interpretation of other interjections, however, involves not only contextualization and substitution of elements in the context for arguments in the propositions underlying them, but also complex processes of conversational inference … . That is, the arguments in the propositions underlying the interjections are not fully specified as in the case of ouch!. The identity of the arguments is open to context-based inference. (Ameka 2006: 743).228

This “context-based inference” is understood as conclusions the listener needs to make based on certain presuppositions, such as at whom the utterance is directed. This appears to be especially valid for the items in category 2, which frequently involve implicit reference to an auditor, besides to the speaker. Nevertheless, there are also occurrences with specified arguments in category 1, as we have seen in the syntax chapter. Thus, it seems necessary to identify what || 227 Ameka (2006: 743). This is the current article on “interjections” in the ELL, which in fact is the unaltered text from the 1994 edition. 228 Cf. Allan (2006: Abstract): “An inference is a reasoned conclusion drawn from one or more assumptions (premises).”

Theoretical background | 193

situations are needed for the various items to be uttered felicitously. In the semantics chapter, we have already seen how certain items occur in certain contexts.

4.2.2 Fraser: pragmatic markers A conspicuous characteristic of interjections is that there often seems to exist many possible variants of singular items. The question easily arises, what makes it possible for a single item to be so variously interpreted, especially if it only has a single core meaning, or perhaps a limited number? Obviously, language use makes way for a substantially wider range of possible interpretations; the meaning of the item, however, always stays the same. This phenomenon may be partly explained by the theory of pragmatic markers (PMs), which receive the following presentation. Specifically, I propose that this non-propositional part of sentence meaning can be analyzed into different types of signals, what I have called Pragmatic Markers (cf. Fraser 1990), which correspond to the different types of potential direct messages a sentence may convey. These pragmatic markers, taken to be separate and distinct from the propositional content of the sentence, are the linguistically encoded clues which signal the speaker’s potential communicative intentions. (Fraser 1996: 167–168)

The concept of direct message potential is explained as being derived from sentence meaning, and “a specification of those messages that can be potentially communicated by the utterance of the sentence.”229 Clearly, interjections not only occur free-standing, but are often surrounded by or embedded in other speech, especially speech following after the interjection. Traditional analyses of interjections have considered any other speech as being hierarchically superior, functioning as a governing word or phrase. These governing units obviously have influence on the function of the interjections. The matter has been examined in the area of discourse analysis, where it has been shown that interjections have several affinities to PMs (which need to be separated from discourse management markers, DMMs, items primarily relevant for the organization of discourse itself). In his study from 1996, Fraser considers interjections to be able to act as a kind of PMs, and the division of PMs in basic,

|| 229 Fraser (1996: 167).

194 | Pragmatics parallel, commentary and discourse markers has inspired me to follow this division in part in the present study.230 The four types of Pragmatic Markers (PMs) are explained thus: 1. Basic markers signal the speaker’s information on the intended use of the utterance. Examples include sentence mood and lexical expressions, such as I admit and please. 2. Commentary markers (CMs) provide a comment on the basic message. These are optional, and their message is typically very general, with a single word often signaling both the message force and content, also constituting pragmatic idioms. Examples include stupidly and frankly. 3. Parallel markers (PPMs) signal an entire message separate from the basic and any commentary messages. These are also optional, and examples include John (vocative) and in God’s name. 4. Discourse markers, which signal a message specifying how the basic message is related to the foregoing discourse. Even these are optional, and examples include so and incidentally. Contrary to the other three types, “discourse markers do not contribute to the representative sentence meaning, but only to the procedural meaning”. 231 Beginning with basic markers, these are subdivided into three categories: structural, lexical and hybrid basic markers.232 Interjections, which are defined as “emotive words or phrases which stand alone and function as separate sentences”, are considered to be a subcategory of lexical basic markers and are labeled “message idioms”, which “signal the entire basic message”. This is

|| 230 In his later studies (1999, 2006), Fraser retains the division into four types of PMs, now focusing however only on the fourth type, the discourse markers, thus leaving the field of interjections behind. Discourse markers are subclassified into four groups, reflecting their basic semantic relationships: contrastive (primary member but), elaborative (and), inferential (so) and temporal (then) markers. The primary function of these words is to regulate and maintain discourse. Among the DMs we find words of interjection-like appearance—short, indeclinable, commonly uttered clause-initially and capable of occurring free-standing (although this only happens rarely). Since DMs have these features, some consider DMs as a sub-category of interjections, on the same hierarchical level as the proposed three categories of this study. Examples of discourse particles in Greek include γε, δή, οὖν. Fraser’s definition of discourse markers states that “they are free morphemes, discourse-segment initial, signal a specific message, and are classified not syntactically but in terms of their semantic/pragmatic functions.” Fraser (2006: 189) 231 Fraser (1996: 168–169). 232 Fraser (1996: 171).

Theoretical background | 195

roughly equivalent to what I understand free-standing interjections to do.233 Interestingly, Fraser’s group of items considered to belong in the class of interjections corresponds neatly with Ameka’s classification, including phatic interjections such as “yes” and “no”. Sorted by the three categories, we find the following examples of interjections, expressing: (Category 1) a) receipt of new information (Ah! Oh! Aha! I see.) c) pleasure (Hooray! Wow! Ooh! Is that right?) d) displeasure (Damnit! Phooey! Pooh! Ugh! Yuk! Ow/Ouch! Boo!) h) apology (Oops! [Also to express dismay]) j) relief (Whew!) (Category 2) b) desire for attention (Ahem! Psst! Hey!) g) desire for clarification (Eh? Huh? What?) i) desire for noise reduction (Shhhh!) (Category 3) e) agreement (Uh-huh. Yes! Yeah! Yup! OK!) f) disagreement (Uh-uh. No! Nope! No way!) (Fraser 1996: 176)

Fraser subsequently notes that these interjections are often assigned a meaning which is carried by the intonation imposed on them, and not by the form itself. As became clear in the semantics chapter, this might perhaps be the case of the monovocalic interjections, but in the case of more complex sound structures, I believe that intonation and other phonological qualities are of lesser importance. In the subsequent type of commentary markers (CMs), we find “assessment markers”, such as amazingly, fortunately and sadly, and “emphasis markers”, exemplified by I insist and Mark my words. Such pragmatic markers can easily be substituted by interjections expressive of surprise, cf. “Amazingly, they won the game!” and “Wow, they won the game!”234

|| 233 Lexical basic markers are also considered to be a subcategory of “pragmatic idioms”, which are defined as “expressions for which there is no plausible inferential path leading from literal, direct meaning to the accepted basic pragmatic signal. There are both force idioms, which signal the basic intended message force, and message idioms, which signal the entire basic message.” (Fraser 1996: 174) 234 Fraser’s view in 1996 was that parallel markers differ from commentary markers in that they convey a message of their own, parallel to another message. In his 2009 study, he has chosen to incorporate parallel markers in the class of commentary markers.

196 | Pragmatics Parallel pragmatic markers (PPMs) differ from CMs in that they convey a message of their own, parallel to another message, which most often is a proposition of some sort. Here we find examples of items from category 2 (which are functionally similar to vocatives) as well as from category 1—this function most often occurs when the expressive is interjected, uttered simultaneously with the experience itself. Finally, the fourth type in Fraser’s division, discourse markers (DMs), stands apart functionally from the three other types. DMs are understood as having the phatic function described by Ameka, i.e. lexical items employed in the initiation and maintenance of discourse. For example, turn-initial ἀλλά can be used as such a marker. All occurrences of turn-initial ἀλλά have in common that they mark a relation that would also have been present without the particle. But when ἀλλά is used, alternative interpretations are made impossible. The relation is explicit, and consequently easier to discern. Thus, turn-initial ἀλλά reduces the cognitive effort of the addressees and increases the cohesion of a dialogue. (Drummen 2009: 154)

Fraser’s division into types partly coincides with the various relations interjections have with other utterances. We find interjections in at least three different positions, which partly explains the nature of interjections as utterances: (1) as free-standing occurrences, (2) placed in collocation with other speech (other interjections or ordinary speech), and (3) placed in combination with other speech (interjections or ordinary speech). Each position also has a normal use: in (1) the interjection carries the whole message itself, in (2) and (3) it carries a message in addition to the message in the rest of the utterance, e.g. as a commentary on the content of the rest of the utterance. Fraser also observes that interjections “can occur with other meanings. Boo!, for example, is used as the form to surprise someone; Ouch is used to signal pain; OK is used as a discourse marker to signal speaker intention to reorient the ongoing conversation.”235 Rather than considering these other meanings, I consider these alternative functions of interjections. This is the core of my argument: interjections have a core semantics, which have an intimate connection to their primary pragmatic function, which is the situating of the core semantics in a context. In addition, interjections have a variety of secondary functions, and these will be explicated in the following.

|| 235 Fraser (1996: 176 n. 11).

Theoretical background | 197

4.2.3 Trillo: Appropriateness Interjections in everyday talk routinely function as pragmatic markers, initiating utterances and relating them to the foregoing interaction. In turn-initial position, one finds both primary interjections like oh and mhm and secondary interjections like wow and boy. Much of the interactional significance of primary interjections derives from their characteristic position as turn initiators, and much of their meaning in any particular case depends on their intonation contour. Particularly secondary interjections display a range of functions, first acting as parallel pragmatic markers, but also in functions beyond parallel markers, namely with typical discourse marker functions of signaling contrast, elaboration and transition. (Norrick 2009: abstract)

Norrick’s intuition seems to be that mainly secondary interjections act as pragmatic markers, but in the Ancient Greek material we find several examples of primary interjections in these functions. However, as Trillo (2006) points out, more or less any item may fill the various “slots” where these functions are to be found.236 It is rather a case of a procedural function, according to this view. The interlocutors are in agreement on what function a particular space can have (if it is filled), and therefore practically anything can be said to hesitate, add etc. It all ends up with what has been agreed upon beforehand—which, in my opinion, seems to be a highly plausible theory. Trillo asserts that it is not a feature specific for interjections to be able to function as discourse markers, but that we are rather dealing with what he calls “discourse slots”. [T]he phenomenon of discourse markers shows that spoken interaction needs to have a pragmatic skeleton, consisting of such discourse slots, that holds the communicative force of the interaction together. The slots are filled by elements that may vary according to regional, ideolectal, or sociolinguistic features within one and the same language. (Trillo 2006: 640)

Instead of focusing on interjections specifically, Trillo points out the difference between elements whose meaning is clear (e.g. you know, I see) and elements whose meaning is difficult to trace (e.g. mhm, aha). In search of a way to explain this properly, Trillo finds that appropriateness is the solution as to how we can “account for the several alternative options that we have, for example, for showing feedback in a certain situation in a particular language”. Appropriateness is defined as “the possibility to choose the most adequate element in the realization of a certain function in a specific context”.237 This is an attractive theory,

|| 236 The article on Discourse Markers in ELL = Trillo (2006). 237 Trillo (2001: 531).

198 | Pragmatics not least for explaining the variation of expression employed, for example, by Philoctetes, or the chorus in Persians. There are also at least two separate levels we need to be aware of: the actual person will want to vary his or her speech (in order not to come across as tedious etc.), and the author also may have a stylistic (musical, symbolic, etc.) intention with the variation.

4.3 Felicity conditions There has been plenty of space devoted to the core meanings of the various items under study in the preceding chapter. I understand the primary function of interjections to be the expression of their respective core semantics in a specified context, and one can easily find the proposed informational equivalents listed in the semantics chapter, as well as in the lexicon. The addition of context, speaker and auditor, however, adds further variables, and it becomes clear that certain conditions need to be fulfilled for the primary function to be successfully expressed. I call these felicity conditions.

4.3.1 Condition 1 The utterance is relevant for and appropriate to the context—e.g. the speaker experiences the emotion which is conventionally associated with the lexical item in question (e.g. vexation for φεῦ). The cry of the messenger in Persians is therefore equally appropriate and relevant in the context of hearing the name of Salamis and remembering the events that recently took place at Athens. Αγγ. ὦ πλεῖστον ἔχθος ὄνομα Σαλαμῖνος κλύειν· φεῦ, τῶν Ἀθηνῶν ὡς στένω μεμνημένος. MESSENGER How utterly loathsome is the name of Salamis to my ears! Ah, how I groan when I remember Athens! A. Pers. 285

In the case of category 2 items, there needs to be a real or imagined auditor within hearing distance, or that some relevant speech or event has occurred previously, which the items relate to. The bidding of Heracles to his children to follow him inside requires that they are in his presence and listening: ἀλλ’ εἶ’ ὁμαρτεῖτ’, ὦ τέκν’, ἐς δόμους πατρί· [HERACLES] But come, children, accompany your father into the house. E. Her. 622

Felicity conditions | 199

The worried question of Polynices in Phoenician Women, when he apparently has heard some noise in his vicinity, does however not seem to require an auditor present: ὠή, τίς οὗτος; ἢ κτύπον φοβούμεθα; [POLYNICES] Ah, who is that? Or am I starting at a mere noise? E. Pho. 269

The items in category 3 also require relevance and appropriateness for their successful utterance. For example, there always needs to be a preceding statement, action or change of some kind for the phatic item to relate to. In the following example from Sophocles’ Women of Trachis, Lichas answers with what seems to be a hint of hesitation. … ἐν μέσῃ Τραχινίων ἀγορᾷ πολύς σου ταῦτά γ’ εἰσήκουσ’ ὄχλος. Λι. ναί· κλυεῖν γ’ ἔφασκον. [MESSENGER] In the middle of the market place of the men of Trachis a crowd heard you say this. LICHAS Yes … I said that I had heard it; S. Tr. 425

The preceding statement may also be one’s own, occurring in the middle of a turn. Medea marks a change of topic, after deciding how she should kill her enemies. … κράτιστα τὴν εὐθεῖαν, ἧι πεφύκαμεν σοφοὶ μάλιστα, φαρμάκοις αὐτοὺς ἑλεῖν. εἶἑν· καὶ δὴ τεθνᾶσι· τίς με δέξεται πόλις; [MEDEA] Best to proceed by the direct route, in which I am the most skilled, and kill them with poison. So be it! Now let us suppose they have been killed. What city will receive me? E. Med. 386

4.3.2 Condition 2 The speaker needs to be suitable for a certain word to be uttered felicitously; for example, there are examples of words which are only used by female speakers, such as οἲ ’γώ. Other examples include items belonging to another dialect (φεῦ

200 | Pragmatics δᾶ), or a foreign language (Cassandra’s ὀτοτοτοτοῖ, πόποι δᾶ; certain items in Persae; Aristophanes’ ἰαυοῖ). The identity of the speaker also decides what register is appropriate; it is for example expected that royalty commonly will use a more formal register than a sausage-seller. I use a highly simplified division of register into (colloquial)informal-neutral-formal. Sometimes a particular situation also requires a certain register to be used. It seems that the more specifically context-bound an expression is, the more bound it also is to a certain register. Following this intuition, ἤν is tentatively only an informal word. On the other hand, items occurring only in lyric passages in tragedy are normally understood as belonging to the formal register.

4.3.3 Condition 3 (tentative) As a tentative third condition, it may be necessary that the utterance is uttered sincerely. This is similar to the appropriateness dealt with under condition 1, yet somewhat different. The utterance of οἴμοι can be perfectly appropriate in a certain situation, but if the speaker does not in fact experience the emotion associated with οἴμοι, the utterance of it will be insincere. Nevertheless, if it is only a socially expected item, such as the bless you when someone sneezes, it will be felicitous even if the speaker in fact does not wish the addressee to be blessed, since it is at least partially performative, i.e. it receives its meaning through the utterance of it.

4.4 Secondary functions The view of the present study is that the core semantics of each interjection is synchronically invariant. However, since there is such a wide variety of uses of some interjections, understanding certain uses qua pragmatic markers provides an explanation for some of these, though it may seem far from their primary meaning. I employ the term figurative use as an umbrella term for all sorts of secondary uses. Any kind of expression may be used figuratively, and words may be used to convey something other than their “literal meaning” or core semantics. However, there are limits to what a word may denote, since an amount of conventionalization is also required for the utterance to be felicitous, i.e. to be correctly understood and interpreted by the listener. Conventionalization is the process (or result) of a group of speakers tacitly agreeing at ascribing a certain meaning to a

Secondary functions | 201

certain expression. This is the most common way for new words to appear. In addition, primary interjections have an iconic, i.e. non-arbitrary, element which makes them more resistant to arbitrary change. What I have labeled “figurative use” is the active use of context for expanding the range of possible meanings for an utterance. By challenging the expectations of the listeners, the speaker can add further range, scope or capacity to an expression, which are impossible to obtain in a context-free environment.238 Naturally, such uses may in time become integral part of a language, i.e. through the process of grammaticalization. In this section, I point out and discuss the five most salient secondary functions of interjections: 1. Borrowing the core semantics from another category 2. Functioning as a commentary marker (CM) 3. Functioning as a parallel pragmatic marker (PPM) 4. Functioning as a discourse marker (DM) 5. Deliberate flouting of the felicity conditions: paratragedy

4.4.1 Borrowing the core semantics from another category It seems that at least four primary interjections which belong in category 1 regularly employ the core semantics of conative interjections, calling on the attention or aid of an auditor: ἆ can express a protest, or the speaker’s wish for someone to stop doing something; ἔα and ἰοὺ ἰού can express the speaker’s wish to get the auditor’s attention. This also seems to be the case with ἰώ, which appears to have three different uses. The primary use is to express the grief of the speaker, whereas there are examples when ἰώ denotes a (solemn) summons call, as well as a cry for help. Thus, the expression of ἰώ can be used as a category 2 interjection. Κη. εἰ μή τις ἐς ναῦν εἶσιν αἰνέσας τάδε, λακὶς χιτῶνος ἔργον οὐ κατοικτιεῖ. Χο. ἰὼ πόλεως ἀγοὶ πρόμοι, δάμναμαι. HERALD If you don’t accept your fate and go to the ship, your finely worked clothes will be ripped without mercy. [The HERALD and his men approach closer still.]

|| 238 ELL, s.v. figurative language: “Non-literal, allusive or metaphorical language used poetically or rhetorically.”

202 | Pragmatics CHORUS [calling out in the direction of the city] Help, noble leaders of the city, I’m being overpowered! A. Supp. 905

In two examples, found respectively in Aeschylus and Sophocles, we find the same wording, ἰὼ ξένοι, both times extra metrum, but with two different meanings. The passage in Aeschylus is “a cry of appeal to the bystanders to bear witness … to her [Cassandra’s] ill-treatment”239, while the passage in Sophocles expresses Philoctetes’ greetings to his guests. ἰὼ ξένοι· [CASSANDRA] Help, friends! Α. Ag. 1315 ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΤΗΣ ἰὼ ξένοι·

PHILOCTETES Hail, strangers!

S. Ph. 219

The example from Sophocles is here understood as a formulaic use with vocatives, whereas the example from Aeschylus is understood as a combination of the formulaic use and the primary meaning of ἰώ, expressing grief and lamentation. In category 3, the two items εἶἑν and ναί both lend themselves to use in other categories. For example, ναί is used as a conative, i.e. expressing the speaker’s wish for the auditor to do something. In the following example, the nurse is imploring Orestes to hold his silence: Τρ. σίγησον, ὦ παῖ, πρίν τιν’ αἰσθέσθαι βοῆς. Ιπ. οὐκ ἔστ’ ἀκούσας δείν’ ὅπως σιγήσομαι. Τρ. ναί, πρός σε τῆσδε δεξιᾶς εὐωλένου. NURSE Silence, my son, before someone hears your shout! HIPPOLYTUS I have heard dread things: I cannot now be silent. NURSE (She kneels as a suppliant before HIPPOLYTUS and tries to grasp his hand.) Do so, I beg you by your fair right hand! E. Hipp. 605

In the case of εἶἑν, it has two secondary functions of this kind. In the first example, the chorus’ excited exclamation in Aeschylus’ Eumenides, it is used as an expressive, primarily expressing the speaker’s cognition.

|| 239 Denniston and Page, on A. Ag. 1315.

Secondary functions | 203

Χο. εἶἑν· τόδ’ ἐστὶ τἀνδρὸς ἐκφανὲς τέκμαρ· Aha! This is the clear track of the man! Follow the guidance of the voiceless informant! A. Eu. 244 CHORUS

In the second example, from Euripides’ Hippolytus, εἶἑν is used as a conative, expressing the wish of the speaker. Again, it is the nurse speaking, but this time she wants the auditor, Phaedra, to speak instead of holding her silence. … εἰ δ’ ἔκφορός σοι συμφορὰ πρὸς ἄρσενας, λέγ’, ὡς ἰατροῖς πρᾶγμα μηνυθῆι τόδε. εἶἑν, τί σιγᾶις; οὐκ ἐχρῆν σιγᾶν, τέκνον, [NURSE] If your misfortune may be spoken of to men, speak so that the thing may be revealed to doctors. (Phaedra is silent.) Well, why are you silent? You ought not to be silent, child… E. Hipp. 297

4.4.2 Functioning as a commentary marker Interjections often function as commentary markers (CMs) when co-occurring with other discourse, most often adding an attitude to another proposition. For example, the modern English interjection shit is typically understood as expressive of a negative reaction of some sort. There is however also a “positive” shit, used in excitement. Similarly, the interjection φεῦ is primarily understood as expressive of vexation, but in its secondary use as a CM, it is used as an intensifier, adding emphasis to some other proposition or exclamation, and only retaining the part of its meaning which conveys strong emotion. This secondary use is lexicalized later on, forming a “neutral” expressive, which seemingly follows a primary use. Strengthening markers can consist of interjections which seem to have lost contact with their core semantics, insofar that they only retain a sense of emphasis or intensive focus, and as such resemble secondary interjections. 240 The context also immediately makes it clear that the item is not to be understood in its original sense, but rather is subordinate to the main clause, in this case the exclamative clause. || 240 It seems that some, but not all, words can be used as markers of extra emphasis, such as “Damn, I’m hungry!”. “Ouch!”, for example, does not seem to have this function. This might be a way of differentiating further between the words, giving a more detailed account of their functions.

204 | Pragmatics In the following example, φεῦ seems to have lost contact with its core semantics, and functions as an adder of emphasis. Ηρ. ἐν πλοιαρίῳ τυννουτῳί σ’ ἀνὴρ γέρων ναύτης διάξει δύ’ ὀβολὼ μισθὸν λαβών. Δι. φεῦ, ὡς μέγα δύνασθον πανταχοῦ τὼ δύ’ ὀβολώ. HERACLES An ancient mariner will ferry you across in a little boat no bigger than this, for a fare of two obols. DIONYSUS Wow, what power those two obols have everywhere! Ar. Ra. 141

Such “intensifiers” or strengthening markers appear to be one of the most productive uses of interjections in modern English. In this particular function they mainly serve to present the following utterance in a certain light, or underline it, pointing it out as of extra importance etc. These strengthening markers can also be used to indicate or suggest a certain point in an utterance, as in the following example. Μη. οἵδ’ οὐκέτ’ εἰσί· τοῦτο γάρ σε δήξεται. Ια. οἵδ’ εἰσίν, οἴμοι, σῶι κάραι μιάστορες. MEDEA But the children are dead: this will wound you to the quick. JASON They live, alas, as spirits to take vengeance on your crimes. E. Med. 1371

This also has the potential to explain how e.g. exclamative genitives can occur on their own, and not be subordinate to an interjection or other expressive item. The interjection is in fact eliminable in these cases. There are also two interjections that only occur in combination, and whose main function also seems to be to add this strengthening or emphasizing effect: δᾶ and πόποι, which also occur in combination with each other (ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ), however never initially or on their own.

4.4.3 Functioning as a parallel pragmatic marker Interjections used in combination with other interjections can be considered a “dependent” use. It may be difficult to determine the meaning of these items. It seems that some combinations are standardized, while others are newly formed; e.g. οἰοῖ δᾶ φεῦ is a hapax legomenon, while αἰαῖ ἒ ἔ is more standardized, occurring several times.

Secondary functions | 205

Some examples of combination stand out more clearly, such as the various items often used together in song, e.g. εὐαί, ἰαί and to some extent εὐοῖ. In the following example, it seems clear that the two IntPs ἰὼ ἰώ and ἰοὺ ἰού are uttered in collocation, carrying two separate messages—the common use of ἰὼ ἰώ as a formula of greeting and ἰοὺ ἰού as an expressive of excitement. Since ἰοὺ ἰού stands extra metrum, it is easier to argue for its status as a PPM, i.e. expressing a message parallel to the previous item. Σω. ὅδ’ ἐκεῖνος ἀνήρ. Στ. ὦ φίλος, ὦ φίλος. Σω. ἄπιθι λαβών. Στ. ἰὼ ἰώ, τέκνον. ἰοὺ ἰού. ὡς ἥδομαί σου πρῶτα τὴν χροιὰν ἰδών. [Enter SOCRATES with PHIDIPPIDES.] SOCRATES Here is the very man. STREPSIADES Dear, dear boy! SOCRATES Take him and go. [SOCRATES goes in.] STREPSIADES Oho, son! Ta da! Good gracious, how it tickles me right away to see your color! Ar. Nu. 1171

4.4.4 Discourse markers—DMs Apart from the item εἶἑν, there are no examples of primary interjections functioning as discourse markers in the Ancient Greek material. Several other items are frequently employed in this function, but they are generally secondary interjections, such as the various oaths, or formulaic phrases, such as πάνυ μὲν οὖν and the like, and are not dealt with in this study. Thus, εἶἑν is a unique case. The following example shows a very typical function, of marking a change in the topic, without a changing of speaker, very similarly to the modern English OK. Πα. πῶς εἶπας; ὥς μοὐ χρησμὸς ἅπτεται φρενῶν. εἶἑν. ἐν παιδοτρίβου δὲ τίνα πάλην ἐμάνθανες; PAPHLAGON What’s that you say? How the oracle bites me to the quick! Now then: at the wrestling school, what technique did you learn? Ar. Eq. 1237

206 | Pragmatics 4.4.5 Paratragedy The frequent use of paratragedy in comedy is also related to all three felicity conditions. For example, for an interjection of grief to be felicitously uttered paratragically, either the interjection itself needs to be irrelevant or inappropriate to the context (condition 1), or the speaker unsuitable for its utterance (condition 2), or the utterance insincere (condition 3). For it to have maximum effect, all three conditions need to be violated. For example, in Women at the Thesmophoria, Euripides himself is one of the actors, and what better way would there be for him to speak, than with his own tragic diction? In the following example, Euripides addresses himself in a situation he finds hard to solve. Ευ. αἰαῖ· τί δράσω; πρὸς τίνας στρεφθῶ λόγους;

EURIPIDES (aside) Ah me, what action, what clever logic now?

Ar. Th. 1128

The exact phrase αἰαῖ· τί δράσω; is found in Medea (1042), and most likely added to the comic image of the dramatist. In another example, found in Wasps, a hungry boy uses an interjection normally found in passages of real terror and lamentation; the boy has just realized that he will not be able to buy any lunch today: Πα. ἀνόνητον ἄρ’, ὦ θυλάκιόν, σ’ εἶχον ἄγαλμα. ἒ ἔ. πάρα νῷν στενάζειν. BOY Ah shopping bag, it seems you’ve been a useless ornament to carry! Boo hoo. All we can do is bawl. Ar. V. 315

4.5 Concluding remarks Interjections from all categories have a primary pragmatic function, i.e. a use in actual contexts where the speaker, listener, and other relevant factors are specified, making them fully interpretable. This function is understood as the expression of the core semantics of the item. What is the main difference between the semantics and the pragmatics of interjections? It seems that the primary use is intimately connected with the primary meaning, but that as regards use there are additional possibilities. It

Concluding remarks | 207

has been shown that interjections may have secondary functions, which can be more or less divergent from their core semantics. For example, interjections can be used as pragmatic markers (PMs), in which use they move further and further away from their core semantics. The various theoretical approaches have thus helped to explain some of the meaning variants found in the material. All interjections can be used figuratively, which is understood as the altering of the regular meaning of a word in some way, either deliberately or spontaneously. The main primary function of interjections in the three categories is the expression of their core semantics in a specified context. The five most salient secondary functions are the following: 1. Borrowing the core semantics from another category 2. Functioning as a commentary marker (CM) 3. Functioning as a parallel pragmatic marker (PPM) 4. Functioning as a discourse marker (DM) 5. Deliberate flouting of the felicity conditions: paratragedy Various aspects of pragmatics have been used to explain extra-semantic features in how interjections carry meaning, i.e. through their use. One such feature is paratragedy, which is the stylistic effect that can be achieved by flouting the felicity conditions, resulting e.g. in a comic use, as in the case of ἒ ἔ in Aristophanes’ Wasps.

4.5.1 Primary and secondary use I have explained the variation of interpreted meanings we have seen in the semantics chapter by a tentative distinction between independent, primary use, and dependent, secondary use. The secondary use originally occurs in collocation (and perhaps also in combination) with other speech, but may also, in a further turn, be used in a free-standing occurrence. Thus, I suggest the following prototypical uses of interjections in category 1: 1. Free-standing and collocated use a) primary b) secondary 2. Dependent, combined use a) primary b) secondary

208 | Pragmatics 1. a) Free-standing, primary use (including genuinely collocated uses), e.g. αἰβοῖ in a situation when the speaker is genuinely surprised. Φι. αἰβοῖ. τί τόδε ποτ’ ἔσθ’ ὅτῳ μαλάττομαι;

LOVECLEON Oh no! What can it be that’s softening me?

Ar. V. 973

b) Free-standing, secondary use, e.g. αἰβοῖ in a situation when the speaker is annoyed, i.e. the speaker is experiencer of something other than what is normally expressed by the core semantics of αἰβοῖ; this use is understood as equivalent to Fraser’s basic pragmatic marker. Κρ. αἰβοῖ, τουτὶ καὶ δὴ χωρεῖ τὸ κακόν· δότε μοι λεκάνην. BETTER ARGUMENT Yuk, this vileness is going too far. Give me a puke pan! Ar. Nu. 906

2. a) Dependent, primary use, e.g. οἴμοι γελῶμαι in a situation when the speaker is vexed because she is being ridiculed. The interjection is uttered in combination with the following utterance and is thus equivalent to Fraser’s CM. Αν. οἴμοι γελῶμαι.

ANTIGONE Ah, I am being mocked!

S. Ant. 839

b) Dependent, secondary, use, e.g. οἴμ’ ὡς ἥδομαι in a situation when the speaker experiences some other emotion than what would be expected in combination with the expression of οἴμοι. The interjection is uttered in combination with the following utterance and is thus understood as equivalent to Fraser’s CM. οἴμ’ ὡς ἥδομαι

STREPSIADES Gosh, how good I feel!

Ar. Nu. 773

4.5.2 The three categories Expressive interjections are used to express the speaker’s experience of various emotions, as well as to attract attention to the emotional reaction, state or attitude which it expresses in itself. Therefore, in this sense the expressions are self-referential. Secondarily, they can be used to arouse sympathy, whether it be

Concluding remarks | 209

positive or negative, for the person experiencing the emotion, most often the speaker. A speaker may also use the words consciously, adding further dimensions of figurative meaning to its use. They frequently mark the moment when the mental state is most relevant. Conative interjections are used to attract the attention from a person, or to express the speaker’s desire that the listener does something. They also mark certain moments of high relevance, especially when they carry iconic information, such as ὦ εἷα (cf. 3.7.3.1). Phatic interjections are used as markers of speaker attitude towards the ongoing discourse, often marking moments of special importance, such as the use of εἶἑν as marker of topic change. Interjections of all categories thus frequently mark the moment when the expressive, conative or phatic is most significant, similarly to a perlocutionary function.

5 Lexicon This part of the study consists of an application of the findings of the previous chapters on, essentially, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The material is arranged alphabetically. Following each lemma, I have given the semantic informational equivalent for each item (or group of items), as well as a reference to the corresponding section in chapter 3, in brackets. Various secondary uses are labeled “fig.”, i.e. figurative use. The translations into English are all collected from the Loeb translations; in some cases I have separated tragedy from comedy. Any notes from the critical apparatus of the editions are given as footnotes. If not otherwise noted, they are collected from the most recent editions as described in the introductory chapter (cf. 1.3). In some cases, I supply notes from other sources, such as other editions.

5.1 Notes on meter Interjections of all categories occur in the trimeter, the normal meter of both tragic and comic poetry. This is also the meter which is considered to be closest to the spoken language. Choral lyric is the second most common meter, especially in tragedy, and a fair number of the words in categories 1 and 2 occur in these as well. There are also a few more variants, such as verses in anapaests, dochmiacs and in hexameter. I have labeled all occurrences in other meters than the trimeter LYR, indicating that the interjection in this particular passage probably was sung, rather than spoken.241

5.2 Abbreviations and legenda the word is a conjectured form

DBL the word is uttered twice the second word in a pair is a conjectured form EM the word stands outside of the regular (tri)meter; in lyrical passages, this label is used for interjections occupying an entire line

|| 241 For further references on hiatus, cf. Devine and Stevens (1994: 253–254); accentuation, cf. Probert (2006) and Kaimio (1977); metrical constraints, cf. Baechle (2007) and Dik (2007).

ἆ—ὤμοι | 211

LYR QTN QTR TRI

the word occurs in sung, not spoken passages, i.e. broadly everything apart from trimeter the word is uttered in a quotation, or functions as direct object, e.g. Ar. Pax 455 ἰὴ μόνον λέγω the word is uttered four times the word is uttered three times

If a variant form of the headword is used, the variant form is noted after the line number. E.g. [headword αἰβοῖ] Ar. Pax 1066 αἰβοιβοῖ. If the word occurs in the same spot in the strophe and antistrophe respectively of a choral song, this is marked in superscript. E.g. S. Aj. 694str DBL LYR, 707ant DBL LYR If the word occurs in a line which is repeated exactly in a later line, this is marked in the later line. E.g. A. Eu. 841 LYR οἰοῖ δᾶ φεῦ, 874 LYR οἰοῖ δᾶ φεῦ (= 841)

5.3 ἆ—ὤμοι ἆ [I am surprised (and I dislike what I notice)] [3.6.2.1] also doubled ἆ ἆ (A, S, E, Ar), tripled hapax (E) and uttered four times (S, E). Combinations: ἆ δᾶ; ἆ ἆ ἓ ἕ; ἆ ἆ ἔα ἔα (A), ὀπποποῖ· ἆ; ὗ ὗ ὗ, ψ ψ, ἆ ἆ (S). Very freq. in lyrical passages (A). IntPs: 42 (A. 8, S. 8, E. 21, Ar. 5) 1. expressive of pain and vexation, Ah!, Ah, ah!, Ah, ah, ah, ah!, Hey!, Oh! Oh!, Woe, woe! 2. fig. expressive of protest, Ah!, Hey! A. Supp. 162242 LYR Ag. 1087 LYR, 1090243 DBL EM LYR, 1125 DBL LYR Ch. 1048 DBL EM PV 114 DBL EM LYR ἆ ἆ ἔα ἔα, 566244 LYR ἆ ἆ ἓ ἕ, 567245 LYR ἆ δᾶ

|| 242 162–163 ἀζηνιουσιω μῆνις Μ; ὦ Ζεῦ ἡ παρὰ τῶν θεῶν μῆνις κατὰ Ἰοῦς ώδης ἐστὶ καὶ μαστιγωτική ΜΣ … 243 1090 ἆ ἆ om. FTr.

212 | Lexicon S. Fr. 314.176 DBL ὗ ὗ ὗ, ψ ψ, ἆ ἆ, 314.197 ὀπποποῖ· ἆ OT 1147 Ant. 246 Ph. 732247 EM QTR, 739248 EM QTR, 249 EM QTR, 1300250 E. Cyc. 157 EM TRI, 565 Alc. 28 DBL EM, 526251 Med. [1056]252 DBL EM Hipp. 253 And. 1076254 Hec. 1069 DBL EM Her. 629 EM, 1052 DBL LYR Ion 255 Hel. 445 Or. 145256 DBL LYR, 182257 LYR, 275 DBL EM, [1598]258 DBL Ba. 586 DBL EM LYR, 596 DBL EM LYR, 810 EM Rh. 687259 , 748260 LYR QTR, 799 DBL EM Ar. V. 1379 DBL Th. 689261 DBL EM Ra. 759 Pl. 127, 1052 DBL EM

αἰαῖ [I am in a state of grief] [3.6.4.1] freqq. doubled in all four authors; also shortened αἴ, τάλαν (Ar). Poss. related to exclamative εἰ. Occurs in lyr. as well as non-lyrical passages. Combinations: ἒ ἔ,

|| 244 566 ἆ ἆ ἒ ἔ MICO2pcDP: ἆ ἆ ἔα ἔα fere rell. 245 567 ἆ MBCWVNPY: ὦ rell.; ἀλευάδα Msγρ marg. 246 3 ἆ, ποῖον nos: ὁποῖον codd. 247 732 ἆ quater codd. plerique, ter a 248 739 ἆ quater codd. plerique, ter a 249 782 … ἆ quater Philp: ἀλλὰ codd. plerique: ἀλλ’ οὐ Zo: ἀλλ’ οὖν ZgT 250 1300 ἆ semel T, bis cett. Webster (1982): 1300 ἆ T: ἆ ἆ L rec: ἃ ἃ A: ἂ ἂ B 251 526 ἆ μὴ L (fort. ἃ μὴ Lac): ἆ ἆ μὴ BOV: ἃ P 252 1056–1080 del. Bergk: uide Reeve, CQ n.s. 22 (1972) 51–61 253 503 ἆ μή σε Nauck (σε iam Porson): καὶ μή γε fere codd. … 254 1076 αἶ αἶ M 255 361 ἆ μή μ’ ἐπ’ οἶκτον Nauck (μὴ μὴ κτλ. iam Boissonade): καὶ μή γ’ ἐπ’ οἶκτόν μ’ L: uide Barrett ad Hi. 503–504 256 145 ἆ ἆ] ἔα Tt3; [Ry] 257 182 διοιχόμεθ’ οἰχόμεθ’. ἆ Willink (praeeunte Biehl): … 258 1598 del. Heiland 259 687 ἆ Musgrave: ἆ ἆ uel ἂ ἂ Ω 260 748 ἆ quater L, ter Q: ἂ ter V 261 688 ἆ ἆ Thiersch: ἀά R: Farraeus

ἆ—ὤμοι | 213

αἰαῖ; αἰαῖ φεῦ (S), αἰαῖ, ἒ ἔ (ὦ παῖ); αἰαῖ ἰὼ; αἰαῖ· φεῦ; ἰώ (μοί) μοι, αἰαῖ; ὤμοι, αἰαῖ (E), αἰαῖ αἰαῖ ἒ ἔ (Ar). IntPs: 128 (A. 15, S. 20, E. 84, Ar. 9) 1. expressive of pain and grief, Ah!, Ah, ah!, Ah grief!, Ah me!, Alas!, Oh!, Oh, oh!, What agony!, Woe is me! 2. fig. ironic or insincere (paratragic) use of (1.), “Alas!” A. Pers. 257str LYR, 262 LYR, 283 LYR, 331, 433, 672 DBL EM, 928263 DBL LYR, 1039 DBL LYR Sept. 787 LYR, 892 LYR, 893 LYR Supp. 866str DBL LYR Cho. 1007264 DBL LYR, 1009265 DBL LYR, 266 DBL LYR PV 66267, 136268 DBL EM LYR S. Aj. 370269 DBL LYR, 430 El. 136str LYR, 152270ant LYR, 826 LYR ἒ ἔ, αἰαῖ, 1404271 LYR OT 754, 1307272 DBL LYR Ant. 1267273 DBL LYR, 1288, 1290274 DBL, 1306 DBL LYR, 275 LYR Tr. 968276 LYR, 1081 EM, 1081277 EM Ph. 1106 DBL EM LYR, 1186 DBL EM LYR OC 1670 LYR αἰαῖ φεῦ, 1734 LYR E. Fr. 122.14 LYR αἰαῖ αἰαῖ, ἒ ἔ, 370.35, 370,36a, 448a.73a278 αἰαῖ· φεῦ, 759a.1593279 , 781.113 Cyc. 347, 696 Alc. 280 EM LYR, 228281ant EM LYR, 862282 LYR, 872str EM LYR, 889ant EM LYR

|| 262 270 … ἦλθεν, αἰαῖ Murray: ἦλθ’ (vel ἦλθεν) ἐπ’ αἶαν codd. 263 928 αἰαῖ semel codd. 264 1007 … αἰαῖ bis Bothe: semel M 265 1009 αἰαῖ αἰαῖ Wellauer: ἐέ M 266 1019 … αἰαῖ αἰαῖ Weil: ἐϲ (= ἐέ; cf. 1008) Μ 267 Griffith (1983), ad loc.: “usually a cry of misery; uniquely here of pity” 268 136 αἶ quater PTr: diverse rell. 269 370 αἶ vel αἲ quater GRpat: ter LPa 270 152 αἰαῖ fere codd.: αἰὲν V, ἀεὶ Zc 271 1404 αἶ vel αἲ bis LpZr: amplius rpat 272 1307 αἲ vel αἶ quater P.Oxy. 1369 rpat: ter Lpa: bis C 273 1267 αἶ quater V, ter codd. plerique 274 1290 αἶ quater Zo, ter codd. plerique 275 1310 … αἰαῖ Erfurdt: φεῦ φεῦ codd. 276 968 αἰαῖ Erfurdt: αἶ vel αἲ quater codd. 277 1081 alterum αἰαῖ Lz: ἒ ἔ at 278 73 … ΑΙΑΙ·ΦΕΥ] P. Oxy., post utramque interiectionem spatiolum in P. Mich. … 279 1593 … αἰαῖ ut do x ¯˘¯ … 280 215 Wilamowitz

214 | Lexicon Med. 111283 EM LYR, 144 EM LYR, 277, 1008284 EM, 1009, 1042 Hipp. 208285 EM LYR, 569286 EM ἰώ μοι, αἰαῖ, 595287 αἰαῖ, ἒ ἔ, 806, 814 LYR, 830288 DBL LYR, 289 DBL LYR, 881, 1070, 1255, 1347 DBL EM LYR, 1370290 DBL EM LYR, 1444 And. 829291ant DBL EM LYR, 1072, 1175str LYR ἰώ μοί μοι, αἰαῖ, 1188ant LYR αἰαῖ, ἒ ἒ, ὦ παῖ Hec. 182292 LYR, 229, 332, 685 LYR, 702 LYR ὤμοι, αἰαῖ, 1088293 LYR αἰαῖ ἰὼ...γένος Supp. 291, 806294 LYR, 1147 LYR Her. 899 LYR, 900 LYR, 913 LYR, 295 LYR, 1066 LYR, 1140 Tro. 105 DBL EM LYR, 130296 LYR, 194297 DBL EM LYR, 197 DBL LYR, 241 LYR, 579298 LYR, 628, 629, 722, 1226 DBL LYR, 1229 LYR IT 146299 LYR, 217 LYR, 654300 LYR Ion 756301 , 766 DBL EM LYR, 1476 Hel. 125, 302 , 211 LYR, 453 Pho. 1217, 1284303 DBL LYR, 1340304 EM LYR, 1492305 LYR αἰαῖ, ἰώ μοι, 1560306 LYR Or. 316str LYR, 855, 1375 LYR, 1397307 LYR Ba. 1350

|| 281 228 αἶ αἶ fere LP: αἶ αἶ αἶ αἶ fere BOV 282 862 … αἰαῖ Hermann: αἲ αἲ fere LP: ἔ ἔ fere BOV et gB 283 111 αἰαῖ fere ELP: ἔ ἔ fere BOC et Es: αἶ αἶ ἔ ἔ fere HD et O2: ἒ ἒ αἶ αἶ V: ἔ ἔ ἔ ἔ A: fort. αἰαῖ αἰαῖ praeferendum (uide ad 96) 284 1008 αἶ bis BOCLP (αἲ bis L) et gE: ter A: quater DEV 285 208 αἶ αἶ (uel αἲ αἲ) ΩV: ἔ ἔ fere Λ 286 569 … αἶ αἶ OLP: αἶ αἶ αἶ A: αἶ αἶ αἶ αἶ MBVΔ et Tr 287 595 … αἶ αἶ ἒ ἔ fere MALP: αἶ αἶ fere OV: ἕ ἕ uel ἔ ἔ Π5BΔ 288 830 αἶ αἶ αἶ αἶ Ω̣V et Tr: αἶ αἶ fere BΛ 289 848 Kirchhoff 290 1307 αἶ αἶ αἶ αἶ fere BOΛ̣: αἶ αἶ αἶ AE: αἲ αἲ V 291 829 αἶ (uel αἲ) quater HBOLP et V3: ter MAV 292 182 αἰαῖ αἰαῖ GKZcTt 293 1088/1089 … αἶ αἶ (uel αἲ αἲ) semel Ω̣ξ: bis MOLPSaζTt 294 806 … αἰαῖ Tr2 (αἲ αἲ): αἲ αἲ αἲ L 295 1025 αἰαῖ Hartung: ἐϲ L: ἒ ἔ Kirchhoff 296 130 αἰαῖ om. Q 297 193–194 ἄγαλμα / αἰαῖ αἰαῖ post Hermann (ἒ ἔ uel αἰαῖ semel) Diggle (nisi mauis ἰὼ ἰώ ut 173): … 298 579 αἰαῖ Burges: αἶ αἶ αἶ αἶ VPQ 299 146 … αἰαῖ Nauck: ἔ ἔ L 300 654 αἰαῖ Hartung: αἲ αἲ αἲ αἲ L 301 756 αἰαῖ F. W. Schmidt: εἶεν L 302 166 … αἰαῖ (uel αἰαῖ αἰαῖ) Hermann: ἔ ἔ L 303 1284 αἶ uel αἲ quater Ω̣Tt: bis RX: octies V: αἶ αἶ αἶ αἶ ἔ ἔ O: ἔ ἔ PW(Z) et Rs: αἲ αἲ ἰὼ ἰὼ Cr 304 1340 αἶ αἶ (uel αἲ αἲ)] ἓ ἓ fere PWZ et Ms; ἒ αἲ S 305 1492 αἶ αἶ (uel αἲ αἲ) Ω̣Tt: αἶ αἶ αἶ αἶ PX(Z) 306 1560 αἶ αἶ (uel αἲ αἲ)] αἶ αἶ αἶ αἶ F et Gs; ε Π5; om. GRfW 307 1397 αἰαῖ Paley

ἆ—ὤμοι | 215

IA Ar. Ach. Lys. Th. Ec. Pl.

137 LYR, 404, 467 1083 EM, 1084308 EM 393 QTN, 961 885, 1042 DBL LYR αἰαῖ αἰαῖ ἒ ἔ, 1128 910 LYR 706 αἴ, τάλαν.

αἰβοῖ [I am surprised (because of the quality of this)] [3.6.2.2] also ἰαιβοῖ, αἰβοιβοῖ. Doubled (with the prefix ἰ-) in Ar. V. 1338. ἰαιβοῖ αἰβοῖ. IntPs: 16 (A. 0, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 16) 1. colloquial expressive of qualitative surprise, Dammit!, Oh no! 2. fig. expressive of (surprised) disgust, Yuk!, Ugh!, How revolting! Ar. Ach. Eq. Nu. V. Pax Av.

189 891309 ἰαιβοῖ, 957 τάλας 102, 829, 906 37, 973, 1338310 DBL ἰαιβοῖ αἰβοῖ 15, 544, 1066311 LYR αἰβοιβοῖ, 1291 610, 1055, 1342 EM

ἀλαλαί [I am in a state of joy] [3.6.5.1] also ἀλαλαλαί; poss. related to ἐλελεῦ; cf. also ἀλαλάζω, ὀλολυγή etc.; Lat. ululatus. Combined with ἰὴ παιών (Ar). Only in lyr. passages. IntPs: 3 (A. 0, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 3) 1. in song expressive of triumphant excitement, Hurrah! Ar. Av. 952312 LYR QTN, 1763313 LYR ἀλα(λα)λαί ἰὴ παιών Lys. 1291 LYR ἀλαλαί, ἰὴ παιών

|| 308 1083 αἰαῖ] αἶ ἔ (γρ.)ΣΕΓ (Olson 2002) 309 891 … ἰαιβοῖ Dindorf: αἰβοῖ codd. 310 1338 ἰαιβοῖ RL: om. VΓ 311 Cf. Halliwell (2008), who comments “a stylised annotation”, giving PGM XIII.162 as the only instance of laughter in writing. This passage, however, is equally evasive. Who calls ha “one laughter”? And cf. also vs. 86–87: “in hieratic: MENEPHŌIPHŌTH CHA CHA CHA CHA CHA CHA CHA” (Betz 1986: 174). I find it most likely that Trygaeus, the speaker of 1066, is laughing whilst uttering the αἰβοῖ, which makes him repeat part of the word, which has the additional effect of fitting the word into the hexametric verse. 312 952 ἀλαλαί Bentley: ἀλαλάν codd. 313 1763 ἀλαλαλαί] ἀλαλαί AU: ἀλλαλαί L

216 | Lexicon ἀτταταῖ [I am in sudden pain] [3.6.3.1] also ἰατταταῖ, ἰατταταιάξ (Ar); poss. related to τατᾶ (Herod. Mim. 3.79); cf. Lat. attatae. Doubled (Ar); occ. extra metrum; combinations: ἀτταταῖ ἰατταταῖ; Ἰατταταιὰξ τῶν κακῶν, ἰατταταί (Ar); never in lyr. passages; informal or neutral register. IntPs: 12 (A. 0, S. 2, E. 0, Ar. 10) 1. inarticulate expressive of physical pain, A-a-a-a-h!, Ah!, Ayeeee!, Ouch! Ouch!, Ow!, Owwww! Ahhh!, Yow, ow ow ow! 2. fig. use of (1.), expressing annoyance or vexation, Aieee!, Oh oh! Ah ah! S. Ph. Ar. Ach. Eq. Nu. Th. Ra.

743, 790314 EM 1190315 DBL EM, 1198 DBL EM 1, 1 Ἰατταταιὰξ τῶν κακῶν, ἰατταταί. 707316 DBL 223317 ἀτταταατταταῖ, 318 ἰατταταιάξ, 319 ἀτταταῖ ἰατταταῖ 649320, 649 QTN τί τἀτταταῖ;

βαβαί [I am surprised (because of the quantity of this)] [3.6.2.3] also βαβαιάξ; combinations: βαβαὶ βαβαιάξ; φεῦ (τοῦ καπνοῦ), βαβαιάξ (Ar); one occ. in lyr. passage (Ar). IntPs 10 (A. 0, S. 0, E. 1, Ar. 9) 1. colloquial expressive of quantitative surprise, Damn!, Good gracious!, Good heavens!, My!, Oh my!, Wow!, Wowee! E. Cyc. 156 Ar. Fr. 415321

|| 314 Webster (1982): 790 ἀτταταῖ L rec.: ἀττατατᾶ A Ven c: ἀτατταί T 315 1190 ἀτταταῖ ἀτταταῖ R: ἀτταπαττατὰ vel sim. cett. Olson (2002): Pace N. Wilson, λΣΓ (like all the β-MSS) has ἀτταπαττατά, not R’s ἀτταταῖ ἀτταταῖ. 316 Dover (1990): 707 Στ. om. Κ ἀτταταῖ bis R: ἀτταταί bis V: ἰατταταῖ·※+ἀτταταῖ Kpc(ι sub rasura, ut videtur, Kac): ἰατταταὶ bis ENΘ: ἰατταταὶ semel λΣΕ: ἀτταταταῖ (vel -ταί) ϲΣΕ hic et ad 700 317 223 ἀτταταῖ ἰατταταῖ Biset: ἀττατα· ἀτταται R 318 945 ἰατταταιάξ Biset: ἰαππαπαιάξ R 319 1005 … ἰατταταῖ Faber: τατταταί R 320 649 τι; ἀτταταῖ Thiersch: ἰατταταῖ KL: ἰαταταῖ Α: ἰαττατ(τ)ατ- R, Su. ι 56: τί τατταταῖ V. Hall & Geldart (1962): 649 τί τατταταῖ· αἰακός τι τατταταῖ· V: ἰαττατταττατταττατταί R: corr. Thiersch 321 1 βαβαί, Λάκων Miller Mél. p. 225: βαβελάκων ΑΒ

ἆ—ὤμοι | 217

Ach. Pax Av. Lys. Ra.

64 βαβαιάξ, 806, 1141 βαβαιάξ 248 βαβαὶ βαβαιάξ 272 312 LYR βαβαιάξ, 1078 63 βαβαιάξ

δᾶ [auxiliary interjection] [3.6.8.1] no variant forms; always in combinations: ἆ δᾶ; οἰοῖ δᾶ φεῦ; ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ; (A), φεῦ δᾶ φεῦ δᾶ (E), φεῦ δᾶ (Ar); always in lyr. passages (A, E); formal register. IntPs: 8 (A. 6, S. 0, E. 1, Ar. 1) 1. expressive of distress, horror, wrath, Da!, Dah! 2. expressive of grief, Woe! 3. fig. expressive of surprise, Oh dah! A. Ag. Ch. Eu. PV E. Ph. Ar. Lys.

1072322str LYR ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ, 1076ant LYR ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ 323 LYR πόποι δᾶ 841 LYR οἰοῖ δᾶ φεῦ, 874 LYR οἰοῖ δᾶ φεῦ (= 841) 567324 LYR ἆ δᾶ 1296325 DBL LYR φεῦ δᾶ φεῦ δᾶ 198 φεῦ δᾶ

ἒ ἔ [I am in continuous grief] [3.6.4.2] sometimes written ἐέ, also doubled, ἒ ἒ ἒ ἔ (A and E); an aspirated variant ἓ ἕ occurs in mss, although this is emended by editors (except in A. PV); combinations: ἆ ἆ ἓ ἕ; ἒ ἔ, ὀτοτοτοῖ; ἒ ἔ παπαῖ παπαῖ; ἰώ μοί μοι· ἓ ἕ; οἲ ἓ ἕ (A), ἀπαπαπαῖ ἐέ; ἒ ἔ, αἰαῖ; ἒ ἔ, ἰώ (S), αἰαῖ, ἒ ἔ (ὦ παῖ) (E), αἰαῖ αἰαῖ, ἒ ἔ (E, Ar); always in lyrical passages. IntPs: 44 (A. 12, S. 10, E. 20, Ar. 2) 1. expressive of grief and mourning, Ah!, Ah, ah!, Ah me!, Alas!, O pain!, Oh! Oh!, Woe, woe! 2. fig. ironic or insincere (paratragic) use of (1.) Boo hoo, Oh, oh! A. Supp. 142str LYR, 152ant LYR || 322 1072 et 1076 ὀτοτοτοὶ πόμποι δᾶ FTr 323 405 πόποι δᾶ Bamberger: ποῖ ποῖ δὴ Μ 324 567 ἆ MBCWVNPY: ὦ rell.; ἀλευάδα Msγρ marg. 325 1296 δᾶ … δᾶ MOCrGLPRfZTt et V2F1c: δὰ ... δὰ BAFRSWX et V2s: δα ... δα V: δὴ ... δὴ Rs: φεῦ et φεῦ δή et φεῦ γῆ iΣmbv

218 | Lexicon Sept. Ag. Ch. PV S. Fr. El. Tr. OC E. Fr. Alc. Hipp. And. Supp. El. Tro. Hel. Pho. Ar. V. Th.

148str DBL LYR, 158ant DBL LYR, 327str LYR, 339ant LYR 1114 LYR ἒ ἔ παπαῖ παπαῖ 790 LYR, 869 LYR ἒ ἔ, ὀτοτοτοῖ, 1008 LYR, 1020 566326 EM LYR ἆ ἆ ἓ ἕ, 579 EM LYR , 598 EM LYR , 602 LYR οἲ ἓ ἕ, 742 EM LYR ἰώ μοί μοι· ἓ ἕ 210.43 LYR ἐέ, 441a.8 LYR ἀπαπαπαῖ ἐέ 826str LYR ἒ ἔ, αἰαῖ, 840ant LYR ἒ ἔ, ἰώ 1004str1 LYR ἐέ, 1014str2 LYR ἐέ, 327 LYR, 1026 LYR, 328 LYR 150329 122.14 LYR αἰαῖ αἰαῖ, ἒ ἔ, 753e.2 (fr. 11)330 DBL ἐὲ ἐ̣[έ, 753e.3 (fr. 11) DBL ἐὲ ἐ̣[έ 873str EM LYR, 890ant EM LYR (= 873) 595331 LYR αἰαῖ, ἒ ἔ, 1354332 EM LYR 1188 LYR αἰαῖ, ἒ ἔ, ὦ παῖ LYR, 85ant LYR, 1074 EM LYR 150 LYR 168334 LYR, 278335 EM LYR, 1216336 LYR, 1303337str EM LYR, 1318338ant LYR 661 LYR, 662 LYR 127a339 EM LYR 315340 EM LYR 1042341 LYR αἰαῖ αἰαῖ, ἒ ἔ

ἔα [I am surprised (because of the appearance of this)] [3.6.2.4] no variant forms; doubled in all four authors; freq. extra metrum (65% in E); combinations: ἆ ἆ, ἔα ἔα; ἔα ἔα· ἄπεχε, φεῦ; (A); followed by μάλ(α) (A, S); occasionally in lyr. passages; relatively formal register. IntPs: 62 (A. 5, S. 4, E. 44, Ar. 9)

|| 326 566 ἆ ἆ ἒ ἔ MICO2pcDP: ἆ ἆ ἔα ἔα fere rell. 327 1023 suppl. Dain 328 1041 suppl. Dain 329 150 ἐή Dindorf: ἒ ἔ codd. 330 fr. 11 2 ϵ[ potius tergum paulo curvum quam hasta vertic. 331 595 … αἶ αἶ ἒ ἔ fere MALP: αἶ αἶ fere OV: ἕ ἕ uel ἔ ἔ Π5BΔ 332 1354 ἔ ἔ VDEL: ἕ ἕ BP et Tr: om OA (et ἔ ἔ primitus del. Tr.) 333 77 Wilamowitz: fort. praeferendum 334 168 ἒ ἔ Q: ἕ ἕ VP: αἰαῖ Dindorf 335 278 ἒ ἔ VQ: ἕ ἕ P et gB 336 1216 ἕ ἕ VP 337 1303 ἕ ἕ VP 338 1318 … ἕ ἕ VP 339 127a αἲ αἲ PS 340 MacDowell (1982) ad loc.: “parody of tragedy”; Starkie (1968) ad loc.: “I have no doubt that Aristophanes is imitating Euripides here.” 341 Austin & Olson (2004) ad loc.: “A paratragic expression of grief”.

ἆ—ὤμοι | 219

1. expressive of surprise [a gasp of astonishment], Ah! (ah!), Eh?, Good gracious!, Here (Here)!, Hey (hey)!, Hold!, Hullo, hullo!, Listen, there it is!, Look, look there!, Oh!, Oho!, Ow!, See see!, (But) what is this?, Why!, Yipes! 2. fig. turning listener’s attention to something, Careful!, (But) look!, See, see! A. Fr. 46a.8 EM Ch. 870 DBL EM LYR ἔα ἔα μάλα PV 114 DBL EM ἆ ἆ, ἔα ἔα, 298, 687 DBL EM LYR ἔα ἔα· ἄπεχε, φεῦ S. Fr. 222b 7.6 ἔα· τί φ[, 314.100 LYR, 314.117 EM LYR ἔα μάλα, 314.205 EM OC 1477 DBL LYR E. Fr. 125.1342, 223.80343 EM, 636.1 DBL EM Cyc. EM, 222 Med. 1005 EM Hcl. 73 DBL Hipp. 856 DBL EM, 905, 1391 EM And. 896 EM Hec. 501, 733, 1116 EM Supp. 92 EM, 395 El. 341, 558 EM, 747 DBL EM Her. 514 EM, 525, 815 DBL LYR, 1089 EM, 1172 Tro. 298, 1256 DBL EM LYR IT 1157 EM Ion 154 DBL EM LYR, 170 DBL EM LYR, 241 EM, 1549 Hel. 71 EM, 541, 1177 EM Or. 277 EM, 478344 EM, 1573 Ba. 644 DBL EM, 1280 IA 317 EM, 644 EM, 1132 EM Rh. 574 EM, 675 EM LYR, 729 DBL EM LYR, 885 DBL EM LYR Ar. Nu. 1259 EM Pax 60 DBL EM Av. 327 DBL EM LYR, 1495345 Th. 346, 699 DBL EM LYR, 1009, 1105 Pl. 824

|| 342 1 Cycl. 222 (ΚΥ.) ἔα· τίν’ ὄχλον τόνδ’ ὁρῶ πρὸς αὐλίοις; conferri solet (vid. Seaford Cycl. p. 49) 343 80 agnoverunt Blass Weil Campbell : cf. El. 747–748 ἔα ἔα·| φίλαι, βοῆς ἠκούσατε; et vid. Page ad Med. 1004, Dodds ad Ba. 644, Fraenkel ad A. Ag. 1256 (3, 5804) 344 478 τὸ κτλ. del. Wecklein 345 1495 ἐστ’ Bentley: ἐστι(ν) codd., quod recipere possis si aut vox ἔα monosyllaba est aut scissum quem vocant anapaestum toleres. 346 277 ἔα· σπεῦδε Maas: ἔκσπευδε R: σὺ σπεῦδε von Velsen

220 | Lexicon εἶα [I want you to do this] [3.7.3.1] also εἷα; freq. elided εἶ’ or εἷ’; cf. Lat. (h)eia; preceded by ἄγ’ (S, Ar), ἀλλ’ (A, S, E, Ar), οὐκ, οὐχ (E), ὢ (Ar); followed by δή (A, S, E, Ar), (ἔτι) μάλ’(α) (Ar), νὴ Δία (Ar), νῦν (S, Ar), ὤ (Ar); nearly always in lyr. passages (A, Ar), never in E.; neutral to formal register. IntPs: 58 (A. 5, S. 4, E. 21, Ar. 28) 1. conative of encouragement, At ‘em!, Come!, Come on!, Hey!, Hey there!, Ho there!, Quick!, Quickly!, So forward march!, Up!, Very well!, Well, then!, Whoa! 2. possibly conative to accompany heaving, Heave!, Heave again!, Heave ho! A. Fr. Ag. S. Fr. E. Fr. Med. Her. Tro. IT Hel. Pho. Or. IA Ar. Ach. V. Pax

47a.23 ἀλλ’] εἷα, 78a.18347 εἷα δή, 78c.13348 ε]ἶα, 1650 LYR εἶα δή, 1651 LYR εἶα δή 221.4 ἀλ]λ’ εἷ’, 222b 7.4 εἷα δ[, 314.93 ἄγ’ εἷ̣α, 314.436 ἄγ’ εἷα νυ̣[ν 495.8 QTN, 693.1349 εἶα δή 401 ἀλλ’ εἶα, 820 ἀλλ’ εἶα, 1242 ἀλλ’ εἶ’ 622 ἀλλ’ εἶ’, 704 ἀλλ’ εἶα, 833 ἀλλ’ εἶ’ 880 ἀλλ’ εἶα 1423 οὐκ εἶα 1429 ἀλλ’ εἷα, 1561 QTN οὐχ εἷ’, 1597 QTN οὐχ εἷ’ 970 ἀλλ’ εἷα, 990 ἀλλ’ εἷα, 1708 ἀλλ’ εἷα 1060 ἀλλ’ εἷ’, 1618 ἀλλ’ εἷ’, 1622 οὐχ εἷ’ 111 ἀλλ’ εἷα, 435 ἀλλ’ εἷα 494 LYR εἶά νυν 430 LYR εἶά νυν 458str1 LYR ὢ εἶα, 459str2 LYR εἶα μάλα, 460str3 LYR ὢ εἶα, 461str4 LYR εἶα ἔτι μάλα, 462 DBL LYR ὢ εἶα, ὢ εἶα, 467str5 LYR εἶά νυν, 468str6 LYR εἶα ὤ, 486ant1 LYR ὢ εἶα, 487ant2 LYR εἶα μάλα, 488ant3 LYR ὢ εἶα, 489ant4 LYR εἶα, νὴ Δία, 494ant5 LYR εἶά νυν, 495ant6 LYR εἶα ὤ, 517 DBL LYR ὢ εἶά νυν, ὢ εἶα πᾶς, 518 LYR TRI ὢ εἶα εἶα εἶά , 519 LYR TRI ὢ εἶα εἶα εἶα πᾶς Lys. 1302 LYR εἶα μάλα, 1303350 LYR ὢ εἶα Th. 659 LYR εἶα δή, 663 LYR εἶα νῦν, 985 LYR ἀλλ’ εἶα Ra. 394 LYR ἄγ’ εἶά νυν Ec. 496 LYR ἀλλ’ εἶα Pl. 292 LYR ἀλλ’ εἶα, 316 LYR ἀλλ’ εἶά νυν, 760 ἀλλ’ εἶ’

|| 347 78a.18 εἷα scripsi 348 78c.13 ε]ἶα Kamerbeek (malim ε]ἷα) 349 1 εἶα Eust. (οἶα errore Et. Gen. B) : εἴα Philop., Et. M. (Gen. B in lemmate) : εἷα praebent papyri in frr. Sophocleis (vol. 4, 665 s.v.), E. F 953f, 21, trag. adesp. F655, 40 (“Attice” secundum Hdn. [?] Σ Hom. I 262a Erbse); ad usum cf. Ed. Fraenkel Zu den Phoen. d. Eur. (SB München 1963 H.1) 48 et Diggle in Phaeth. 221 (F 781, 8) 350 1303 ὢ εἶα Biset: εἶα ὢ εἶα pB: ωΐα R

ἆ—ὤμοι | 221

εἶἑν [I comply with the preceding utterance] [3.8.3.1] also εἶεν; poss. related to εἰμι; no combinations; neutral to formal register. IntPs: 47 (A. 4, S. 6, E. 26, Ar. 10) 1. phatic of compliance, concession or reluctant approval, All right!, Now then!, So!, Well!, Well now!, Well then! 2. fig. expressive of cognition, Ah!, Aha! 3. fig. conative to get attention or demand action, Come!, Come now! A. Ch. 657, 719 LYR Eu. 244 PV 36 S. Fr. 555b.10351 Aj. 101352 El. 534353 Ph. 1308354 OC 476355 , 1308356 E. Fr. 727a.45357 , 781.107358 Alc. 299 Med. 386 EM Hipp. 297 Hec. 313 Supp. 1094 El. 596, 618, 907, 959359 Herc. 451, 1214, 1358 Tro. 945 EM, 998 IT 342, 467 EM Ion 275 EM, [756]360 Hel. 761 Ph. 849, 1615 Or. 774 IA 454, 1185 EM Ar. Eq. 1078361 EM, 1237362 EM || 351 10 ΕΙἙΝ·ΤΙ (“mark between ν and τ may possibly be due to a fibre being displaced” Carden) 352 101 εἶἑν L: εἶεν cett. 353 534 non liquet num librarius cod. L ita scribere voluerit: εἶεν cett. 354 1308 εἶἑν edd.: εἶεν codd. 355 476 εἶἑν edd.: εἶεν codd. 356 1308 εἶἑν edd.: εἶεν codd. 357 45–48 Hec. 313–315 εἶἑν· τί δῆτ’ ἐρεῖ τις …; ' πότερα … ἢ …; attulit Rea 358 107 … εἶἑν post θρῆνον ad rem revertens? Cf. El. 596, HF 1214 (Stevens Colloq. Expr. 34) 359 959 Ηλ. Camper, Ορ. L 360 756 αἰαῖ F. W. Schmidt: εἶεν L

222 | Lexicon Nu. Pax Th. Ra.

176363, 1075 663364, 877, 1284 407, 1188 607

εὐαῖ [I am in a state of joy] [3.6.5.2] also εὐαί and εὐαἵ; poss. related to εὐάν, εὐοῖ; combinations: εὐοῖ, εὐαί; εὐοῖ, εὐοῖ, εὐαῖ, εὐαῖ (Ar); always in lyr. passages. IntPs: 5 (A. 0, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 5) 1. joyful cult cry, Evai!, Hey!, Hoy!, Hurrah! Ar. Lys. 1294365 DBL EM LYR εὐοῖ, εὐοῖ, εὐαῖ, εὐαῖ Ec. 1180366 LYR εὐαί, 1181367 LYR εὐοῖ, εὐαί, 1182368 LYR εὐαί, 1183369 EM LYR QTR

εὐοῖ [I am in a state of (religious) joy] [3.6.5.3] also εὖοἷ and εὐοἵ; poss. related to εὐαί, εὐάν; cf. also Eὔιος; Lat. euhoe; combinations: εὐὰν εὐοῖ (E), εὐοῖ, εὐαί; εὐοῖ, εὐοῖ, εὐαῖ, εὐαῖ (Ar); always in lyr. passages. IntPs: 6 (A. 0, S. 1, E. 2, Ar. 3) 1. joyful cult cry associated with Dionysus, Euhoi!, Euoi!, Evoi! S. Tr. E. Tro. Ba. Ar. Lys.

219 EM LYR εὐοῖ370 326371 EM LYR εὐὰν εὐοῖ 141b372 EM LYR εὖοἷ 1294373 EM LYR εὐοῖ, εὐοῖ, εὐαῖ, εὐαῖ

|| 361 1078 εἶἑν sic R: εἶεν cett. 362 1238 εἶεν sic VL: om. cett. 363 176 εἶἑν Coulon: εἶεν codd. (sed εἶέν ut videtur R); non amplius notatur 364 663 εἶέν L 365 Henderson (1991): 1294 εὕοἱ εὕοἱ p: εὔοἱ εὔοἱ R εὑαἱ εὑαἱ p: εὐαι εὐαι R 366 Ussher (1973): 1180 ἰαί εὐαί S: ἰεύαι (-εύ- in ras.) εὐαί R: εὗ αἷ Λ 367 Ussher (1973): 1181 εὗ οἷ εὗ αἷ Λ 368 1182 εὐαί post νίκῃ traicere malit Sommerstein 369 Ussher (1973): εὖ αἶ quinquies Λ: εὐαί, εὐαί, εὐά, εὐά S 370 219 εὐοῖ Wilamowitz: εὐοῖ μ’ codd.: εὐοῖ εὐοῖ Dindorf 371 326 εὖ ἂν εὖ οἷ (uel οἶ) VPQΣ 372 141b εὖ οἷ P: εὔ οἵ L 373 Henderson (1991): 1294 εὕοἱ εὕοἱ p: εὔοἱ εὔοἱ R εὑαἱ εὑαἱ p: εὐαι εὐαι R

ἆ—ὤμοι | 223

Th. Ec.

994374 LYR ὦ Εὔι’ Εὔι’ εὐοῖ 1181375 LYR εὐοῖ, εὐαί

εὐάν [I am in a state of joy] [3.6.6.1] hapax legomenon; related to εὐοῖ; combination: εὐὰν εὐοῖ (Ε); only in lyr. passage. IntPs: 1 (A. 0, S. 0, E. 1, Ar. 0) 1. joyful cult cry associated with Dionysus, Euhan! E. Tro. 326376 EM LYR εὐὰν εὐοῖ

ἤ [I want you to pay attention to me] [3.7.2.1] also doubled ἢ ἤ; no combinations; informal register. IntPs: 3 (A. 0, S. 0, E. 1, Ar. 2) 1. a call for attention, summons, Hey! 2. fig. expressive of displeased surprise, Ah, ah! E. Her. 906 DBL LYR Ar. Ra. 271377 Nu. 105378 DBL

ἠέ [I am in grief] [3.6.7.1] no variant forms; only in A.; no combinations; always in lyr. passages; formal register. IntPs: 10 (A. 10, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 0) 1. expressive of grief and mourning, Aaah-eh!, Aieee!, Ehhh-e! A. Pers. 569str LYR, 577ant LYR, 652str LYR, 657ant LYR Sept. 966379str1 LYR, 966str2 LYR, 978ant1 LYR, 978ant2 LYR Supp. 831 LYR?, 831 LYR?

|| 374 994 ὦ Εὔι’ Εὔι’ Hermann: εὔιον εὔιον R 375 Ussher (1973): 1181 εὗ οἷ εὗ αἷ Λ 376 326 εὖ ἂν εὖ οἷ (uel οἶ) VPQΣ 377 Dover: 271 … ἤ: accented ἢ in R V K M Md1 Np1 but ἦ in A E U Vb3 Vs1 Θ. ἢ ἤ in Nu. 105 and E. HF 906 is a repressive exclamation, not a cry from afar. 378 Dover: 105 η η V: ἠ ἠ Θ1: ἦ ἦ b 379 Murray (1964): 966 ἠὲ ἠέ codd.: ἐὴ ἐή Dindorf: fortasse ἠεί sonum quem voluit Aeschylus melius redderet

224 | Lexicon ἠὴ ἠή [I am in a state of grief] [3.6.7.2] no variant forms; no combinations; always in lyr. passages; formal register. IntPs: 2 (A. 2, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 0) 1. expressive of grief, Ehhh-ehhh, ehhh-ehhh! A. Pers. 1075380 LYR, 1076 LYR

ἤν [I want you to notice this] [3.7.3.2] no variant forms; cf. Lat. en; combined with ἰδού (E, Ar); freq. in lyr. passages (E, Ar); neutral to informal register. IntPs: 5 (A. 0, S. 0, E. 1, Ar. 4) 1. conative to incite looking or to point out something, Hah!, Look!, See! 2. in combination with ἰδού as formula of compliance with a command, There! E. Her. Ar. Eq. Pax Ra. Pl.

867 LYR ἤν ἰδού 26381 327 LYR ἤν ἰδού 1390 ἤν ἰδού 75 LYR

ἰαί [I am in a state of joy] [3.6.5.4] no variant forms; freq. in combination, with ἀλαλαί, εὐαί, εὐοῖ, ἰὴ (παιών) (Ar); always in lyr. passages; formal register. IntPs: 4 (A. 0, S. 1, E. 0, Ar. 3) 1. expressive of joy and happiness, Hey (hey)!, Iai! 2. expressive of grief, Iai! S. Fr. 631382 Ar. Lys. 1292 LYR, 1293 LYR Ec. 1180 LYR

ἰαῦ [I comply with the preceding utterance] [3.8.2.1] hapax legomenon; no combinations; neutral to informal register.

|| 380 Murray (1964): 1075, 1076 ἰή ἰή FTri.: cf. 977: accentus secundum M posui 381 26 ἤν L: ἦν cett. 382 LSJ: “barbarous exclam. of sorrow”

ἆ—ὤμοι | 225

IntPs: 1 (A. 0, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 1) 1. phatic of compliance, Yo! Ar. Ra.

272

ἰαυοῖ [I am in grief] [3.6.6.2] hapax legomenon; no combinations; formal register. IntPs: 1 (A. 0, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 1) 1. expressive of vexation, Aiee! Ar. Ra. 1029 QTN

ἰή [I am in mourning] [3.6.4.3] no variant forms; cf. ἰήιος (A); doubled (A, Ar); combined with παιάν (Ε), παιών (Ar), also repeated three times (Ar); combinations: ἰὴ ἰὴ ἰὼ ἰώ; ἰὼ ἰή (A), ἀλαλαί, ἰὴ παιών (Ar); freq. in lyr. passages; formal register. IntPs: 17 (A. 3, S. 0 E. 1, Ar. 13) 1. expressive of lament or grief, Ié (ié)!, Ieh, ieh! 2. in combination with παιάν etc. as formula of joy and hooray!, Hail Paeon!, Yay Paian!

victorious

happiness,383 Hip hip

A. Pers. 1004 DBL LYR ἰὴ ἰὴ ἰὼ ἰώ Supp. 115 DBL Ag. 1485 ἰὼ ἰή E. Fr. 370.5 LYR ἰὴ παιάν Ar. Pax 453 ἰὴ παιών, 453, 454 QTN, 455 DBL QTN, 455384 QTN Av. 1763 LYR ἰὴ παιών Lys. 1291385 Th. 310–311 TRI ἰὴ παιών Ra. 1265386 LYR, 1267 LYR, 1271 LYR, 1275 LYR, 1277 LYR (all five lines are identical)

|| 383 Olson (1998), on Ar. Pax 453: “a plea for divine assistance and thus good fortune at the beginning of a great and potentially significant undertaking”. 384 455 ἰὴ μόνον L: ἰὴ ἰὴ μόνον cett. 385 1291 παιών] παιήων R 386 1265 ἰὴ κόπον distinxit Heath (cf. sch.): ἰήκοπον codd.

226 | Lexicon ἰοὺ ἰού [I am agitated] [3.6.3.2] once ἰού (Ar), once ἰοὺ ἰοὺ ἰού (Ar); very freq. extra metrum; combinations: ἰοὺ ἰοὺ πόπαξ; ἰοὺ ἰού, ὢ ὢ (A), ὤ ἰού ἰού / ὤ· ἰοὺ ἰού (S) φῦ φῦ. ἰοὺ ἰοὺ; φεῦ, ἰοὺ (Ar); occasionally in lyr. passages; neutral to informal register. IntPs: 43 (A. 4, S. 8, E. 3, Ar. 28) 1. expressive of distress, pain, dismay, Ah, ah!, Alas! 2. expressive of joy, enthusiasm, Hurrah!, Hooray! 3. conative of summons, Hey! 4. fig. combination of (1) and (3), Help! 5. idiomatic to cry “iou iou”, to live it up (≈ be drunk) A. Ag. 25 EM, 1214 EM ἰοὺ ἰού, ὢ ὢ Cho. 881 EM Eu. 143387 LYR ἰοὺ ἰοὺ πόπαξ S. Fr. 269b.2 ὤ ἰού ἰού, 314.443 ἰοὺ ἰοὺ [ Aj. 737388 EM OT 1071 δύστηνε, 1182 Tr. 1143 δύστηνος Ph. 38 OC 220389 ὤ· ἰοὺ ἰού E. Cyc. 390 EM, 391 EM Hipp. 776 EM Ar. Eq. 451 EM, 1096 EM Nu. 1 EM, 543 QTN, 1171 EM, 1321 EM, 1493 EM V. 931 EM Pax 110392 ἰοὺ ἰοὺ ἰού, 317393, 345394 QTN, 1191 EM Av. 194 EM, 295, 305, 305, 820 EM, 889, 1170 EM ἰοὺ ἰού, ἰοὺ ἰού, ἰοὺ ἰού. Lys. 66, 295str LYR φῦ φῦ. ἰοὺ ἰοὺ..., 305ant LYR φῦ φῦ. ἰοὺ ἰοὺ…, 829 Th. 245 φεῦ, ἰοὺ Ra. 653 Pl. 276 QTN, 478 QTN, 852

|| 387 143 πόπαξ Aldina: πύπαξ codd. 388 737 ἰοὺ bis Qt, quater N, ter cett. 389 220 … ὤ· ἰοὺ ἰού Hermann et Reisig: ὢ ὤ, ἰού fere codd. 390 464 ἰοὺ ἰού Hermann 391 576 ἰοὺ ἰού Hermann 392 110 ἰοὺ bis R, quater V 393 317 Wilson: ἰοὶ ἰοί [sic] 394 345 Wilson: “ἰοὶ ἰοί” [sic]

ἆ—ὤμοι | 227

ἰόφ [I am in pain(?)] [3.6.6.3] hapax legomenon; no combinations; lyr. passage?; formal register? IntPs: 1 (A. 1, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 0) 1. expressive of vexation, Ah!, Ah, ah! A. Supp. 826395 LYR?

ἰώ [I am in continuous grief] [3.6.4.4] no variant forms; doubled in all four authors; freq. combined with μοι or μοί μοι, and vocatives; combinations: ἰὴ ἰὴ ἰὼ ἰώ; ἰὼ ἰή; ἰώ μοί μοι· ἓ ἕ; ἰὼ (ἰὼ) πόποι (A) αἰαῖ ἰώ; ἒ ἔ, ἰώ; ἰὼ ὢ ὤ (S), αἰαῖ ἰώ (μοι); ἰώ μοί (μοι), αἰαῖ (E); very freq. in lyr. passages (A, S, E). IntPs: 294 (A. 71, S. 68, E. 129, Ar. 26) 1. expressive of lamentation and grief, Alas!, O!, Oh! 2. in combination with vocatives as formula of solemn invocation or address, Hail!, Oh! 3. a combination of (1.) and (2.), “a formal appeal (for protection)”, Help! A. Fr. 143 Pers. 908 EM LYR, 974 DBL LYR, 1004 DBL LYR ἰὴ ἰὴ ἰὼ ἰώ, 1005 DBL LYR, 1070 DBL LYR, 1074 DBL LYR (= 1070) Sept. 87 DBL LYR, 97 LYR, 166 LYR, 167 LYR, 173 LYR, 481 LYR, 845 LYR, 871 EM LYR, 875str DBL LYR, 881ant DBL LYR, 951 LYR, 969 DBL LYR, 975 LYR, 986 LYR (= 975), 994 LYR, 994 LYR, 998 LYR, 1000 LYR, 1001 LYR, 1002 LYR, 1003 LYR, 1004 DBL LYR Supp. 125 DBL LYR, 125 LYR, 162† LYR, 175† LYR (= 162), 776 LYR, 850 LYR, 905 Ag. 410 DBL LYR QTN, 411 LYR QTN, 503, 518, 1100str LYR ἰὼ πόποι, 1107ant LYR, 1136str DBL LYR, 1146ant DBL LYR, 1156str1 LYR, 1157str2 LYR, 1167ant1 LYR, 1168ant2 LYR, 1305, 1315 EM, 1327, 1455 EM LYR, 1485 ἰὼ ἰή LYR, 1489 DBL LYR, 1513 DBL LYR (=1489), 1537 LYR Cho. 45 LYR, 49 LYR, 50 LYR, 429 DBL LYR, 462 LYR, 469 LYR, 470 LYR Eu. 149 LYR, 778 LYR, 791 LYR, 808 LYR (= 778), 821 LYR (= 791) PV 576396 LYR ἰὼ ἰὼ πόποι, 693 DBL LYR, 742 EM ἰώ μοί μοι· ἓ ἕ. S. Fr. 211.10, 222a,98.4, 269a.51, 314.88 ἰὼ ω̣[, 491.2, 515.1 Aj. 333 EM, 336 EM, 339 EM, 348str LYR, 356ant LYR, 379 LYR, 385 LYR, 394str LYR, 412ant LYR, 694str DBL LYR, 707ant DBL LYR, 891 EM, 893 EM, 937 EM, 939 EM, 974 EM El. 77 EM, 150 LYR, 840 LYR ἒ ἔ, ἰώ, 1232 LYR, 1273 LYR, 1404 EM αἰαῖ ἰώ OT 1186 LYR, 1207 LYR, 1216 LYR, 1311 LYR, 1313str LYR, 1321ant LYR, 1391

|| 395 825–835 … ἰόφ: ἔστι ἀποπτυσμοῦ μίμημα MΣ; ἰὼ φεῦ Hoernle 396 Page: 576 πόποι: diverse plurimi; Murray (1964: 125): 576 πόποι Seidler: ποῖ ποῖ πόποι πόποι fere codd.: πῶ ter QV γρ.P γρ.F: cf. Ag. 1507 ποῖ μ’ Q: πῆ μ’ fere rell.

228 | Lexicon Ant. 844str1 LYR, 850str2 LYR, 863ant1 LYR, 869ant2 LYR, 1146 LYR, 1261str LYR, 1266 LYR, 1276, 1284ant LYR, 1284 LYR, 1320 LYR Tr. 221 DBL LYR, 856 LYR, EM LYR, 1026 LYR ἒ ἔ, ἰώ, 1031397 LYR, 1031 LYR Ph. 219 EM, 400 LYR, [737398], 759399 OC 140 DBL LYR, 198 LYR, 224400 LYR ἰὼ ὢ ὤ, 536 LYR, 536 LYR, 822, 834str LYR, 876ant LYR, 884 LYR, 884 LYR, 1085 LYR, 1491401 LYR E. Fr. 62c.7402 , 223.79b403 , 370.45, 757.845404 , 759a.1597, 759a.1607405 , 781.65, 781.75, 781.77 Cyc. 656 DBL LYR Alc. 213 LYR, 393 LYR, 741 DBL LYR, 861 EM? LYR, 862 LYR, 875 LYR, 892 LYR (= 875) Med. 96 LYR, 97 LYR, 115 LYR, 115 LYR, 1251 LYR, 1270a406 EM LYR, 1274 LYR Hipp. 365 LYR, 569 EM ἰώ μοι, αἰαῖ, 672 LYR, 811 DBL LYR, , 1147 DBL LYR, 1384 LYR And. 825 LYR, 1175 LYR ἰώ μοί μοι, αἰαῖ, 1226 DBL EM? LYR Hec. 175 LYR, 1088 LYR αἰαῖ ἰώ, 1091 LYR, 1091 LYR Supp. [275408 ], 628 LYR, 805 DBL LYR, 828 DBL LYR, 918 LYR, 1072 EM LYR, 1077 EM LYR, 1114 EM LYR, 1127str EM LYR, 1134ant EM LYR El. 114str EM LYR, 129ant EM LYR (= 114), 159 LYR, LYR, 988 EM LYR, 1167 EM LYR, 1177str LYR, 1185 LYR, 1190ant LYR, 1198 DBL LYR, 1208 LYR Her. 738 EM LYR, 750 EM LYR, 886 EM LYR, 886 LYR, 888 EM LYR, 891 EM LYR, 1031 EM LYR, 1210 LYR Tro. 164str DBL EM LYR, 173 DBL EM LYR, 187ant DBL EM LYR, 281 EM LYR, 1118 DBL EM LYR, 1237 EM LYR, 1251 DBL EM LYR, 1280, 1302str1 LYR, 1312str2 DBL LYR, 1317ant1 LYR, 1327ant2 LYR, 1331 LYR IT 143 EM LYR, 157 EM LYR, 845 LYR, 845 LYR Ion 713 LYR, 752 EM, 754 EM, 912 , 1445 DBL, 1454 , 1502

|| 397 1031 ἰὼ bis Bergk, semel codd. 398 737 ὦ θεοί Zg, coni. anon. (1810): ἰὼ θεοί cett. 399 759 νόσος ἰὼ Robertson: ἰὼ ἰὼ codd. plerique (etiam Ta): φεῦ ἰὼ (Philoctetae continuatum) T post σὺ add. ἰώ KVZgTa 760 Philoctetae trib. VTa, et sic coni. Lindner ante δύστηνε add. ἰὼ vel semel vel bis a 400 224 ἰὼ iterat a ὢ bis t, ter plerique 401 1491 ἰὼ bis Bothe: semel codd. plerique: ἰού ἰού ἰὼ t 402 6–7 μή νυν ἔτ’ εἶσιν Τ[ρωϊκῶν τειχέων ἔσω;] | ἀλλ[’ ο]ὐκ—ἰώ μοι—δ[υνατόν ἐστ’ ἰδεῖν τόδε post Croenert et Körte Snell, δυνατὸν [should say δυνατὰ] ταῦθ’ ἡμῖν φέρειν Page 403 79 ].[ vestigium curvum (]Ο[, ]Ρ[) | ]ΟΝ·ΙΩΜΟΙΜΟΙ : eiulatum Lyco trib. Wil. (cf. HF 750, El. 1167) 404 845 ΑΡΓ]OΥΔΙΩΑΙΔ P. Petrie : ΑΡΓΟΥCΙΩΠΑΙΔΕ[[C]] (C expunctum) P. Oxy. 405 1607 … ὼ Wil. l.l. [Gr. Versk. 3593] (cf. 1597 sq.): ὦ numeros aliter distinguentes Willink Or. p. 113. 288 et Diggle 406 1270a ιωι μ[οι Π7: om. ΩLP: “exclamationes quasdam” desideraverat Seidler (De uers. doch. 293) 407 884 ἰὼ Elmsley: ὦ codd. 408 275–276 del. Dindorf cf. Hec. 62–64 (but: E. Hec. 62–63 del. Hartung) 409 159 Seidler: lectio incerta est

ἆ—ὤμοι | 229

Hel. 335 LYR, 362 LYR Pho. 109 LYR, 182 EM LYR, 296 DBL LYR, 304 LYR, 310 DBL LYR, 317 LYR, 680† LYR, 1290 LYR, 1290 LYR, 1290 LYR, 1492410 LYR αἰαῖ ἰώ μοι, 1508 EM LYR, 1723 DBL LYR, 1725 DBL LYR Or. 976411 LYR, 1296 LYR, 1353str DBL LYR, 1465 LYR, 1537ant DBL LYR Ba. 576 EM LYR, 577 LYR, 577 LYR, 580 DBL LYR IA 590 DBL LYR, 1283 DBL EM LYR, 1333 EM LYR, , 1497 LYR, 1505 DBL EM LYR, 1510 DBL EM LYR Rh. 380 DBL EM LYR, 454 DBL EM LYR, 728 DBL EM LYR, 731 DBL EM LYR, 733 DBL EM LYR, 820 DBL EM LYR Ar. Fr. 420 Ach. 566 LYR, 568 LYR, 1071, 1078, 1080, 1205 DBL LYR, 1212 DBL LYR Nu. 1155, 1170 DBL EM, 1259 EM V. 750 LYR, 1292 Pax 236, 242, 246, 250 Av. 228 DBL LYR, 343 DBL EM LYR, 406 Lys. 716 EM Th. 1047 LYR Ra. 1341 LYR, 1342 LYR (ἰ- | ὼ)

ναί [I agree with that utterance] [3.8.2.2] also ναίχι and ναίκι; combinations: ναίκι ναί; ναί, ναίκι (owing to dialectal or foreign influence); also doubled, ναὶ ναί; ναίκι ναίκι; strengthened with μὰ Δία; occasionally in lyr.; neutral to informal register. 1. phatic of strong affirmation, assent, agreement, Yes!, Yea, Verily, Sure, Certainly 2. fig. colloquial conative of entreaty, Please A. Pers. 738, 1072413 DBL LYR S. Fr. 210.41 LYR, 314.118 El. 845 LYR, 414 OT 683 LYR ναίχι Tr. 425415 EM Ph. 372 QTN OC 27, 1747416 DBL LYR E. Cyc. 147, 586 || 410 1492–1493 ἰώ μοι ὦ Ω̣Tt: ἰώ μοι ἰὼ OGRRfSW: ἰώ μοι μοι ὦ Z: ἰὼ X: ὤμοι. | ὦ Diggle 411 976 ιω̣ ω̣ Π13, coni. Hartung: ἰὼ ἰὼ ΩXZTt3: ἰὼ Cr, coni. Wecklein (et 965 ἀχείτω) 412 1491 ἰὼ ἰὼ Hermann: ὦ Tr1: om. L 413 1071–1074 om. Ha 414 1445 ναὶ Reiske: καὶ codd. 415 425 ναί codd.: del. Dindorf 416 1747 del. Dindorf

230 | Lexicon Alc. [1119]417 Med. 1277418 LYR Hipp. 605 Andr. 242419 EM, 586420 EM, 1059 Supp. 936 El. 658 Herc. 1061 IT 742421 EM Ion 991, 1009 Hel. 99422 EM Pho. 1665 Or. 423 , 148 LYR Ba. 534424 LYR IA 1247 Rh. 164 Ar. Ach. 88 ναὶ μὰ Δία, 430 Eq. 280 ναὶ μὰ Δία, 338 ναὶ μὰ Δία, 749 DBL Nu. 784, 1468 DBL V. 134 ναὶ μὰ Δία, 181 ναὶ μὰ Δία Pax 378, 416 ναὶ μὰ Δία, 930 ναὶ μὰ Δία, 1113 ναὶ μὰ Δία Lys. 1181 ναὶ μὰ Δία Th. 1183 DBL ναίκι ναὶ, 1184425 DBL ναίκι , 1196 ναί, ναίκι, 1218 Ra. 189 ναὶ μὰ Δία Ec. 551 ναὶ μὰ Δία, 786 ναὶ μὰ Δία Pl. 82, 187 ναὶ μὰ Δία, 890 ναὶ μὰ Δία, 904

ό ό ό [I am in a state of joy (?)] [3.6.7.3] no variant forms; combinations: ό ό ό ά ά ά (A), ὂ ὂ ὄ, παπαπαπαῖ (Ar); always in lyr. passages; formal to neutral register. IntPs: 2 (A. 1, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 1) 1. expressive of triumph or woo! Boyoboy!

pained

excitement, Ho ho ho, ha ha ha!, Woo woo

|| 417 1119–1120 del. Nauck: uide Hübner, Hermes 109 (1981) 163–166 418 1277–1278 om Π7 419 242 ναί om. P (del. Tr supra lin. scr.) et del. edd. plerique 420 586 ναί del. Lascaris 421 742 ναί extra u. Tr2: intra u. P 422 99 ναί hoc loco Tr2: fin. u. 98 L 423 111 ναί Paley: καὶ codd. 424 Dodds (1960) 534 ναὶ L P: νὴ p 425 1184 alterum ναίκι Bothe: καὶ R

ἆ—ὤμοι | 231

A. Supp. 825 LYR? ό ό ό ά ά ά Ar. Th. 1191426 LYR ὂ ὂ ὄ, παπαπαπαῖ

ὀᾶ [I am in grief] [3.6.7.4] no variant forms; no combinations; always extra metrum; always in lyr. passages; formal register. IntPs: 7 (A. 7, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 0) 1. expressive of grief and lamentation, O-aaah!, Woe! A. Pers. 117str EM LYR, 122ant EM LYR, 570str1 EM LYR, 574str2 EM LYR, 578ant1 EM LYR, 582ant2 EM LYR Sept. 427 EM LYR

οἴ [Ifemale am in grief] [3.6.4.5] also οἰοῖ and οἰοιοῖ; freq. followed by (ἐ)γώ or (ἐ)γὼ τάλαιν(α) (A, S, E), ἐγὼ μελέα (E); combinations: οἲ ἓ ἕ; οἰοῖ δᾶ φεῦ (A); repeated (with μάλ’ αὖθις); freq. in lyr. passages; relatively formal register. IntPs: 45 (A. 21, S. 4, E. 18, Ar. 2) 1. expressive of vexation, Ah!, Ah, ah!, Oi!, Oh, oh!, Woe is me! 2. fig. used as “Ionic” pun on (1.), “Alas!” A. Pers. 445 οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα, 517 οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα, 663str LYR, 671ant LYR (= 663), 931 LYR οἰοῖ, 955 LYR QTN οἰοιοῖ, 966 LYR οἰοιοῖ, 1003 LYR, 1045428 LYR, 429, 1067 EM DBL LYR οἰοῖ οἰοῖ Sept. 808 οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα Supp. 876430 EM DBL LYR οἰοῖ οἰοῖ, 885 LYR οἰοῖ Ag. 1257 οἲ ἐγὼ ἐγώ Ch. 691 οἲ ’γώ, 887 οἲ ’γώ, 893 οἲ ’γώ, 928 οἲ ’γώ Eu. 841 LYR οἰοῖ δᾶ φεῦ PV 602431 LYR οἲ ἓ ἕ S. Fr. 210.30 DBL οἰοῖ, οἰ[οῖ]. Aj. 803 οἲ ’γώ El. 674 οἲ ’γὼ τάλαιν’, 1115 οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα E. Fr. 753d.14 οἲ] ἐγὼ Hec. 154 ἐγὼ μελέα, 438 οἲ ’γὼ, 676 οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα || 426 1191 ὄ ter Mu2, semel R 427 89 ὀᾶ Maas: βοᾶ codd. 428 1045 οἴμοι μάλα ΔABCHaYaWDLcPγρGFTr 429 1053 οἲ Lachmann: μοι καὶ GFTr, μοι rell. 430 876 οἶ quinquies M 431 602 οἲ VPC: οἳ rell.

232 | Lexicon Tro. 161432 οἲ ’γὼ, 498433 οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα, 624434 οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα, 795435 οἲ ’γὼ, 1272436 οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα Hel. 594 οἲ ’γὼ, 685437 οἲ ’γὼ, 857438 οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα, 1223439 οἲ ’γὼ Ph. 1274 οἲ ’γὼ Or. 266440 οἲ ’γὼ τάλαινα, 1018441 οἲ ’γὼ, 1020442 οἲ ’γὼ, [1347]443 οἲ ’γὼ IA 1277444 οἲ ’γὼ, 1279 οἲ ’γὼ Ar. Pax 932 ὀί, 933 QTN ὀί

οἴμοι [I am vexed] [3.6.3.3] also πανοίμοι (A); elided οἴμ’ (S, Ar); rarely combined with μοι (S, E); cf. ἰώ and ὤμοι; never doubled, though occ. repeated (A, S, Ar); occ. extra metrum; freq. followed by τάλαιν(α), τάλας (S), δείλαιος, κακοδαίμων, τάλας (Ar); no combinations; occ. in lyr. passages; neutral to informal register. IntPs: 307 (A. 4, S. 75, E. 111, Ar. 117) 1. expressive of vexation 2. expressive of surprise Tragedy: Ah!, Ah me!, Ah me, ah me!, Alack!, Alas!, Alas for me!, How terrible!, O!, Oh!, Oh me!, Oh misery!, Oh no!, What agony!, Woe!, Woe is me! Comedy: Alas!, Damn!, Damn it (all)!, Dear me!, Good god!, Good grief!, Good heavens!, Gosh!, Great heavens!, Heaven save us!, Heavens no!, Hey!, I’ll be damned!, Me oh my!, My goodness!, Oh!, Oh dear!, Oh me oh my!, Ouch!, Uh oh!, Wooh!, Wow! A. Ag. Ch.

1225445 434 LYR, 875446 οἴμοι πανοίμοι, 876

|| 432 161 … οἲ ’γώ Kirchhoff: οἶ ἐγὼ μελέα V: οἲ ’γὼ (οἵ’ ἐγὼ Q) τλάμων (-ον Pac) PQ: … 433 498 οἴ ’γὼ Q: οἲ ἐγὼ P: οἷ’ ἐγὼ V 434 624 οἲ ’γὼ Musurus: οἲ (οἶ) ἐγὼ VP 435 795 οἲ ’γὼ Seidler: οἲ ἐγὼ P: οἶ’ ἐγὼ V 436 1272 οἲ ’γὼ Musurus: οἲ (οἶ V) ἐγὼ VP 437 685 οἴ ἐγὼ L 438 857 οἲ ἐγὼ L … 439 1223 οἲ ’γὼ P2: οἶ ἐγὼ L 440 266 οἲ ’γὼ LP: οἲ (uel οἶ) ἐγὼ Ω̣XZTz 441 1018 ’γώ P: ἐγώ Ω̣XZTt3: [K] 442 1020 ’γὼ P: ἐγὼ Ω̣XZTt3 et R2: [S] 443 1347–1348 del. Willink 1347 ’γώ P: ἐγώ Π16Ω̣XZTt3 444 1277 et 1279 οἶ (οἲ P2) ἐγὼ L 445 1225 οἴμοι: ὠμὸν Blaydes

ἆ—ὤμοι | 233

S. Fr. Aj. El.

210.76 QTN, 730g.45 οἴμο[ι, 750, 885a 354 LYR οἴμ’, 367447 LYR, 587 οἴμ’, 791, 800 τάλαινα, 809, 920, 944, 1002 EM, 1024 788 τάλαινα, 883 τάλαινα, 926 τάλαινα, 930 τάλαινα, 1108 τάλαιν’, 1143 τάλαινα, 1160 EM οἴμοι μοι, 1162 EM οἴμοι μοι, 1179, 1409 τάλαιν’, 1475, 1479 OT 744 τάλας, 1033, 1169, 1316 em, 1317, 1419 Ant. 49, 82, 86, 320 οἴμ’, 554 τάλαινα, 839 LYR, 933 LYR, 1105, 1270 οἴμ’, 1271448 EM, 1275, 1294 EM Tr. 375 τάλαινα, 741, 971449 , 972, 986450 οἴμοι , 1133, 1145, 1203, 1206, 1230, 1241451 Ph. 332, 363, 416 τάλας, 426, 622 τάλας, 788452 οἴμοι μοι τάλας, 917, 969, 976, 978, 995 τάλας, 1063, 1122 LYR οἴμοι μοι, 1350 OC 820453 , 828 τάλαινα, 1254, 1399, 1400, 1427 τάλαινα E. Fr. 33454 , 62i455, 223.88, 300456 , 300 QTN, 370.35457 , 759a.1609, 759a.1617458 , 930 Cyc. 193, 589, 687 Alc. 257 LYR, 273459 LYR, 380, 914 LYR, 1064 Med. 117, 899, 1210, 1271 LYR, 1310, 1371460 Hcl. 224, 433 Hipp. 310, 353, 799461, 874, 1051, 1064, 1313 EM, 1350462 LYR οἴμοι μοι, 1401463, 1446464, 1454465 And. 70, 384, 394, 435, 443, 693466, 846 LYR, 1066

|| 446 875 πάν· οἴμοι Μ (Garvie 1988). Garvie gives Empedocles 31 F 141 (δειλοί, πάνδειλοι), Pers. 986 (κακὰ πρόκακα) and Eu. 161 (βαρύ τι περίβαρυ) as examples for the hypothetical πανοίμοι. Though none of these includes an interjection, it seems reasonable to form this hapax for the incoherent πάν. 447 367 οἴμοι] ὤιμοι L 448 1271 οἴμοι om. a 449 971 et 972 οἴμοι Dindorf: ὤιμοι LUY: ὤμοι Azt 450 986 οἴμοι LaZo: ὤμοι Zgt suppl. Brunck 451 1241 οἴμοι az: ὤμοι L 452 788 μοι codd. plerique: om. rUacZg 453 820 οἴμοι Brunck: ὤμοι fere codd. 454 33 1 οἴμοι, συναλγεῖν οὐκ ἐπίσταται κακοῖ F. W. Schmidt 455 62i … 1 init. = F 223, 88 456 300 Ad οἴμοι· τί δ’ οἴμοι vid. Stevens Colloq. Expr. 40 (14), ceterum cf. F 1075: si Bellerophontis verba, fortasse ad F 310 sq. trahenda. 457 35 … fin. οιμοιαιαιτινεπι| 458 1617 κακὰ Murray: -ΩΝ (ex 1609) 459 273 οἴμοι BOVL et gE: ὤμοι P et Lc 460 1371 om. LP (~ Lc fort. manu Iani Lascaris, P2) οἴμοι BOD et LcPc: ὤ(ι)μοι HAV et Σbv 461 799 οἴμοι BΛ: ὤμοι Ω̣V (ὤιμ- ΟΑ) 462 1350 οἴμοι μοι] οἴμοι οἴμοι AL 463 1401 οἴμοι OA: ὤμοι BVΛ (ὤιμ- B) 464 1446 οἴμοι ΩC: ὤμοι VΛ̣ 465 1454 οἴμοι ΩV: ὤμοι Λ et Chr. Pat. 802, 829

234 | Lexicon Hec. 180467 LYR, 191468 , 419, 511469 , 681, 713470 , 812 τάλαινα, 1252, 1255 Supp. 156, 769, 1080, 471 LYR El. 201, 215, 243, 290, 1109 τάλαινα Her. 1132, 1146, 1157, 1340, 1374, 1374 Tro. 115 LYR, 115 LYR, 176 LYR, 345, 578472 LYR, 720, 796, 1187, 1230473 LYR, 1231 LYR IT 155474 LYR οἴμοι , 186 LYR, 187 LYR, 216 LYR, 291, 361, 855, 475 , 1028 Ion 359, 832, 902 LYR οἴμοι μοι, 923, 966, 1113 Hel. 1196, 1205 Ph. 373, 1310, 1332, 1345, 1346476 Or. 253, 412, 722, 849, 859, 1610 Ba. 805, 1248 IA 136 LYR, 442, 742 Ar. Fr. 205.8477 οἴμ’ ὦ Θρασύμαχε, 290 κακοδαίμων, 339 κακοδαίμων, 477 τάλας, 591.66 Ach. 67, 105 κακοδαίμων, 163 τάλας, 174 τάλας, 208–209 LYR τάλας, 473 κακοδαίμων, 590 οἴμ’, 1018 τάλας, 1036 κακοδαίμων, 1081 κακοδαίμων, 1117 οἴμ’ Eq. 97, 139 δείλαιος, 183, 234 κακοδαίμων, 340, 464, 752 κακοδαίμων, 858 τάλας, 887 τάλας, 998 οἴμ’, 1193, 1200 τάλας, 1206 κακοδαίμων, 1218, 1243 κακοδαίμων Nu. 23 τάλας, 57, 256, 504 κακοδαίμων, 729, 742 τάλας, 773 οἴμ’, 789, 791, 844, 1238 οἴμ’, 1324 κακοδαίμων, 1476478 , 1497, 1504 τάλας V. 24, 40 δείλαιος, 137, 165 δείλαιος, 202 δείλαιος, 207 κακοδαίμων, 696, 713, 849, 995, 1150 δείλαιος, 1417479 κακοδαίμων, 1449 οἴμ’ Pax 79 τάλας, 173 οἴμ’, 233 δείλαιος, 257480 οἴμοι μοι τάλας, 280, 280, 280, 425 οἴμ’, 481 οἴμ’, 1210482 οἴμ’, 1245, 1255 οἴμ’ Av. 12, 62 τάλας, 86 κακοδαίμων, 145, 308, 990 δείλαιος, 1019 κακοδαίμων, 1051 κακοδαίμων, 1260 τάλας, 1464 τάλας, 1466 τάλας, 1494 τάλας, 1501 οἴμ’, 1646 τάλας Lys. 382 τάλας, 449 κακοδαίμων, 462483 οἴμ’, 845 κακοδαίμων, 954 LYR

|| 466 693 ὦμοι gV 467 180 οἴμοι Ω̣ζ: ὤμοι Vξ et Ae: οἴμοι μοι Tt: ἰώ μοι Sas: [A]: ὤμοι μοι Hermann 468 191 οἴμοι] ὤμοι OP (~ Os); οἴμοι μοι SaTt 469 511 ὤμοι GKSa 470 713 ὤμοι Pξ 471 1138 … εἰσίν· οἴμοι Wilamowitz: εἰσί μοι L 472 578 οἴμοι Σ sicut coni. Burges: ἰώ μοι (ἰὼ μοί V) μοὶ VPQ: ὤμοι Seidler 473 1230 … οἴμοι Wecklein (ὤμοι iam Hermann): οἴμοι (οἴ μοί V) μοι VP 474 155 Hermann 475 861 … ἐκεί Jackson: ἐκεῖ L 476 1346 om. MBVL (~ M1cB1cV2) ὤμοι OGPZ (ὤι- Ο) et A2s 477 8 … οἴμ’ Cornario praeeunte Brunck: οἶμαι codd. 478 1476 οἴμοι] ὤμοι K 479 1417 … οἴμοι] ὤμοι RL 480 257 μοι L: om. cett. 481 891 … οἴμ’ Zacher: ἡμῖν RV (sed post καλὸν transp. V): ὑμῖν cett. 482 1210 … οἴμ’ ὡς] οἴμοι RV

ἆ—ὤμοι | 235

Th. Ra. Ec. Pl.

222484, 232 κακοδαίμων, 237 κακοδαίμων, 241 τάλας, 625 τάλας, 754, 780 LYR, 920 οἴμ’, 1004 κακοδαίμων, 1185 οἴμ’, 1212 οἴμ’, 1216 EM 33 κακοδαίμων, 196 κακοδαίμων, 307 τάλας, 309, 657, 926 τάλας, 1214 323 κακοδαίμων, 391 δείλαιος, 1021, 1051 δείλαιος, 1093 κακοδαίμων 169 τάλας, 389, 850 κακοδαίμων, 880 τάλας, 899 οἴμ’, 930 τάλας, 934, 935, 1125 τάλας, 1126, 1128, 1132

ὀπποποῖ [I am vexed] [3.6.6.4] hapax legomenon; cf. ἀτταταῖ; combination: ὀπποποῖ· ἆ; lyr. passage?; informal register? IntPs: 1 (A. 0, S. 1, E. 0, Ar. 0) 1. expressive of vexation, Ah!, Ah, ah! S. Fr.

314.197 LYR? ὀπποποῖ· ἆ

ὀτοτοτοῖ [Ifemale am in violent grief] [3.6.4.6] also ὀτοτοῖ (A), ὀτοτοτοτοῖ (A, E), ὀτοτοτοτοτοτοῖ (A) ὀττοτοῖ (S) and ὀττοτοτοτοῖ (E); cf. τοτοῖ, πόποι, ἀτταταῖ, παπαῖ etc.; combinations: ἒ ἒ ὀτοτοτοῖ; ὀτοτοῖ Λύκει’ Ἄπολλον, οἲ ἐγὼ ἐγώ; ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ (A); very freq. in lyr. passages; formal register. IntPs: 22 (A. 12, S. 1, E. 9, Ar. 0) 1. expressive of grief, Ah, ah!, Alas, alas!, O grief!, O woe!, Oh, dreadful! A. Pers. 268485str LYR, 274486ant LYR, 918487 LYR, 1043488str LYR ὀτοτοτοτοῖ, 1051489 ant LYR ὀτοτοτοτοῖ Supp. 889str LYR, 899 ant LYR (= 889) Ag. 1072490str LYR ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ, 1076ant LYR ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ, 1257 ὀτοτοῖ Λύκει’ Ἄπολλον, οἲ ἐγὼ ἐγώ Ch. 159 EM LYR ὀτοτοτοτοτοτοῖ, 869 EM LYR ἒ ἒ ὀτοτοτοῖ S. El. 1245491 || 483 462 οἴμ’ ὡς] οἴμοι R 484 222 οἴμοι Dindorf: ὤιμοι R 485 268 ὀτοτοτοῖ Porson: diverse codd. 486 274 ὀτοτοτοῖ MI: diverse rell. 487 918 ὀτοτοῖ AILhpcGTr: diverse rell. 488 1043 ὀτοτοτοτοῖ MIHGFTr[Nc]: diverse rell. 489 1051 ὀτοτοτοτοῖ MIAVaG[Nc]FTr: diverse rell. 490 1072 et 1076 ὀτοτοτοῖ πομποῖ δᾶ FTr. Fraenkel (1950): ὀτοτοτοτοῖ M 491 1245 suppl. Bergk. Kells (1973): 1245 ὀττοτοῖ ὀττοτοῖ Bergk: ὀτοττοῖ L Σ1: ὀττοτοῖ (vel ὀττοτοί) A rec: ὀτοτοττοῖ Pal: ὀτοτοτοτοῖ τοτοῖ Hermann

236 | Lexicon E. Fr. And. Her. Tro. Ion Pho. Or.

781.68 1197492 LYR ὀττοτοτοτοῖ, 1200 LYR ὀττοτοτοτοῖ 875493 LYR 1287494str LYR ὀτοτοτοτοῖ, 1294ant LYR ὀτοτοτοτοῖ 790495 LYR 1530496 LYR 1389b497 LYR

παπαῖ [I am in continuous pain] [3.6.3.4] also παπαιάξ (E, Ar); doubled παπαῖ παπαῖ (A); variant forms: ἀπαπαπαῖ; ἀπαπαπ[; ἀπαππαπαῖ, παπᾶ παπᾶ παπᾶ παπαῖ (S), παπαπαῖ (E), παπαπαπαῖ (Ar); combinations: ἒ ἔ παπαῖ παπαῖ (A), ἀπαπαπαῖ ἐέ; παπαῖ, φεῦ; φεῦ, παπαῖ (S), ἀππαπαὶ παπαιάξ; ἀπαπαῖ φεῦ; ὂ παπαπαπαῖ (Ar); occ. in lyr. passages; informal to neutral register. IntPs: 35 (A. 5, S. 13, E. 9, Ar. 8) 1. colloquial expressive of vexation or pained surprise, A-a-a-a-a-h!, Ah!, Ah me!, Alas!, Boyoboy!, Good grief!, O dear!, Oh god!, Oh my!, Whew!, Woe! 2. fig. expressive of vexation, Woe! A. Pers. Ag. Eu. S. Fr. El. Ph. OC E. Fr.

1031 DBL, 1032 1114 DBL LYR ἒ ἒ παπαῖ παπαῖ, 1256 262 LYR 153.1, 314.66 LYR ἀπαπαπ[, 441.8 ἀπαπαπαῖ ἐέ, 828f.1 866 LYR 745, 746498 ἀπαππαπαῖ, παπᾶ παπᾶ παπᾶ παπαῖ, 785 EM παπαῖ, φεῦ, 786, 792 φεῦ, παπαῖ, 793, 895 544 LYR 370.38499, 510

|| 492 1197 et 1200 ὀττοτοτοτοῖ MV (-οί M): ὀττοτοτοῖ L: ὀττοτοὶ ὀττοτοτοί P: ὀττοττοῖ O: ὀττοτοῖ bis 1197, semel 1200 A 493 875 ὀτοτοτοῖ Hermann: ὀτοτοτοτοτοί L 494 1287 ὀτοτοτοτοῖ post Schroeder (ὀττ-) Diggle: ὀττοτοτοτοτοῖ VP: item 1294 495 790 ὀτοτοτοῖ Hermann: ὀτοτοττοτοῖ Lac: ὀττ- Lpc pot. quam Tr1 496 1530 ὀτοτοτοῖ Kirchhoff: ὀτοττοτοί M: ὀττοττοττοῖ B: οτοτοτοτοτοι Π5: ὀτοττοί F: ὀττοτοῖ (uel -οί) semel LRS, bis VCrGPWXZ et R2S, ter Rf: ὀτοτοῖ ὀτοτοῖ Tt: ὀττοτοὶ ὀττοττοτοῖ A: ὀττοιτοῖ ὀττοττοττοῖ O 497 1389b ὀτοτοτοῖ Weil: ὀττοτοτοί H: ὀττοτοί (uel -οῖ) Ω̣XZTt3 et Hc: οττοττοῖ O: ὀτοτοί F: οττοτοποτοι Π17 498 746 ita restituit Hermann: ἀπα cum παπᾶ quinquies repetito vel sim. codd. (v. om. ZgTa) παπαῖ παπαῖ extra metrum Dawe

ἆ—ὤμοι | 237

Cyc. Alc. Her. IA Ar. Ach. V. Lys. Th. Ra. Pl.

110, 153 παπαιάξ, 503500 LYR παπαπαῖ, 572 226501 1120 655 1214 LYR 235 LYR ἀππαπαῖ παπαιάξ, 309502 LYR ἀπαπαῖ φεῦ 215, 924 παπαιάξ 1191 ὂ ὂ ὄ, παπαπαπαῖ 57503 ἀπαπαῖ 220

πόπαξ [I am vexed] [3.6.6.5] also πύπαξ; hapax legomenon; combination: ἰοὺ ἰοὺ πόπαξ; lyr. passage; formal register. IntPs: 1 (A. 1, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 0) 1. expressive of horror, pain, dismay, Ah, ah!, Alas! A. Eu.

143504 LYR ἰοὺ ἰοὺ πόπαξ

πόποι [auxiliary interjection] [3.6.8.2] no variant forms; always in combinations: ἰὼ (ἰὼ) πόποι; (ὀτοτοτοτοῖ) πόποι δᾶ; ὦ (ὢ) πόποι (A), ὦ πόποι (S); always in lyr. passages (A, S); formal register. IntPs: 10 (A. 8, S. 2, E. 0, Ar. 0) 1. expressive of anger, surprise or shock, Ah!, Ah me!, Alas!, Ió popoi!, O popoi!, Popoi dah! A. Pers. 731 LYR ὦ πόποι, 852 LYR ὦ πόποι Ag. 1072505 str LYR ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ, 1076ant LYR ὀτοτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ, 1100 LYR ἰὼ πόποι Ch. 506 LYR πόποι δᾶ

|| 499 38 … fin. π̣α̣π̣α̣ῖ̣ “valde dubium”, tum ἢ ̣τ̣ὸ̣ν “aegre convenit” Austin : “exspectes ἢ σὲ τὸν” Diggle 500 503 παπαπαῖ Hermann: πα πα πᾶ L 501 226 παπαῖ < > / ὦ Dindorf: παπαῖ ὦ fere BOV: παῖ παῖ φεῦ φεῦ ἰὼ ἰώ LP: παπαῖ φεῦ παπαῖ φεῦ ἰὼ ἰώ. / ὦ Gaisford 502 309 suppl. Hermann 503 57 ἀπαπαῖ Fritzsche, cf. sch. Θ: ἀππαπαῖ vel sim. RV, v.l. ap. sch. E: ἀταταῖ Md1UΘL: ἀτταταῖ vel sim. AK 504 143 πόπαξ Aldina: πύπαξ codd. Murray: πυπάξ FTri 505 1072 et 1076 ὀτοτοτοὶ πόμποι δᾶ FTr

238 | Lexicon Eu. PV S. OT Tr.

145 LYR ὢ πόποι 576507 LYR ἰὼ ἰὼ πόποι 168 LYR ὦ πόποι 852 LYR ὦ πόποι

ποποῖ and τοτοῖ [I am in a state of grief] [3.6.7.5] also τοτοτοῖ; no combinations; always in lyr. passages; formal register. IntPs: 3 (A. 2, S. 1, E. 0, Ar. 0) 1. expressive of vexation, Ah!, Ah, ah!, Oi!, Oh, oh! A. Pers. 550–551str LYR, 560–561ant LYR S. Tr. 1010 LYR τοτοτοῖ

ὕ ὗ ὕ ὗ [I am in pain (?)] [3.6.7.6] hapax legomenon; possibly related to ὗ ὗ ὗ, ψ ψ, ἆ ἆ (S); never in lyr. passages(?); informal register. IntPs: 1 (A. 0, S. 1, E. 0, Ar. 0) 1. expressive of pain, Ow! ow! ow! ow! S. Fr.

314.131 EM ὕ̣ [ὗ] ὕ̣ ὗ̣

ὗ ὗ ὗ, ψ ψ, ἆ ἆ [I am in pain (?)] [3.6.6.6] hapax legomenon; possibly related to ὕ ὗ ὕ ὗ (S); never in lyr. passages(?); informal register. IntPs: 1 (A. 0, S. 1, E. 0, Ar. 0) 1. expressive of pain, Ow, ow, ow! Ps, ps! Ah, ah! S. Fr.

314.176508 ὗ ὗ ὗ, ψ ψ, ἆ ἆ

φεῦ [I am vexed] [3.6.3.5] no variant forms (ὑπέρφευ = ὑπεράγαν); cf. Lat. (e)heu; doubled occ. in all four authors; very freq. extra metrum; followed by δύστην’, τάλας (S), τλήμων (E); combinations: ἔα ἔα· ἄπεχε, φεῦ; οἰοῖ δᾶ φεῦ (A), αἰαῖ φεῦ; παπαῖ, φεῦ; φεῦ,

|| 506 405 πόποι δᾶ Bamberger: ποῖ ποῖ δὴ Μ 507 576 πόποι: diverse plurimi. Murray (1964): 576 πόποι Seidler: ποῖ ποῖ πόποι πόποι fere codd.: πῶ ter QV γρ.P γρ.F: … 508 Steffen (1960): 170 ὗ ὗ ὗ, ψ ψ, ἆ ἆ Hunt. ὑυυψψᾶᾶ Wilamowitz. ὑὑὕψψαα Vollgraff.

ἆ—ὤμοι | 239

παπαῖ; φεῦ φεῦ, ἰὼ (S), ἰώ μοι, φεῦ φεῦ; φεῦ δᾶ φεῦ δᾶ; φεῦ φε]ῦ, ἰὼ γᾶ, (E), ἀπαπαῖ φεῦ; φεῦ δᾶ; φεῦ, ἰοὺ; φεῦ τοῦ καπνοῦ, βαβαιάξ; ὢ φεῦ φεῦ (Ar); occasionally in lyr. passages; relatively formal register. IntPs: 169 (A. 25, S. 36, E. 97, Ar. 11) 1. expressive of vexation, Ah!, Ah, ah!, Ah, yes!, Alack!, Alas!, Alas, alas!, O dear!, O grief!, O, the horror of it!, Oh!, Oh, alas!, Oh my!, Oh, oh!, Pah!, Phew!, Woe, woe! 2. fig. expressive of surprise and astonishment, Ah!, Aha!, Dear me!, Yuk!, Whew!, Wow! A. Pers. Sept. Ag. Ch. Eu.

285, 568str LYR, 576ant LYR, 725, 739 136 DBL LYR, 597, 1054 DBL EM LYR 1143 LYR, 1307509 DBL EM, 1448 LYR, 1483 DBL LYR 194 EM, 396 DBL LYR 781 LYR, 811 LYR (= 781), 838 EM LYR, 839 EM LYR, 841 EM LYR οἰοῖ δᾶ φεῦ, 870 EM LYR (= 838), 872 EM LYR (= 839), 874 EM LYR (= 841) PV 98 DBL LYR, 124 DBL LYR, 687 LYR ἔα ἔα· ἄπεχε, φεῦ S. Fr. 207.2, 636.1 DBL, 659.8 Aj. 958 DBL LYR, 983 φεῦ τάλας, 1266 El. 764 DBL, 830 LYR, 845 LYR, 845 LYR, 920, 1021 EM, 1161 DBL EM, 1174 DBL, 1183 OT 316 DBL, 964 DBL, 1303 DBL LYR φεῦ φεῦ δύστην’, 1324 DBL EM LYR Ant. 323 EM, 1048 EM, 1276 DBL, 1300 DBL, 1300 Tr. 987 LYR, 1017 DBL LYR Ph. 234, 510 , 428 DBL, 785 EM παπαῖ, φεῦ, 792 φεῦ, παπαῖ, 1019 EM, 1302 OC 519 DBL EM LYR, 1670 LYR αἰαῖ φεῦ, 1748 DBL LYR E. Fr. 25511 DBL, 80512 , 211 DBL, 218 DBL, 329, 333513 DBL, 370.45514 φεῦ φε]ῦ DBL, 401 EM, 439 DBL, 448a.73a515 αἰαῖ· φεῦ·, 448a.82 DBL, 536, 645b, 753d.1516 Alc. [226]517 , 536 EM, 719 EM, 727 DBL, 874str DBL LYR, 891ant DBL LYR, 1102 EM Med. 146 DBL LYR, 292 DBL EM, 330 DBL, 358 DBL LYR, 496, 1040 DBL, 1393 DBL Hcl. 535 DBL, 552 EM, 718 EM, 740 EM Hipp. 242 DBL φεῦ φεῦ τλήμων, 345 EM, 365 DBL LYR ἰώ μοι, φεῦ φεῦ, 431 DBL,

|| 509 Murray (1957): 1308 φῦ et ἔφυξας Heyse 510 421 suppl. Page 511 25 1 = F 333, 1 … 512 80 < > Gesner … 513 333 … 1 = F 25, 1, ubi vid. 514 45 init. Page 515 73 … ΑΙΑΙ·ΦΕΥ[ P. Oxy., post utramque interiectionem spatiolum in P. Mich. … 516 1 φεῦ̣ = fr. 12 φ[ + fr. 56 ]ευ[ : coniecerat Herwerden 517 226 παπαῖ < > / ὦ Dindorf: παπαῖ ὦ fere BOV: παῖ παῖ φεῦ φεῦ ἰὼ ἰώ LP: παπαῖ φεῦ παπαῖ φεῦ ἰὼ ἰώ. / ὦ Gaisford

240 | Lexicon 680 DBL, 778 DBL, 866 DBL LYR, 870 DBL LYR, 925, 936, 1078 EM, 1145 LYR, 1358 DBL LYR, 1415 EM And. 183 DBL EM Hec. 55 EM, 497 DBL, 785 DBL, 864 EM, 956 EM, 1238 DBL Supp. 463 DBL El. 120 DBL LYR, 244 DBL, 262 EM, 282 EM, 367 EM, 969 EM, 1327 DBL LYR Her. 217 EM, 460 EM, 1028 DBL EM LYR, 1195 DBL, 1397 EM Tro. 190 DBL EM LYR, 584 DBL LYR, 584 LYR, 618 DBL EM IT 156 DBL LYR, 472 EM, 559 EM, 576 DBL, 627 EM, 651 DBL, 861 DBL Ion 330 EM, 960 EM, 1312 EM, 1369 DBL, 1516 EM Hel. 229 DBL LYR, 777 DBL Ph. 246 DBL LYR, 1296 DBL LYR φεῦ δᾶ φεῦ δᾶ, 1425 DBL, 1740 LYR Or. 161 LYR, 327 LYR, 1052 EM, 1155 EM Ba. 1259 DBL IA 666 EM, 710 EM, 977 EM, 1124 EM Rh. 728 DBL LYR Ar. Ach. 457 EM Nu. 41 V. 309518 LYR ἀπαπαῖ φεῦ Av. 162 DBL EM, 1723–1724 DBL LYR ὢ φεῦ φεῦ Lys. 198 φεῦ δᾶ, 256–257 LYR, 312 LYR φεῦ τοῦ καπνοῦ, βαβαιάξ Th. 245 Ra. 141 EM Pl. 362 EM

φῦ φῦ [I am vexed] [3.6.7.7] no variant forms; combinations: φῦ φῦ. ἰοὺ ἰοὺ τοῦ καπνοῦ. (Ar); only in lyr. passages. IntPs: 2 (A. 0, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 2) 1. expressive of vexation, Ouch!, Ugh! Ar. Lys. 295str DBL EM LYR, 305ant DBL EM LYR

ψύττ’(α) [I want yousheep to move] [3.7.3.3] hapax legomenon; poss. identical with σίττα (Theocritus, five occ.); no combinations. IntPs: 1 (A. 0, S. 0, E. 1, Ar. 0)

|| 518 309 suppl. Hermann

ἆ—ὤμοι | 241

1. conative call on animals, Shoo! E. Cyc. 49 LYR

ὤ [I am surprised] [3.6.2.5] no variant forms; doubled in all four authors; occ. extra metrum; followed by κακοδαίμων, μέλεος, τάλαιν’, τάλας; combinations: ἰοὺ ἰού, ὢ ὢ (A), (S), (E), ὢ φεῦ φεῦ (Ar); occasionally in lyr. passages; relatively formal register. IntPs: 101 (A. 5, S. 27, E. 10, Ar. 59) 1. expressive of vexation, Ho!, O!, Oh! 2. expressive of contented surprise, O!, Oh! A. Pers. Sept. Ag. Cho. Eu. S. Fr. Aj. El. Ant. Tr. Ph. OC

985519 TRI ὢ ὢ 947520 LYR 1214 DBL EM ἰοὺ ἰού, ὢ ὢ 942521 LYR 357522 LYR 61.1, 269b.2, 314.67 DBL LYR 372523 , 524 , 981 τάλας ἐγώ, τάλας 807 τάλαιν’ ἐγώ, 1209 τάλαιν’ ἐγώ 1211 QTN τάλας ἐγώ, 1319525 LYR 377526 , 888527 LYR, 972528 LYR 254, 254529 , 744530 , 531 LYR τάλας, 1101532 LYR τλάμων τλάμων, 1152533 LYR 220534 LYR ὤ· ἰοὺ ἰού, 224535 DBL LYR ἰὼ ὢ ὤ, 224536 DBL LYR, 337, 753 τάλας ἐγώ,

|| 519 985 ὢ ter Hermann: bis fere codd. 520 947 ὢ om. MFTr οἱ μέλεοι Wilamowitz 521 942 -ατ’ ὦ Seidler: -άτω Μ 522 357–361 lectio incertissima; ὧδ’ ἱέμεναι E. A. I. Ahrens 523 372 ὢ] ἰὼ t 524 903 ὢ Dawe: ὦ t: ἰὼ cett. 525 1319 σ’ ἔκανον ὢ Hermann: ἔκανον ὢ fere codd.: ’κανον ἰώ Bruhn 526 377 ὢ Zo et corr. Matthiae: ὦ cett. 527 888 ὢ μάταια Dawe: ὦ ματαῖα L: ὦ ματαία cett.: ὦ μαῖα Conington 528 972 ὢ μέλεος Dindorf: οἴμοι ἐγὼ σοῦ (Zo: σου cett.) μέλεος codd.: οἴμοι ἐγώ, πάτερ, ὢ μέλεος dubitanter Jebb 529 254 alterum ὢ] ὡς Sr 530 744 ὢ Zo: ὦ cett. 531 1083 ὢ Blaydes: ὣ L: ὦ vel ὁ cett. 532 1101 ὢ ZoT: ὦ cett. τλάμων bis codd. plerique: τλῆμον SrZg 533 1152 ὢ edd.: ὦ codd. 534 220 … ὤ· ἰοὺ ἰού Hermann et Reisig: ὢ ὤ, ἰού fere codd. 535 224 ἰὼ iterat a ὢ bis t, ter plerique

242 | Lexicon 847 τάλας ἐγώ, τάλας, 1338537 τάλας ἐγώ, 1401538 τάλας ἐγώ, 1438 τάλαιν’ ἐγώ E. Fr. 118.1, 753d.4539 Hipp. 362 LYR, 362 LYR Supp. 60540 LYR, 807541 El. 112str LYR, 127ant LYR, 585 LYR Tro. 335 LYR Ph. 295542 LYR Ba. 590 LYR Ar. Fr. 426 κακοδαίμων Ach. 334543 LYR V. 248 EM, 484 LYR, 900, 1060 LYR Pax 458str1 LYR ὢ εἶα, 460str2 LYR ὢ εἶα, 462 DBL LYR ὢ εἶα, ὢ εἶα, 468str4 LYR εἶα ὤ, 486ant1 LYR ὢ εἶα, 488ant2 LYR ὢ εἶα, 495ant4 LYR εἶα ὤ, 517 DBL LYR ὢ εἶά νυν, ὢ εἶα πᾶς, 518 LYR ὢ εἶα εἶα εἶά , 519 LYR ὢ εἶα εἶα εἶα πᾶς, 693 DBL EM, 1332 Ὑμὴν Ὑμήναι’ ὤ, 1333, 1335, 1336, 1344, 1345, 1349, 1350, 1355, 1356 (all = 1332) Av. 1722 LYR ὢ φεῦ φεῦ, (1736 LYR, 1737 LYR, 1742 LYR, 1754 LYR) Lys. 350544 LYR, 1271 LYR, 1303545 LYR ὢ εἶα Ec. 160, 970 LYR, 1098546 , 1112547 , 1163548 DBL Pl. 458, 1176

ὢ ὄπ [I want you to row] and [I want you to stop (rowing)] [3.7.3.4] also ὢ ὄπ· ὄπ; doubled once (Ar); no combinations; occ. in lyr. passages (Ar); neutral register. IntPs: 3 (A. 0, S. 0, E. 0, Ar. 3) 1. conative for ordering the pulling of the oar when rowing, O-op-op, O-op-op!, Woo-op! 2. fig. conative for ordering the stopping of something, Whoa! || 536 224 … post ὢ ὤ add. ἴθι z 537 1338 … ὢ r: ὦ cett. 538 1401 ὢ edd.: ὦ codd. 539 4 … ΩΜΟΙ pap. nunc : ἰώ μοι Gr.-H., “olim fortasse recte si fr. legerunt priusquam inter -ΠΥ ̀Λ ́ et ΩΜΟΙ fractum est” Cockle 540 60 ὤ Nauck: ὃ P 541 807 … ὢ Hermann: ὦ L 542 295 … ὢ Hermann: ὦ fere Ω̣XZTt et Fc: ω C: ἐν F: ὦ πολυνείκη CrL et Zr: om. A: [Π13] 543 334 ὢ] μὴ Elmsley 544 350 ὤ Boissonade: ὦ codd. 545 1303 ὢ εἶα Biset: εἶα ὢ εἶα pB: ωΐα R 546 1098 ὢ Ussher: ὦ RΓ 547 1112 ὢ Ussher: ὦ codd. 548 1163 ὢ ὤ] ὤ Zimmermann

ἆ—ὤμοι | 243

Ar. Av. 1395 LYR Ra. 180, 208549 DBL EM LYR ὢ ὄπ· ὄπ. ὢ ὄπ· ὄπ.

ὠή [I want you to pay attention to me] [3.7.2.2] no variant forms; no combinations; occ. in lyr. passages (S, E); repeated with μάλ’ αὖθις (E); formal register. IntPs: 11 (A. 1, S. 1, E. 9, Ar. 0) 1. conative call for attention, summons, Ah!, Ahoy!, Ho!, Ho there!, You there! A. Eu. S. Fr. E. Cyc. Her. IT Ion Hel. Pho.

94 269c.25 LYR 51 LYR 1106 1304 907 LYR 435, 1180 269, 1067, 1069 μάλ’ αὖθις

ὤμοι [I feel contempt] [3.6.3.6] no variant forms; cf. ᾤμωξα (A, E), ᾤμωξε(ν) (A, S, E, Ar), ᾤμωξας (Ar); occ. followed by μοί (μοι) (A, S, E), τάλαιν’, τάλας (S), ἐγώ (E); repeated (with μάλ’ (αὖθις)) (A, S, E); occ. extra metrum; combination: ὤμοι αἰαῖ (E); freq. in lyr. passages; formal register. IntPs: 82 (A. 7, S. 27, E. 43, Ar. 5) 1. expressive of vexation, Ah!, Ah, ah!, Ah me!, My!, O, alas!, Oh!, Oh, oh! 2. expressive of grief, Alack!, Alas! A. Pers. Sept. Ag. PV S. Aj.

253 655 1343, 1345, 1494 ὤμοι μοι LYR, 1518 ὤμοι μοι LYR (= 1494) 980 227550 LYR, 233 LYR, 340 τάλαιν’, 610551 ὤμοι μοι LYR, 900552 LYR, 901 LYR, 909553 LYR, 946554 LYR, 980, 1205 LYR

|| 549 208 v. om. R exclamationem ter praebet V. Dover (1993): “the accentuation is very varied in the MSS” 550 227 ὤμοι rpD: ὤιμοι L: οἴμοι a 551 610 ὤμοι μοι t: ἰώ cum μοι bis terve repetito [codd.?] 552 900 et 901 ὤμοι t: ἰώ μοι Lrpa 553 909 ὤμοι t: ἰώ μοι codd. plerique

244 | Lexicon El. 1415 LYR, 1416 LYR Ant. 1265555 LYR, 1317 ὤμοι μοι LYR, 1341 LYR Ph. 796 ὤμοι μοι EM, 934 τάλας, 1086556 ὤμοι μοί μοι EM LYR, 1229, 1265 OC 202 LYR, 213 LYR, 216 LYR, 519557 EM LYR, 529, 982 ὤμοι μοι, 1713558 LYR E. Fr. 781.111 Cyc. 228, 663, 665 Med. 1399559 LYR Hipp. 591 LYR ἐγὼ, 817560 LYR ἐγὼ, 844561 LYR ὤμοι μοι And. 113 LYR ἐγὼ, 513str LYR ὤμοι μοι, 535ant LYR ὤμοι μοι, 1070562 EM, 1173 LYR ἐγὼ, [1206]563 ὤμοι μοι Hec. 158564 , 475, 476, 702565 LYR ὤμοι αἰαῖ, 1035, 1037566 , 1056 LYR ἐγώ, 1098 LYR, 1124 Her. 485, 1065567 LYR Tro. 138 LYR, 251568 LYR ὤμοι μοι, 265569 LYR ἐγώ, 1091570 LYR IT 870 LYR Ion 763 LYR, 984, 1473571 LYR Hel. [540]572 , 676573 ἐγὼ, 688 Pho. 1493574 LYR, 1550 LYR, 1551575 LYR, 1559576 LYR Or. 1381577 LYR ὤμοι μοι

|| 554 946 ὤμοι t: ἰώ μοι Lγρ 555 1265 ὤμοι t: ἰώ μοι cett. 556 1986 ὤμοι] οἴμοι a 557 519 ὤμοι Hermann: ἰώ μοι codd. 558 1713 ὤμοι Wecklein: ἰὼ μὴ LVrat: ἰὼ μοὶ T s.l.: μὴ z 559 1399 ὤ(ι)μοι Ω̣: αἲ αἲ uel αἶ αἶ OLP et V3γρ 560 817 ὤμοι BOAΛ̣ (ὤιμ- BOA) et gB: οἴμοι V: ἰώ μοι D: [M] 561 844 ὤμοι Ω̣ (ὤιμ- OA) et V3γρ: ἰώ μοι μοι fere BVELP: ἰώ μοι CD 562 1070 ὤμοι HMODAV: ἰώ μοι LP et V2 563 1206 del. Matthiae ὤμοι μοι fere MAVL: ἰώ μοι μοι P: om. O 564 158 … ὤμοι μοι Ω̣ξ: οἴμοι μοι Ζ: ὤμοι ὤμοι P: οἴμοι οἴμοι ΖcΤt: οἴμοι ΜLΖm 565 702 ὤμοι] ἰώ μοι OP: οἰώ μοι μοι Z; [Π1] 566 1037 οἴμοι GK 567 1065 … ὤμοι Hermann: ἰώ μοι L 568 251 ὤμοι μοι Hermann: ἰώ μοι (μοί V) μοι VPQ: ὤμοι Diggle: cf. 578 569 265 ὤμοι P: οἴμοι VQ 570 1091 ὤμοι V: ἔμοι P 571 1473 ὤμοι Tr2: ἰώ μοι P 572 530–540 del. Willink 541 ὤμοι Bothe (1823), denuo Dobree: ὥς μοι L: οἴμοι Musgrave 573 676 ἐγὼ Badham: ἐμῶν L 574 1493–1494 ὤμοι OA (ὤι- O): ὤμοι μοι Ω̣XZTt (ὤι- B): ἰώμοι μοι Cr 575 1551–1552 ὤμοι OAPSWXZTt (ὤι- O) et Mγρ: ὤμοι μοι Ω̣ (ὤι- BR): ...ο̣ι̣ Π5 ἐγὼ W et Mγρ: ἐμῶν (Π5) Ω̣XZTt (τῶν ἐμῶν V): utrumque probum (cf. Hi. 591, 817, Rh. 902, Hec. 475, 1098; eadem confusio Hel. 676, Or. 671) 576 1559 ὤμοι Tt: ο̣ι̣[μοι] uel ο̣μ̣[οι] Π5: ἰώμοι Ω̣: ὤμοιμοι FRf: ἰώμοιμοι GZ: ἰώμοι ἰώμοι AX: ὤμοι ἐγώ W et Mγρ

ἆ—ὤμοι | 245

Rh. Ar. Fr. Nu.

902 LYR ἐγὼ, 903 LYR 591.67 925578 , 925, 1462579 , 1473580

|| 577 1381 ωμ]ο̣ι̣ μ̣[οι Π17; ωμοι κ]ακων Demetr. Laco ap. P. Herc. 1012 (p. 157 Puglia) 578 Dover (1990): 925 Ητ. om. N: Δι. Kac pr. et alt. ὤμοι] ὤιμοι R: ᾤμοι Θ: οἴμοι V 579 1462 ὤμοι EΘL: οἴμοι RVKN 580 1473 ὤμοι] οἴμοι EpcΘ, Su. χ 617

6 Summary and conclusions This study has offered a linguistic account of the interjections in Ancient Greek, based on the following assumptions: these interjections, being transmitted via texts and situated in human communication and speech, are a part of language and, in one way or another, convey meaning. Strictly speaking, interjections also display non-linguistic features, and it would therefore be erroneous to suppose that linguistics can describe every aspect of them. There have, however, been few linguistic studies of interjections based on a clear definition and following a transparent theoretical model. This study has been an attempt at filling this gap as far as Ancient Greek is concerned. Besides giving an unequivocal definition of interjections as a whole, I have also provided definitions for three distinct categories of interjections as well as individual definitions for all the extant interjections.

6.1 Summary of introduction All the interjections found in fifth-century Greek drama have been examined here, with a particular focus on expressive interjections. The theoretical model chosen as a basis is transparent, making it easier to extend its results, and covers the morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics of interjections. The theoretical approach of Ameka (1992a) has proven applicable to the ancient material on most points but had to be modified in part, because his structural-semantic classification is based on functional criteria. In the discussion of the semantics and pragmatics of interjections, the main emphasis is on semantics. It is assumed that there is a synchronically, invariant core meaning for each word as well as for each group of words. The employed moderate minimalist approach allows in special cases for more than one meaning for each item, but assumes these meanings to be somehow related. After presenting and motivating the corpus, I give a survey of the scholarly studies on which my own approach is based, paying special attention to Ameka’s definition and classification as the starting-points for my investigation. I explain why the study only deals with primary interjections and excludes secondary ones, understood as belonging to other parts of speech. A presentation is made of the division into three main categories and then of the individual objects of study, mentioning here those items not treated in this study. A general characteristic of the three categories, with Schourup’s continuum of increasing word-likeness applied to it, gives the following results. The cona-

Semantics | 247

tive and phatic categories mostly stay close to the more word-like area (most closely resembling “ordinary” language), but some conative items more or less always stay in the less word-like area, with little or no resemblance to language. The expressive category proved to be the most variable, as well as the most numerous, its members appearing able to occur in all areas of this model of explanation, forming language as well as non-language. The survey of previous scholarship includes both interjection studies in general and, in particular, those pertaining to Ancient Greek.

6.2 Syntax Interjections in the three categories are here shown to fulfil the criteria for belonging to the class only to a varying degree. While, according to Ameka’s morphological definition, interjections are normally indeclinable, several items here display variant forms, e.g. by repetition of whole words or parts of words, addition of the prefix ἰ- and suffix -άξ (a feature only of some items in category 1). Already at this stage it becomes clear that the class of interjections is heterogeneous in its fulfilment of the classification criteria. A brief section on word order shows that the initial is the most frequent position, although medial or “interjected” as well as final positions also occur. The interjections also display certain phonological characteristics, such as a frequent use of diphthongs or the alternative initial ἰ- or final –άξ; they only rarely deviate from the normal phonological rules of Ancient Greek. Once again, interjections of class 1 display the greatest variability in this respect. The section on the syntax of words in category 1 provides examples of freestanding interjections, warranting their status as clause-equivalent. Interjections are considered an aberrant part of language, yet they do enter into constructions with “regular” language according to certain rules, including specific rules for word order in the various strings of NPs frequently following interjections in category 1. A phrase schema is presented plotting the internal order of such NPs and giving a detailed description of the five possible positions following the interjectional headword.

6.3 Semantics Words must fulfil certain formal criteria to be considered interjections, mainly an ability to form non-elliptical utterances on their own and being indeclinable. Given that, the semantic criterion is the next most important one in defining the

248 | Summary and conclusions class of interjections. According to Ameka’s semantic definition, interjections express the speaker’s mental state, action or attitude, or reaction to a situation. Ameka’s classification, however, based on the different meanings predicated by interjections as well as on their communicative functions, does not make a sufficient distinction between semantics and pragmatics. According to the definition adopted here, interjections can be divided into distinct categories based on semantic features. These, in turn, are defined according to Kaplan’s concept of informational equivalence. The categories are: (1) expressive interjections, the main semantic property of which is the expression of the speaker’s experience of emotion and/or cognition; (2) conative interjections, express what the speaker wants the addressee or auditor to do; (3), phatic interjections, express the speaker’s attitude towards the discourse situation itself, or some part of it. Interjections of category 1 are the most frequent and therefore receive the most attention. On the sentence level, it is possible to classify the interjections of the three categories into three different clause types (expressive, imperative, declarative) but not necessarily among exclamatives; the latter is a secondary feature possible for all the clause types. An explicit core meaning is presented for the three categories, and they are subsequently divided into subgroups, containing (category 1) items expressive of surprise, pain and vexation, grief and joy, (category 2) items expressive of calls and exhortations, and (category 3) expressive of agreement or compliance. The individual items are presented in detail, and their analysis is supplemented and supported by comments from editors and other scholars. An explicit core meaning is assigned to each of the three categories; these are subsequently subdivided as follows: items expressive of surprise, pain and vexation, grief or joy (category 1); items expressive of calls, appeals and exhortations (category 2); items expressive of agreement or compliance (category 3). The individual items are described in detail, the analysis being supplemented and corroborated by citations of other scholars. Phonetic and sound symbolic features are shown to unite the three categories to some extent, making it sometimes difficult to categorize certain items. For example, ἒ ἔ, an interjection of lamentation, seems to some extent to imitate or represent the crying itself, apart from expressing the speaker’s experience of it. Interjections can both function like “normal” language, typically describing and expressing states, attitudes and processes, sometimes as such also forming “regular” parts of speech (i.e. verbs, nouns, adjectives etc.), and like vocal gestures, indicative of states, attitudes and processes, rather than verbalizing them.

Lexicon | 249

6.4 Pragmatics This chapter claims that interjections of all categories have a primary, pragmatic funtion, being used in actual contexts in which speaker, auditor, theme, etc., are specified, thus making their usage fully interpretable. Consequently, the main function of each category is the expression of the core semantics in a specified context. This claim is supported by the specification of felicity conditions, i.e. what needs to be the case in order for an interjection to be felicitously uttered and, consequently, interpreted. It is also shown that interjections have several secondary functions, as well. I present five of the most common, which are (1) borrowing of the core semantics of one item from another category, (2) functioning as a commentary marker, (3) functioning as a parallel marker, (4) functioning as a discourse marker and (5) deliberate flouting of the felicity conditions, which is also known as paratragedy.

6.5 Lexicon An alphabetical lexicon of the interjections is provided, recording all the extant occurrences of each of the items, including details on their variant forms, register, textual problems and meaning. Under each lemma, I supply examples of items occurring in combination, as well as notes on meter and register. The total number of IntPs is given, followed by the statistics for the individual authors. The various senses conveyed by each item are listed, followed by English translations taken from the Loeb series. Finally, all the occurrences are listed chronologically, starting with Aeschylus and ending with Aristophanes. The internal order of their works is also chronological.

References Critical editions, commentaries, translations Aeschylus Broadhead, Henry Dan (ed.). 1960. The Persae of Aeschylus. Cambridge Denniston, John Dewar & Denys Lionel Page (eds.). 1957. Aeschylus: Agamemnon. Oxford: Clarendon Press Enger, Robert (ed.). 1895. Æschylos’ Agamemnon. 3. Aufl. Leipzig: Teubner Fraenkel, Eduard (ed.). 1950 . Aeschylus: Agamemnon. Oxford: Clarendon Press Friis-Johansen, Holger & Whittle, Edward W. (eds.). 1980. Aeschylus: Supplices. København: Nordisk forlag Garvie, A. F. (ed.). 1988. Aeschylus: Choephori. Oxford: Clarendon Press Griffith, Mark (ed.). 1983. Aeschylus: Prometheus Bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hutchinson, Gregory Owen (ed.). 1985. Aeschylus: Septem contra Thebas. Oxford: Clarendon Press Murray, Gilbert (ed.). 1964. Aeschyli septem quae supersunt tragoediae. Editio altera. Oxonii: Clarendon Press Page, Denys Lionel (ed.). 1972. Aeschyli septem quae supersunt tragoedias. Oxonii: Clarendon Press Podlecki, Anthony J. (ed.). 1989. Aeschylus: Eumenides. Warminster: Aris and Philips Radt, Stefan (red.). 1985. Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Vol. 3, Aeschylus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Sandin, Pär (ed.). 2005. Aeschylus: Supplices. Corrected edn. Lund: Symmachus Sidgwick, A. (ed.). 1953. Aeschylus: Persae. Oxford: Clarendon Press Sommerstein, Alan H. (ed.). 1989. Aeschylus: Eumenides. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Sommerstein, Alan H. (ed.) 2008a. Aeschylus. 1: Persians; Seven Against Thebes; Suppliants; Prometheus Bound. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Sommerstein, Alan H. (ed.). 2008b. Aeschylus. 2: Agamemnon; Libation-Bearers; Eumenides. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Sommerstein, Alan H. (ed.). 2008c. Aeschylus. 3: Fragments. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press

Sophocles Davies, Malcolm (ed.). 1991. Sophocles: Trachiniae. Oxford: Clarendon Press Dawe, Roger David (ed.). 1982. Sophocles: Oedipus Rex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Diggle, James. 1996. Sophocles: Ichneutae (fr. 314 Radt). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 112. 3–17.

Critical editions, commentaries, translations | 251

Easterling, P. E. (ed.). 1982. Sophocles: Trachiniae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffith, Mark (ed.). 1999. Sophocles: Antigone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jebb, Richard Claverhouse (ed.). 1966. The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. 4th edn., repr. London Kamerbeek, Jan Coenraad. 1953–1984. The Plays of Sophocles: Commentaries. Leiden: Brill Kells, John Henry (ed.). 1973. Sophocles: Electra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh & Nigel Guy Wilson (eds.). 1990. Sophoclis fabulae. Oxonii: Oxford University Press Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. 1994a. Sophocles. 1: Ajax; Electra; Oedipus Tyrannus. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. 1994b. Sophocles. 2: Antigone; The Women of Trachis; Philoctetes; Oedipus at Colonus. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. 1996. Sophocles. 3: Fragments. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Radt, Stefan (red.). 1977. Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Vol. 4, Sophocles. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Shuckburgh, Evelyn Shirley. (ed.). 1906. Sophocles: Philoctetes. With a commentary abridged from the larger edition of Richard C. Jebb. London: Cambridge University Press Stanford, William Bedell (ed.). 1979[1963]. Sophocles: Ajax. New York: Arno Press Steffen, Wiktor. 1960. Sophocles: Ichneutai. Varsoviae: PWN Webster, Thomas Bertram Lonsdale (ed.). 1970. Sophocles: Philoctetes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Euripides Barlow, Shirley A. (ed.). 1986. Euripides: Trojan Women. Warminster: Aris and Phillips Barrett, William Spencer (ed.). 1964. Euripides: Hippolytos. Oxford: Clarendon Press Bond, Godfrey William (ed.). 1988. Euripides: Heracles. Oxford: Clarendon Press Collard, Christopher (ed.). 1975. Euripides: Supplices. Groningen Collard, Christopher (ed.). 1991. Euripides: Hecuba. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Collard, Christopher & Martin Cropp. 2008a. Euripides. 7: Fragments. Aegeus–Meleager. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Collard, Christopher & Martin Cropp. 2008b. Euripides. 8: Fragments. Oedipus–Chrysippus; Other Fragments. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Dale, Amy Marjorie (ed.). 1954. Euripides: Alcestis. Oxford: Clarendon Press Dale, Amy Marjorie (ed.). 1967. Euripides: Helen. Oxford: Clarendon Press Denniston, John Dewar (ed.). 1939. Euripides: Electra. London: Oxford University Press Diggle, James (ed.). 1970. Euripides: Phaethon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Diggle, James (ed.). 1981. Euripidis fabulae. T. 2, Insunt Supplices, Electra, Hercules, Troades, Iphigenia in Tauris, Ion. Oxonii: Clarendon Press Diggle, James (ed.). 1984. Euripidis fabulae. T. 1, Insunt Cyclops, Alcestis, Medea, Heraclidae, Hippolytus, Andromacha, Hecuba. Oxonii: Clarendon Press Diggle, James (ed.). 1994. Euripidis fabulae. T. 3, Insunt Helena, Phoenissae, Orestes, Bacchae, Iphigenia Aulidensis, Rhesus. Oxonii: Clarendon Press Dodds, Eric Robertson (ed.). 1960. Euripides: Bacchae. 2nd edn. Oxford: University Press Gregory, Justina (ed.). 1999. Euripides: Hecuba. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press

252 | References Kannicht, Richard (ed.). 1969. Euripides: Helena. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Kannicht, Richard (red.). 2004a. Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Vol. 5:1, Euripides. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Kannicht, Richard (red.). 2004b. Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Vol. 5:2, Euripides. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Kovacs, David. 1994. Euripides. [1:] Cyclops; Alcestis; Medea. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Kovacs, David. 1995. Euripides. 2: Children of Heracles; Hippolytus; Andromache; Hecuba. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Kovacs, David. 1998. Euripides. 3: Suppliant Women; Electra; Heracles. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Kovacs, David. 1999. Euripides. 4: Trojan women; Iphigenia among the Taurians; Ion. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Kovacs, David. 2002a. Euripides. 5: Helen; Phoenician Women; Orestes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Kovacs, David. 2002b. Euripides. 6: Bacchae; Iphigenia at Aulis; Rhesus. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Lennep, D. F. W. van (ed.). 1949. Euripides: Alcestis. Leyden: Brill Mastronarde, Donald J. (ed.). 1994. Euripides: Phoenissae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Mastronarde, Donald J. (ed.). 2002. Euripides: Medea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Mitchell-Boyask, Robin. 2006. Euripides: Hecuba. Newburyport MA: Focus Publishing, R. Pullins & Company, Inc. Owen, Arthur Synge (ed.). 1939. Euripides: Ion. Oxford: Clarendon Press Page, Denys Lionel (ed.). 1955[1938]. Euripides: Medea. London: Oxford University Press Parker, L. P. E. (ed.). 2007. Euripides: Alcestis. Oxford: Oxford University Press Platnauer, Maurice (ed.). 1956[1938]. Euripides: Iphigenia in Tauris. Oxford: Clarendon Press Seaford, Richard (ed.). 1988. Euripides: Cyclops. Oxford: Clarendon Press Stevens, Phillip Theodore (ed.). 1971. Euripides: Andromache. Oxford: Clarendon Press Stockert, Walter (ed.). 1992. Euripides: Iphigenie in Aulis. Wien: Vlg der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Thompson, John & T. R. Mills (eds.). 1901. Euripides: Medea. London: University Tutorial Press Tyrrell, Robert Yelverton (ed.). 1897. Euripides: Troades. London: Macmillan Wilkins, John (ed.). 1993. Euripides: Heracles. Oxford: Clarendon Press Willink, Charles W. (ed.). 1986. Euripides: Orestes. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Aristophanes Austin, Colin & S. Douglas Olson (eds.). 2004. Aristophanes: Thesmphoriazusae. Oxford: Oxford University Press Dover, Kenneth James (ed.). 1989. Aristophanes: Clouds. Oxford: Clarendon Press Dover, Kenneth James (ed.). 1993. Aristophanes: Frogs. Oxford: Clarendon Press Dunbar, Nan (ed.). 1995. Aristophanes: Birds. Oxford: Clarendon Press Hall, F. W. & W. M. Geldart (eds.). 1906. Aristophanis Comoediae 1. Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes, Vespas, Pacem, Aves continens. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press

General bibliography | 253

Hall, F. W. & W. M. Geldart (eds.). 1907. Aristophanis Comoediae 2. Lysistratam, Thesmophoriazusas, Ranas, Ecclesiazusas, Plutum, Fragmenta, indicem nominum continens. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press Henderson, Jeffrey (ed.). 1987. Aristophanes: Lysistrata. Oxford: Clarendon Press Henderson, Jeffrey. 1998a. Aristophanes. 1: Acharnians; Knights. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Henderson, Jeffrey. 1998b. Aristophanes. 2: Clouds; Wasps; Peace. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Henderson, Jeffrey. 2000. Aristophanes. 3: Birds; Lysistrata; Women at the Thesmophoria. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Henderson, Jeffrey. 2002. Aristophanes. 4: Frogs; Assemblywomen; Wealth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Henderson, Jeffrey. 2007. Aristophanes. Fragments. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Hirschig, R. B. (ed.). 1847. Aristophanis Vespae cum scholiis selectis. Lugduni Batavorum Holden, Hubert (ed.). (1869). Aristophanis comoediae quae supersunt cum perditarum fragmentis. Cantabrigiae Kassel, Rudolf & Colin Austin (eds.). 1984. Poetae comici Graeci. Vol. 3.2 Aristophanes: Testimonia et fragmenta. Berolini et Novi Eboraci: de Gruyter Kock, Theodor (ed.). 1862. Ausgewählte Komödien des Aristophanes. Bdch. 1: Die Wolken. 2., gänzlich umgearbeitete Aufl. Berlin: Weidmann van Leeuwen, Jan (ed.). 1904. Aristophanis Plutus. Lugduni Batavorum: Sijthoff MacDowell, Douglas Maurice (ed.). 1982. Aristophanes: Wasps. London: Clarendon Press Meineke, August (ed.). 1860. Aristophanis comoediae. Lipsiae: Tauchnitz Müller, Albert (ed.). 1863. Aristophanes: Acharnenses. Hannover Neil, Robert Alexander (ed.). 1901. The Knights of Aristophanes. Cambridge: University Press Olson, S. Douglas (ed.). 1998. Aristophanes: Peace. Oxford: Clarendon Press Olson, S. Douglas (ed.). 2002. Aristophanes: Acharnians. Oxford: Oxford University Press Platnauer, Maurice (ed.). 1964. Aristophanes: Peace. Oxford: Clarendon Press Richter, Julius (ed.). 1858. Aristophanes: Vespae. Berolini Stanford, William Bedell (ed.). 1958. Aristophanes: The Frogs. London: Macmillan Starkie, W. J. M. (ed.). 1968. The Wasps of Aristophanes. Amsterdam: Hakkert Teuffel, Wilhelm Sigmund (ed.). 1867. Die Wolken des Aristophanes. Leipzig: Teubner Turner, J. Hilton (ed.). 1982. Aristophanes’ Lysistrata. Bryn Mawr commentaries. Bryn Mawr PA.: The Department of Greek Ussher, Robert Glenn (ed.). 1973. Aristophanes: Ecclesiazusae. London: Oxford University Press Wilson, Nigel Guy (ed.). 2007a. Aristophanis fabulae. T. 1: Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes, Vespae, Pax, Aves. Oxford: Clarendon Press Wilson, Nigel Guy (ed.). 2007b. Aristophanis fabulae. T. 2: Lysistrata, Thesmophoriazusae, Ranae, Ecclesiazusae, Plutus. Oxford: Clarendon Press

General bibliography Allan, K. 2006. Mood, Clause Types, and Illocutionary Force. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd edn., 267–271. Amsterdam: Elsevier

254 | References Almela, Pérez Ramon. 1985. Apuntes gramaticales sobre la interjección. Murcia: Facultad de Letras, Universidad de Murcia, Secretariado de Publicaciones. Ameka, Felix. 1992a. Interjections: the universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18(2–3). 101–118. Ameka, Felix. 1992b. The meaning of phatic and conative interjections. Journal of Pragmatics 18(2–3). 245–271. Ameka, Felix. 2006. Interjections. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd edn., 743–746. Amsterdam: Elsevier Angermeyer, A. 1979. Die Interjektion. Linguistik und Didaktik 10. 39–50. Ashdowne, R. 2008. E-vocative Invocation: on the Historical Morphosyntax of Latin “Oaths”. In Roger Wright (ed.), Latin vulgaire – latin tardif VIII: Actes du VIIIe Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Oxford, 6–9 septembre 2006. 13–25. Hildesheim: OlmsWeidmann Baechle, Nicholas. (2007). Metrical Constraint and the Interpretation of Style in the Tragic Trimeter. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Bain, David. 1981. Masters, Servants and Orders in Greek Tragedy: A Study of some Aspects of Dramatic Technique and Convention. Manchester: Manchester University Press Bakker, Egbert J. 1997. Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts. Leiden: Brill Bary, Corien. 2009. Aspect in Ancient Greek: A Semantic Analysis of the Aorist and Imperfective. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen thesis Baum, R. (1998). The Interjection. A Problematic Notion. Abhandlungen zur Sprache und Literatur 117. 49–64. Belfrage, Sixten. 1909. Interjektionerna. En språkpsykologisk studie. Språk och Stil 9. 159– 173. Betz, Hans Dieter (ed.). 1986. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation: Including the Demotic Spells. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman Biraud, Michèle. 2004. Les valeurs illocutoires des interjections du grec classique dans les Oiseaux d’Aristophane. L’Information Grammaticale 101. 44–49. Biraud, Michèle. 2010. Les interjections du théâtre grec antique: Étude sémantique et pragmatique. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters Boegehold, Alan L. 1999. When a Gesture was Expected: A Selection of Examples from Archaic and Classical Greek Literature. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press Bornemann, Eduard. 1978. Griechische Grammatik. 2. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg Bourdon, Benjamin. 1892. L’expression des émotions et des tendances dans le langage. Paris: F. Alcan Braund, Susanna Morton & Glenn W. Most (reds.). 2003. Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen. New York: Cambridge University Press Brioso Sánchez, M. 1971. El vocativo y la interjección ὦ. Habis 2. 35–48. Brøndal, Viggo. 1928. Ordklasserne = partes orationis: studier over de sproglige kategorier. Kjøbenhavn: G. E. C. Gad Brown, Keith (ed.). 2006. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier Brownson, Carleton L. 2006. Xenophon: Anabasis. Revised by John Dillery. Reprinted with corrections. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press

General bibliography | 255

Brun-Laloire, Louis. 1930. Interjection, langage et parole. Revue de philologie Française 42(2). 209–227. Brunius-Nilsson, Elisabeth. 1955. Δαιμόνιε: An Inquiry into a Mode of Apostrophe in Old Greek Literature. Uppsala: Ph.D. dissertation Burger, H. 1980. Interjektionen. In H. Sitta (ed.), Ansätze zu einer pragmatischen Sprachgeschichte. Zürcher Kolloquium 1978. 53–69. Tübingen Buridant, C. (ed.). 2006. L’interjection: jeux et enjeux [Special issue]. Langages 161. Calame, Claude. 2001. Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece: Their Morphology, Religious Role, and Social Function. New and rev. edn. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Campbell, David A. (ed.). 1992. Greek Lyric IV: Bacchylides, Corinna and Others. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Cardinaletti, Anna & Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Henk C. van Riemsdijk (red.). Clitics in the languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Chantraine, Pierre. 1968–1980. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots. Paris Childs, G. Tucker. 1994. African ideophones. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols & J. Ohala (eds.), Sound symbolism, 178–204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cohen, Gerald Leonard. 1988. Interjections as a source of standard morphological elements. In G. L. Cohen (ed.), Pursuit of Linguistic Insight, 121–134. University of Missouri-Rolla Cole, Susan Guettel. 2004. Landscapes, Gender, and Ritual Space: The Ancient Greek Experience. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press Colvin, Stephen. 1999. Dialect in Aristophanes and the Politics of Language in Ancient Greek Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press Coseriu, Eugenio. 1980. Partikeln und Sprachtypus. Zur strukturell-funktionellen Fragestellung in der Sprachtypologie. In Eugenio Coseriu, Harald Thun, Jens Lüdtke & Jörn Albrecht (reds.) (1988), Energeia und Ergon: sprachliche Variation, Sprachgeschichte, Sprachtypologie. Bd 1, Schriften von Eugenio Coseriu (1965–1987), 185–193. Tübingen: Narr Coulmas, Florian (ed.). 1981. Conversational routine. The Hague: Mouton Crespo, Emilio, Jesús De La Villa & Antonio R. Revuelta (reds.). 2006. Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek. Proceedings of the Conference on “Greek Syntax and Word Classes” held in Madrid on 18–21, June 2003. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters Cuenca, Maria Josep. 2000. Defining the indefinable?: Interjections. Syntaxis 3. 29–44. Davidson, Donald. 1978. What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry 5(1). 31–47. Davidson, Donald. 1993. Locating literary langugae. In Reed Way Dasenbrock (red.), Literary Theory after Davidson, 295–308. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press Davis, Wayne A. 2005. Nondescriptive Meaning and Reference: An Ideational Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press De La Villa, Jesús. 2006. Adverbs as a part of speech in Ancient Greek. In Emilio Crespo, Jesús De La Villa & Antonio R. Revuelta (eds.), Word classes and related topics in Ancient Greek, 441–453. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters Del Vecchio, Tommaso. 2000. Evidence for zero metrical value of interjections in Plautus. In Gualtiero Calboli (red.), Papers on Grammar V, 57–72. Bologna: CLUEB Denniston, John Dewar. 1975. The Greek Particles. 2nd edn. London: Clarendon Press Deubner, Ludwig. 1941. Ololyge und Verwandtes. Berlin: Akademie des Wissenschaften in Kommision bei W. de Gruyter

256 | References Dickey, Eleanor. 1996. Greek Forms of Address: from Herodotus to Lucian. Oxford: Clarendon Press Diderichsen, Paul. 1971[1962]. Elementær dansk grammatik. 3rd edn. København: Gyldendal Dik, Helma. 2007. Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press Dindorf, Wilhelm. 1870. Lexicon Sophocleum. Lipsiae Dindorf, Wilhelm. 1876. Lexicon Aeschyleum. Lipsiae Dingemanse, Mark. 2011. Ideophones and the Aesthetics of Everyday Language in a WestAfrican Society. The Senses and Society 6(1). 77–85. Drummen, Annemieke. 2009. Discourse cohesion in dialogue. Turn-initial ἀλλά in Greek drama. In Stéphanie Bakker & Gerry Wakker (eds.), Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, 135–154. Leiden: Brill Ehlich, Konrad. 1986. Interjektionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer Ekman, Paul. 1992. An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6(3–4). 169–200. Ekman, Paul. 1999. Basic Emotions. In T. Dalgleish & T. Power (eds.), The Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, 45–60. Sussex, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Ellendt, Friedrich. 1872. Lexicon Sophocleum: adhibitis veterum interpretum explicationibus, grammaticorum notationibus, recentiorum doctorum commentariis. 2nd edn, emendata Berolini Fillmore, Charles J. 1971. Types of lexical information. In D. Steinberg & L. Jacobovitz (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, 370– 393. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Flickinger, Roy C. 1908. The accusative of exclamation in Plautus and Terence. American Journal of Philology 29(3). 303–315. Fortson, Benjamin W. 2004. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3). 383–398. Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2). 167–190. Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31. 931–952. Fraser, Bruce. 2006. Towards a theory of discourse markers. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles, 189–204. Amsterdam: Elsevier Fraser, Bruce. 2009. Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 892–898. Fries, Norbert. 1991. Zur Grammatik von Interjektionen. In Neue Fragen der Linguistik: Akten des 25. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Paderborn 1990. Bd 1, Bestand und Entwicklung, 283–295. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag Fries, Norbert. 1992. Interjektionen, Interjektionsphrasen und Satzmodus. Journal of Pragmatics 18(2–3). 307–341. Frisk, Hjalmar. 1954–1972. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter Gildersleeve, Basil Lanneau. 1900. Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes. P. 1. New York: American Book Company Glare, P. G. W. (ed.). 1982. Oxford Latin Dictionary. New, combined edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell Goodwin, William Watson. 1900. A Greek Grammar. Rev. and enlarged edn. Boston Graffi, Giorgio. 1996. L’interiezioni tra i grammatici greci e i grammatici latini. Iling 19. 11–18. Graffi, Giorgio. 2001. 200 Years of Syntax: A Critical Survey. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Granger, Frank. 1915. The influence of the interjection on the development of the sentence. The Classical Review 29(1). 12–18.

General bibliography | 257

Greenberg, G. R. 1984. Left dislocation, topicalization, and interjections. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2(3). 283–287. Haegeman, L. 1984. Interjections and Phrase Structure. Linguistics 22.1(269). 41–49. Hale, Mark. 2007. Historical Linguistics: Theory and Method. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Halliwell, Stephen. 2008. Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Henderson, Jeffrey. 1975. The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic comedy. New Haven: Yale University Press Henderson, Jeffrey (ed.). 2009. Longus: Daphnis and Chloe. Xenophon of Ephesus: Anthia and Habrocomes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Hermann, Eduard. 1913. Über die primären Interjektionen. Indo-germanische Forschungen 31. 24–34. Heyse, Johan Christian August. 1908. Dr. Joh. Christ. Aug. Heyses Deutsche Grammatik oder Lehrbuch der Deutschen Sprache. 27. Aufl. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung Hirth, Friedrich. 1869. De interiectionum usu Plautino Terentianoque: Comment. philol. Rostochii Ideforss, Hjalmar. 1928. De primära interjektionerna i nysvenskan. 1, Primära impulsioner och imperationer. Lund: Gleerupska univ.-bokhandeln James, Deborah M. 1972. Some aspects of the syntax and semantics of interjections. In Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi & Gloria C. Phares (reds.) Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 162–172. James, Deborah M. 1973. The Syntax and Semantics of Some English Interjections. University of Michigan: Ph.D. dissertation. Kaimio, Maarit. 1977. Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica Kaplan, David. 2004. The Meaning of “Ouch” and “Oops”. A Howison Lecture in Philosophy. UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures. UCTV: University of California Television. http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=8593 (25 June, 2015) Karcevskij, Sergej. 1941. Introduction à l’étude de l’interjection. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 1. 57–75. Kaster, Robert A. 2005. Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome. London: Oxford University Press Kidd, Stephen. 2011. Laughter Interjections in Greek Comedy. The Classical Quarterly 61(2). 445–459. Kiefer, Karl. 1908. Körperlicher Schmerz auf der attischen Bühne. Heidelberg: Ph.D. dissertation. Kilian-Hatz, C. 2006. Ideophones. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd edn., 508–512. Amsterdam: Elsevier Klotz, Reinhold (ed.). 1835. Matthaei Devarii Liber de Graecae linguae particularis. Vol. 1, Devarii librum continens. Lipsiae: Baumgaertneri Knapp, Mark L. & Judith A. Hall. 2006. Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. 6th edn. Southbank, Victoria: Thomson Wadsworth Konstan, David. 2006. The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Konstan, David & N. Keith Rutter (reds.). 2003. Envy, Spite and Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Körte, Alfred. 1933. Zwei Kolumnen eines Aischylos-Papyros. Hermes 68. 249–360.

258 | References Kowal, Sabine & Daniel C. O’Connell (eds.). 2004. Interjektionen [Special issue]. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 26(1–2). Kratzer, Angelika. 1999. Beyond “Ouch” and “Oops”. A Comment on Kaplan’s Paper. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WEwNGUyO/ (25 June, 2015) Kroon, Caroline. 1995. Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero, and at. Amsterdam: Gieben Kühn, P. 1979. Aha! The Pragmatics of an Interjection. Deutsche Sprache 7.4. 289–297. Kühner, Raphael. 1892. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. T. 1. Bd 2, Elementar- und Formenlehre. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung Kühner, Raphael. 1898. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. T. 2. Bd 1, Satzlehre. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung Kühner, Raphael. 1904. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. T. 2. Bd 2, Satzlehre. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung Labiano Ilundain, Juan Miguel. 2000. Estudio de las interjecciones en las comedias de Aristófanes. Amsterdam: Hakkert Lepre, Maria Zaffira. 1979. L’interiezione vocativale nei poemi omerici. Roma: Ph.D. dissertation Lepre, Maria Zaffira. 1994. L’incidenza del punto di vista nella classificazione delle interiezioni. Riflessioni su alcune testimonianze del Novecento a confronto con il pensiero der grammatici latini. In Palmira Cipriano, P. di Giovine & M. Mancini (eds.), Miscellanea di studi linguistici in onore di Walter Belardi, 1013–1041. Roma: Il Calamo Lepre, Maria Zaffira. 2000. Le emozioni, la voce e i gesti – le interiezioni in greco antico: un capitolo dimenticato. Linguistica e letteratura 25(1–2). 9–45. Lepre, Maria Zaffira. 2001. Dal gesto fonico alla parola: dalla parola al gesto fonico. Linguistica e letteratura 26(1–2). 9–28. Liddell, Henry George & Robert Scott. 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press Lieberman, Matthew D. 2000. Intuition: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychological Bulletin 126(1). 109–137. Lloyd, Michael. 1999. The tragic aorist. The Classical Quarterly 49(1). 24–45. López Bobo, María Jesús. 2002. La interjección: aspectos gramaticales. Madrid: Arco Libros Löwe, Richard 1927. Die indogermanischen Interjektionen ā, ē, ō. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 54. 103–148. Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: Benjamins Lutz, C. & G. M. White. 1986. The anthropology of emotions. Annual Review of Anthropology 15(1). 405–436. Martín de Lucas, Isabel. 1995. Reduplicados expresivos en la comedia de Aristófanes: tendencias fonéticas y prosódicas de la reduplicación léxica en griego antiguo. Cuadernos de Filología Clásica: Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 5. 231–242. Martínez Hernández, Marcos. 1978. Las interjecciones de dolor en Sófocles. Cuadernos de Filología Clásica: Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 15: 73–136. Miller, Walter (ed.). 1914. Xenophon: Cyropaedia I. London: William Heinemann Mithun, Marianne. 1982. The synchronic and diachronic behavior of plops, squeaks, croaks, sighs, and moans. International Journal of Americal Linguistics 48(1). 49–58. Montanari, Franco. 2005. Vocabolario della lingua greca. 2nd edn. Torino: Loescher

General bibliography | 259

Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt. 1998. The Function of Discourse Particles: A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. Philadelphia: Benjamins Müller, Richard. 1885. De interiectionum apud Sophoclem Euripidemque usu, significatione, rationibus metricis. Jena: Ph.D. dissertation Murray, Augustus Taber. 1995. Homer: The Odyssey. 2nd edn. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Nänny, Max & Olga Fischer. 2006. Iconicity: Literary texts. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd edn., 462–472. Amsterdam: Elsevier Nate, R. 1996. The Interjection as a Grammatical Category in John Wilkins’ Philosophical Language. Historiographia Linguistica 23(1–2). 89–109. Noreen, Adolf. 1903–1924. Vårt språk: nysvensk grammatik i utförlig framställning. Bd 1–9. Lund: Gleerup Noreen, Adolf. 1904. Altnordische Grammatik. 2, Altschwedische Grammatik: mit Einschluss des Altgutnischen. Halle: Niemeyer Norrick, Neil R. 2009. Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5). 866– 891. Nübling, Damaris. 2004. Die prototypische Interjektion: Ein Definitionsvorschlag. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 26(1–2). 11–46. Oxford English Dictionary. Online version, June 2015. http://www.oed.com/ (25 June, 2015) Page, Denys Lionel (ed.). 1970. Select Papyri. 3, Literary Papyri: Poetry. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Parkhurst, J. 1809. A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament. 5th edn., London. Pendle, Karin (red.). 2001. Women & music: a history. 2nd edn. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press Peppler, C. W. 1902. Comic Terminations in Aristophanes and the Comic Fragments. Part I: Diminutives, Character Names, Patronymics. Baltimore: John Murphy Company Peppler, C. W. 1921. Comic terminations in Aristophanes. Part V. American Journal of Philology. 42(2). 152–161. Perdicoyianni-Paléologue, Hélène. 2002. The interjections in Greek tragedy. Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica, New Series, 70(1). 49–88. Poggi, Isabella. 1981. Le interiezioni: studio del linguaggio e analisi della mente. Torino: Boringhieri Poultney, James Wilson. 1936. The Syntax of the Genitive Case in Aristophanes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press Preisendanz, Karl & Albert Henrichs (eds.). 1973–1974. Papyri Graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. 2. verb. Aufl. Stuttgart: Teubner Probert, Philomen. 2006. Ancient Greek Accentuation: Synchronic Patterns, Frequency Effects, and Prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press Pugliarello, M. 1996. Interiectio: espressività e norma nella teoria grammaticale latina. Bollettino di Studi Latini 26. 69–81. Rau, Peter. 1967. Paratragodia: Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aristophanes. Kiel: Ph.D. dissertation Rawlinson, G. 1996. Herodotus: Histories. Translated with Notes. Nørhaven: Wordsworth Editions Limited Reay, I. E. 2006. Sound symbolism. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd edn., 531–539. Amsterdam: Elsevier

260 | References Reddy, William M. 2001. The Navigation of Feeling: A Framework for the History of Emotions. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press Rohde, Friedrich Wilhelm. 1911. De interiectionum usu apud aetatis argenteae scriptores Latinos. Regimonti: Ph.D. dissertation Rosenwein, Barbara H. 2006. Emotional Communities in the Early Middle Ages. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press Sauciuc, Gabriela-Alina. 2004. Interjections as viewed by Latin grammarians. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 49(1–4). 101–118. Schauer, Markus. 2002. Tragisches Klagen: Form und Funktion der Klagedarstellung bei Aischylos, Sophokles und Euripides. Tübingen: Narr Schelfhout, Carla, Peter-Arno Coppen & Nelleke Ootsdjk. 2003. Positions of parentheticals and interjections: a corpus-based approach. Linguistics in the Netherlands 20. 155–166. Schinck, E. 1873. De interiectionum epiphonematumque vi atque usu apud Aristophanem. Halle: Ph.D. disssertation (= Dissertationes Halenses 1. 189–226.) Schneider, Richard & Gustav Uhlig (eds). 1878–1910. Apollonii Dyscoli quae supersunt. Lipsiae: Teubner Schourup, Lawrence. 2001. Rethinking well. Journal of Pragmatics 33(7). 1025–1060. Schulze, Wilhelm. 1916. Indogermanische Interjektionen. In Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Sprachgeschichte vornehmlich des Orients: Ernst Kuhn zum 70. Geburtstage am 7. Februar 1916 gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern, 193–197. Breslau: Verlag von M. und H. Marcus Scott, J. A. 1903. The vocative in Homer and Hesiod. American Journal of Philology 24(2). 192– 196. Scott, J. A. 1904. The vocative in Aeschylus and Sophocles. American Journal of Philology 25(1). 81–84. Scott, J. A. 1905). Additional notes on the vocative. American Journal of Philology 26(1). 32–43. Schwentner, Ernst. 1924. Die primären Interjektionen in den indogermanischen Sprachen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Griechischen, Lateinischen und Germanischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung Schwyzer, Eduard. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. Bd 2, Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. München: Beck’sche Verlags-Buchhandlung Shalev, D. 2001. Illocutionary clauses accompanying questions in Greek drama and in Platonic dialogue. Mnemosyne 54(5). 531–561. Smyth, Herbert Weir. 1920. A Greek Grammar for Colleges. New York: American Book Company Sommerstein, Alan H. 2014. The informal oath. In Sommerstein, Alan H. & Isabelle C. Torrance (eds.), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 307), 315– 347. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Stephanus, Henricus [Henri Estienne]. 1831–1865. Thesaurus Graecae Linguae. 3rd edition. Parisiis Stevens, Phillip Theodore. 1976. Colloquial expressions in Euripides. Hermes Einzelschriften 38. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Tesnière, Lucien. 1936. Sur la classification des interjections. Mélanges P. H. Haškovec. Brno Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: A Digital Library of Greek Literature. (2001–). Irvine: University of California. http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/ (25 June, 2015) Tichy, Eva. 1983. Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen. Wien: Vlg der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Torres Sanchez, María Ángeles & José Luis Berbeira Gardon. 2003. Interjection and onomatopoeia: foundations for a pragmatic boundary. Verba 30. 341–366.

General bibliography | 261

Trabant, Jürgen. 1983. Gehören die Interjektionen zur Sprache? In Harald Weydt (ed.), Partikel und Interaktion, 69–81. Tübingen: Niemeyer Trillo, J. Romero. 2001. A mathematical model for the analysis of variation in discourse. Journal of Linguistics 37. 527–550. Trillo, J. Romero. 2006. Discourse Markers. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd edn., 639–642. Amsterdam: Elsevier Tshomba, Lombela-Poyo. 1986. The role of interjections in discourse. Estudios de linguística aplicada 4(6). 42–64. Uhlig, Gustav. (ed.). 1884. Dionysii Thracis Ars grammatica. Lipsiae: Teubner Wackernagel, Jacob. 1953. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. (Indogermanische Forschungen 1(1892): 333–436). In Kleine Schriften: 1–103. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht Wackernagel, Wilhelm. 1869. Voces variae animantium: ein Beitrag zur Naturkunde und zur Geschichte der Sprache. 2nd edn. Basel: Bahnmeier Wendel, Thilde. 1929. Die Gesprächsanrede im griechischen Epos und Drama der Blütezeit. Tübingen: Ph.D. dissertation West, Martin Litchfield. 1982a. Greek Metre. Oxford: Clarendon Press West, Martin Litchfield. 1982b. Three Topics in Greek Metre. The Classical Quarterly 32(2). 281– 297. West, Martin Litchfield. 1985. Ieu! Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 60. 10. West, Martin Litchfield. 1992. ΙΗΥ ΜΑΛ’ ΑΥΘΙΣ. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 94. 230. West, Martin Litchfield. 1997. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press Wharton, Tim. 2000. Interjections, language, and the “showing”/ “saying” continuum. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 12. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/PUB/WPL/00papers/wharton.pdf (25 June, 2015) Wharton, Tim. 2003. Interjections, Language, and the “Showing/Saying” Continuum. Pragmatics & Cognition, 11(1). 39–91. Wharton, Tim. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Wierzbicka, Anna. 1987. English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Sydney: Academic Press Wierzbicka, Anna. 1992. The semantics of interjections. Journal of Pragmatics 18(2–3). 159– 192. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2003. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von. 1921. Griechische Verskunst. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung Willi, Andreas. 2003. The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press Worman, Nancy. 2000. Infection in the Sentence: The Discourse of Disease in Sophocles’ Philoctetes. Arethusa 33(1). 1–36. Wundt, Wilhelm. 1900. Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte. B. I: Die Sprache. Th. 1–2. Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann

262 | References Zilliacus, Henrik. 1949. Untersuchungen zu den abstrakten Anredeformen und Höflichkeitstiteln im Griechischen. Helsingfors: Societas Scientiarum Fennica

Index ablative 59–60 accusative 22, 57, 59, 60 – of exclamation 57 action 9, 11, 15, 17, 19–20, 37, 78–82, 85, 92–93, 164, 165, 171, 174, 183, 185– 186, 190, 199, 221, 248 address 12, 20, 24, 30, 34, 57, 65, 132, 136, 138, 166, 168, 206, 227 addressee 12, 17, 20–21, 91, 165, 169, 185, 190–192, 196, 200, 248 adjective 24, 28, 52, 57, 64–65, 67, 72– 73, 86, 105, 175, 248 admiration 24–25, 95, 123, 126, 160 adverb 16, 23–25, 28, 35–36, 38, 43–44, 46–47, 53, 68, 71, 73, 122, 164, 171 Aesopus, Aesopica 56 affective function 35 affirmation 22, 59, 80, 122, 174–175, 177– 178, 183, 186, 229 agent 77, 87–88, 91, 164–165, 175, 186 agony 115, 120 agreement 38, 52, 57, 65, 68, 80, 130, 174–176, 180, 185, 195, 197, 229, 248 alarm 78, 96, 103, 114, 121 Alexis 102 amazement 64, 95, 123, 125 Ameka, Felix 2, 5, 7–12, 14, 22, 33, 38– 39, 48, 74–76, 78, 80, 82–86, 91, 93, 147, 164–165, 177, 185, 188, 191–192, 195–196, 246–248 analogy 35, 75, 108 anapaest 118, 210, 219 anger 27, 31, 82–83, 86, 91, 98, 115–118, 123, 125, 162–163, 237 anguish 99, 123, 132, 138–139, 141 annoyance 93, 101, 111, 113, 115, 118–119, 126, 208, 216 anticipation 101, 148 Apollonius Dyscolus 24, 27, 150 apostrophe 138 appeal 95, 99, 135, 137–138, 141, 143, 202, 227, 248 appositional phrase 57 approbation 83

appropriateness 189, 197, 199–200 approval 24–25, 174, 221 Asclepiades 43 aspiration 14, 42, 71, 130, 133, 149–150, 153, 177 – rough breathing 170 assent 24, 80, 229 assistance 135–136, 141, 225 astonishment 96, 98, 102–103, 123, 125– 126, 155, 160, 162, 219, 239 Athenaeus 43 attention 2, 36, 38, 52, 58, 69, 78, 80, 83, 85, 90, 98, 103, 105, 121, 141–142, 165–169, 185, 192, 195, 201, 208– 209, 219, 221, 223, 243 auditor 20–21, 37, 69, 80, 85, 91, 105, 164–165, 168–169, 171, 174, 185– 186, 189–192, 198–199, 201–203 backchanneling 85 bivalence 114 blackmail 100 bleaching – semantic 68, 79 – syntactic 68 bridal hymn 105, 107 broader context 7 call 80, 111, 141–142, 167–168, 173–174, 181, 201, 223, 240, 243 category 1 2, 12, 17–21, 38–39, 41–45, 48–49, 51–52, 55, 68–69, 73, 75, 79, 81, 83–86, 90, 93–95, 97, 120, 130, 142, 152, 154, 164, 166, 175, 185–186, 190, 192, 195–196, 201, 207, 247– 248 category 2 19–20, 23, 39, 42, 45, 49, 68– 69, 71, 73, 75, 80–81, 84–85, 100, 164–166, 170, 185–186, 190, 192, 195–196, 198, 201, 248 category 3 21–22, 39, 45, 71, 75, 80, 84, 174–175, 185–186, 190, 195, 199, 202, 248 cause 58–60, 77, 93

264  Index characterizing nominative 52 Chrysippus 102 classification 1–2, 5, 7, 23–25, 85–86, 93, 191, 195, 246–248 clause 11, 17, 31, 44–45, 52–53, 65, 69, 72, 81, 83–84, 194, 203 – clause-equivalent 15, 31, 247 – type 80–84, 248 clitic particle 53, 56 cognition 91, 93, 190, 202, 221, 248 – cognitive 79, 85, 89, 91, 94–95, 99, 101, 107, 114, 119, 126, 185, 196 collocation 45–46, 49, 196, 205, 207 colloquialism 59, 64–65, 68, 72, 102– 103, 118, 170, 178—179, 182–183, 200, 215–216, 229, 236 comedy 3, 7, 16, 22, 42–43, 46, 53, 55– 56, 67, 71, 98, 101, 105–106, 113–114, 116–117, 121, 125–126, 128, 132–135, 141, 143, 150–151, 162, 170–172, 177, 181, 183, 206, 210, 232 combination 10–11, 13–14, 24, 29, 32, 34, 39, 40–41, 44–47, 49–50, 52, 55–58, 63, 65, 68–69, 71–73, 94–95, 105, 107, 110, 114, 118, 132, 134–135, 139, 142, 149, 153–155, 161–162, 164, 166, 171, 176, 190, 196, 202, 204–205, 207–208, 211–212, 216–217, 218, 221–227, 229–232, 235–238, 240– 243, 249 comic heightening 118 command 19, 31, 37, 100, 165–166, 169– 170, 172, 174, 224 compliance 80, 172, 174–175, 180, 221, 224–225, 248 compound 41–42, 53, 56, 82 conation 85, 164 – conative (interjection) 12, 16–17, 24, 35, 79–80, 84–85, 164–166, 180, 185, 201–203, 209, 220–221, 224, 226, 229, 240, 242–243, 247–248 concept 5, 7, 25, 30, 37, 48, 76–77, 80, 89, 193, 248 – conceptual tool 7, 189 concession 174, 221 conditionalization 88

conjecture 41–42, 55–56, 115, 124, 147– 148, 155–156, 158–159, 161–162, 172, 210 conjunction 28, 31, 73, 151 conscious use 90 contentment 91, 107 context 2, 6–7, 10–11, 15–16, 27, 31, 53, 76–77, 83, 87–88, 93, 108, 111, 117, 148–150, 158, 163–164, 171, 173, 188–193, 196–198, 200, 203, 206– 207, 249 – context-free 76, 78, 201 contextual independence 33 continuum 13, 246 control 119, 125, 137, 142 conventional 8, 71, 78, 86, 115, 189, 198 – conventionalization 9, 11, 13, 17, 84– 85, 87, 90, 200 core meaning 6, 74–79, 87, 89, 93–94, 99–101, 107, 114, 129, 146–147, 152, 165–166, 169, 174–175, 180, 184– 186, 188, 190, 193, 198, 246, 248 corpus 3, 7–8, 10, 34, 42–43, 48, 51, 56– 57, 181, 185, 246 – closed 7 co-occurrence 8, 14, 45, 153 co-utterance 5, 8, 38–39, 69, 71, 188 critical apparatus 8, 210 Chrysippus 102 Dante Alighieri 23 dative 15, 32, 52–53, 56, 60, 72–73, 114 death-cry 145–146 declarative 36, 75, 80–84, 185–186, 248 defecation 100 delight 83, 92, 114, 116, 122, 125 deliverance 135, 136 descriptives 9–10, 22, 75, 87, 89 desire 19–20, 47, 92, 169, 173, 195, 209 – unsatisfied 116 despair 100, 107, 116, 119 dialect 71, 176–177, 179, 187, 199, 229 Dionysius Thrax 23–25, 101 Diphilus 43 disappointment 93, 95, 119, 126 disapproval 167

Index  265

discourse 15, 21, 31, 37, 80, 85, 175, 181, 184, 188, 192–194, 196, 203, 209, 248 – analysis 37, 193 – marker 181, 188, 193–194, 196–197, 201, 205, 207, 249 – slots 197 disdain 123 disgust 31, 85, 91, 100–101, 112, 117, 120, 123, 126, 160, 215 disjunctive pronoun 53 dismay 101, 113, 115, 124, 173, 195, 226, 237 displeasure 91, 100, 195, 223 dissatisfaction 92–93, 119, 126 distress 91–93, 95, 98–99, 103–105, 113, 114, 116, 121, 125, 162, 217, 226 dochmiac 210 Dryopian 164 eccyclema 70 Eideshort 22 ejaculation 17, 44 Ekman, Paul 91 elision 14, 220, 232 ellipsis 58 – elliptical 10, 22, 28, 83–84 – non-elliptical 8, 10, 15–16, 22, 83, 247 emotion 17, 28, 32, 36, 59–60, 80, 83, 89–93, 95, 103, 105, 113, 124–125, 133–134, 139, 141, 143, 152, 158, 190, 198, 200, 203, 208–209, 248 – families 91 – unspeakable 121 emotives 90 emphasis 22, 30, 46, 48, 126, 188, 195, 203–204, 246 encouragement 25, 70–71, 147, 155, 171, 173, 179, 220 English 3, 5, 9, 11–12, 32, 44, 53, 65, 78– 79, 89, 95, 110, 117, 129, 165, 171, 173, 177, 180, 191–192, 203–205, 210, 249 – Australian 85 enthusiasm 20, 111, 114, 226 entreaty 95, 178, 229 envy 91

epiphthegma 17 epirrhema 16–17, 101 Epitaphius Adonis 57 epizeuxis 15 etymology 12, 35, 43 Ewe 85 exasperation 95, 110, 116 excitement 63, 91, 100, 113–114, 137, 139, 147–148, 152, 158, 203, 205, 215, 230 exclamation 12, 14, 17, 30–31, 35, 41, 43, 46, 53, 57–59, 64–65, 67, 70, 72–73, 78, 83, 98–99, 101, 103, 106, 109– 111, 113, 115–117, 120, 122–123, 125, 132, 136, 138, 140–141, 143, 147, 154, 156–158, 160, 162, 167, 170, 202– 203, 223, 228, 243 exclamative (clause type) 31, 80, 83–84, 86, 119, 203, 248 – non-exclamative 83–84 exclamatory (sentence type) 31, 63, 83 exhortation 16, 19, 24, 80, 164, 166, 169– 170, 177, 180, 248 experience 86, 88, 90–91, 93–94, 101, 110, 123, 190, 196, 200, 208, 248 experiencer 77, 93–94, 107, 129, 146, 152, 186, 208 expression meaning 76 expressive 2, 9–10, 13, 15–17, 20, 24, 36, 49, 52–53, 65, 72, 75, 79–80, 83–90, 93, 95–96, 98, 107–108, 129, 132, 134, 147, 150, 152, 166, 185, 190–191, 195–196, 202–205, 208–209, 211, 213, 215–217, 219, 221, 223–227, 230–232, 235–241, 243, 246–248 – expressive content 87–89, 93 – expressively correct 87–89, 93–94 – objective 88–89 – subjective 88–89 extra metrum 39, 45, 49, 71–72, 130, 139, 202, 205, 216, 218, 226, 231–232, 236, 238, 241, 243 extra versum 45 exultation 92, 135, 147 Familienähnlichkeit 12 fear 31, 91–92, 115, 138, 142, 144–145, 158

266  Index feedback 21, 85, 177, 180, 197 felicity condition 16, 188–189, 198, 201, 206–207, 249 female 143–144, 146, 148, 199, 231, 235 femininity 145 figura etymologica 131 figurative 15, 84, 90, 110, 200–201, 207, 209–210 first person 15–17, 53, 57, 66, 68–69, 90, 114, 142, 175 foreign 43, 71, 152, 159, 161–163, 176, 179, 200, 229 formal logic 86 formula 11–12, 22, 67, 71, 82, 86, 96, 132–133, 136, 147–150, 171–172, 178, 183, 205, 224–225, 227 – magic 81 – formulaic 21, 46, 107, 114, 142, 177, 180, 183, 202, 205 fossilized 20 Fraser, Bruce 5, 7, 10, 188, 190–191, 193– 196, 208 free-standing 8, 10, 17, 39, 44, 48, 68, 70–72, 82, 84, 162, 190, 193–196, 207–208 full sentence 8 full stop 45, 71 function 2, 5–7, 11, 15, 17, 20, 22, 27, 29– 30, 33–36, 39, 45, 49, 51–53, 59, 64, 67–68, 73–77, 82, 85, 126, 142, 162, 174–175, 180–181, 185–186, 188– 194, 196–198, 200–207, 209, 211, 246, 248–249 – perlocutionary 209 – procedural 185, 194, 197 future tense 69 gasp 96, 98, 103, 219 gemination 15, 72 genitive 30, 32, 39, 52, 58–60, 63–65, 67, 72, 94 – of exclamation 30, 58–59, 64, 67 – “bare” exclamative 67–68 German 25–26, 33, 42, 44 Grammatici Graeci et Latini 4, 16, 23, 25, 27, 33, 36 greeting 22, 82, 86, 138, 191, 202, 205

grief 31, 91–92, 107, 109–110, 113, 117– 118, 121–125, 129, 133–134, 141–142, 144–146, 156–158, 160, 191–192, 201–202, 206, 212–213, 217–218, 223–225, 227, 231–232, 235–236, 238–239, 243, 248 hapax legomenon 14, 42, 44, 56, 69, 94– 95, 100, 108, 115, 152–155, 160, 173, 176, 204, 211, 223–225, 227, 233, 235, 237–238, 240 happiness 92, 224–225 heaving 70, 165, 171, 220 Herodotus 66 Herondas 43, 108, 216 hesitance 95, 182, 197, 199 hexameter 210, 215 Homer 3, 43–44, 51, 56, 65, 96, 118, 127, 148, 164 homonymy 6, 94 horror 99–100, 102, 110, 112–113, 115, 123, 139, 161–162, 217, 237 hortatory 170 Hymeneus 107, 153 iconicity 13, 16–17, 20, 75 ideophone 9–10, 39 idiom 82, 194–195, 226 illocution 5, 36, 74, 80–81, 185, 190 – illocutionary point 82–84 imitative 9–10, 22, 24, 76, 154 impatience 31, 116, 118–119, 181, 183 imperative (mood) 14, 20, 29, 32, 35, 68– 70, 80, 83, 103, 142, 164–165, 167, 170–171 imploration 180 impulsion 29–30 inarticulate 15, 99, 109–110, 113, 116, 121, 125–126, 129, 216 incantation 81 incredulity 100 indeclinabilia 9 indexicals 11, 78, 93, 164–165, 175, 191 indignation 31, 91, 99, 116, 124 Indo-European 29, 59–60 – Indo-European studies 28 inference 192

Index  267

informal 22, 67, 71, 176, 179, 187, 200, 216, 223–224, 226, 229, 232, 235– 236, 238 informational equivalence 94, 166, 174 injunction 98 insincerity 93, 129, 200, 206, 213, 217 interactional routine 85, 175 Interjection Phrase (IntP) 16, 18, 20–21, 46, 48, 51–52, 55–56, 65, 95–96, 107–108, 129–130, 147, 156, 161– 162, 166, 170, 175–176, 180, 205, 211, 213, 215–218, 220–227, 230– 232, 235–243, 249 interjectional clause 31 interlocutor 81, 197 interrogative (sentence type) 31, 80–82 intensify 15, 22, 39, 90, 155, 191 – intensifier 126, 179, 191, 203–204 intonation 14, 32, 36, 95, 195, 197 invocation 52, 57, 63–65, 67, 79, 139, 151, 161–162, 227 irony 213, 217 irritation 83, 93, 119, 126 Johannes Chrysostomus 102 joy 25, 28, 31, 43, 80, 89, 91–92, 95, 97, 100, 105, 110–113, 117, 124, 140, 147–152, 154, 185, 191, 215, 222–226, 248 jussive 69, 164 juxtaposition 11, 14, 33, 45 Kaplan, David 5, 7, 33, 74–76, 80, 86–89, 93–94, 166, 174, 185, 189, 248 keening 134–136 Kroon, Caroline 6, 75, 77 lacuna 157 lamentation 80, 95, 114, 116, 118, 123, 128–129, 132–133, 138, 141–144, 146, 158–159, 185, 202, 206, 227, 231, 248 “language police” 81 langue 76 Latin 8, 23, 25–27, 31, 34, 37, 42–44, 73, 102, 140

least common denominator 77 lexical 13, 35, 53, 74, 79–80, 83, 171, 194–196, 198, 203, – meaning 31 – word 74 linguistics 23, 25–27, 30, 32, 34, 37, 76, 246 – gesture 9, 85 – semantics 86 longing 95, 121–122 manifestation 90 manuscript 41–42, 51, 87, 115, 138, 147, 149–150, 153–154, 172 marker 22, 209 – basic 208 – commentary 201, 203, 207, 249 – discourse management 193 – discourse 181, 196–197, 201, 207, 249 – parallel 201, 204, 207, 249 – strengthening 203–204 meaning 1–2, 5–6, 9, 13, 20, 27, 31, 34, 36, 41, 44, 58–59, 74, 76–82, 86–89, 94, 100, 113–115, 117, 128, 146–148, 159–160, 165–166, 171–174, 178, 181, 185–186, 189–195, 197, 200, 202– 204, 206–207, 209, 246, 249 – expression 76 – maximalist approach 6 – minimalist approach 6, 75 Menander 3, 43, 66–67, 102, 181 mental state 9, 11, 15, 17, 20–21, 75, 80, 85, 93–94, 186, 191, 209, 248 metaphor 76–77, 201 meter 41, 137, 144, 210–211, 249 modulation 14 monition 19 morphosyntax 27, 35, 80, 82 Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt 6, 75, 77 mourning 136, 146, 162, 217, 223, 225 Natural semantic metalanguage 5, 74 nausea 92, 100–101 negation 31, 39, 42, 81–82, 88 negative (sentence type) 31 nominative 46, 52–53, 56–57, 59, 63–66, 72 – characterizing 52

268  Index non-elliptical non-exclamative 8, 10–12, 15–16, 22, 38, 83, 247 noun 25, 52, 66, 78–79, 84, 148 – phrase (NP) 8, 39, 46, 48, 51–52, 56– 58, 60, 63, 65–67, 72–73, 93, 176, 186, 247 oath 22, 24, 79, 85, 176, 179, 205 – informal 22, 67, 71, 176, 179 onomatopoeia 9–10, 13 22, 29–30, 35, 42, 75, 85, 173 – indirect 75 pain 25, 27–28, 31, 59, 80–81, 83, 85–89, 91–92, 95–98, 100, 107–111, 113, 115, 117, 119–121, 123, 126, 129, 131, 133– 134, 138, 158–159, 163, 185, 192, 196, 211, 213, 216, 227, 230, 236– 238, 248 – physical 84 – mental 84 palilogy 15 paratactic compound 82 paratragedy 88, 99, 116, 132, 134, 201, 206–207, 213, 217–218, 249 parenthetical insertion 8, 11 parody 116, 118, 134, 141, 218 parole 76, 188 pars orationis 25 particle 6–7, 10–11, 15, 22, 31, 38, 42, 45, 48, 68, 71, 105, 174, 176, 194, 196 – clitic 53 patient 77, 94, 164–165, 182, 186 performative 90, 200 Petronius 102 phatic (interjection) 16–17, 24, 79–80, 84–85, 175, 186, 195–196, 199, 209, 221, 225, 229, 247–248 – function 196 philological method 34 phonaesthesia 13, 44 phonetics 10, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 103, 130, 173, 248 phonology 9–10, 14–15, 29–31, 36, 56, 75, 195, 247 phrase schema 38, 51–53, 247

pitch 14, 148 pity 31, 59, 91–92, 96, 114, 116–117, 131, 213 Plato 3, 101, 181 Plautus 43–44, 102 pleasure 83, 91–92, 95, 110, 113, 122, 125, 138, 195 polysemy 94 Port Royal 23 pragmatics 2, 5–7, 33, 35, 75–77, 88, 93, 175, 188–189, 191, 206–207, 210, 246, 248 predicate 5, 30, 82, 86, 164, 191, 248 predicative 65 prefix 35, 39, 41, 46, 215, 247 preposition 16, 28, 31, 59, 73 – preposition phrase 67, 79 Petronius 102 primary illocution 5, 74, 80–81, 185 primary interjections 2, 5, 8, 12–13, 22, 35, 68, 79, 83, 185, 197, 201, 205, 246 primary use 34, 201, 203, 206–208 pronoun 15, 28, 52–53, 56–57, 66–67, 72–73, 84, 114, 142, 175 – disjunctive 53 protest 96, 98–99, 201, 211 prototypical 12, 17, 79–80, 207 quadruplication 15, 48, 100, 130 question 46, 81, 97, 99, 121, 131, 168, 177–178, 180–181, 199 Reddy, William 75, 80, 89–91 reaction 1, 9, 11–12, 15, 17, 37, 80, 82, 85, 93, 103, 105, 107, 110, 113–114, 122, 128, 132, 134, 144–145, 147, 160, 164, 174, 203, 248 – cognitive 114, 119, 126 recognition 100, 115 reduplication 10, 13, 15, 40, 44, reflection 125, 127 register 7, 114, 128, 155, 187, 192, 200, 216–218, 220, 221, 223–227, 229– 232, 235–238, 241–243, 249 relevance theory 33 remonstrance 95, 98–99

Index  269

repetition 13, 15, 34, 40–41, 46, 65, 81, 130, 134, 166, 247 reproof 96–97 repudiation 121 resignation 95, 98 response word 16, 21, 174, 184 revulsion 100, 121 Roman comedy 43 routine 10–11, 22 – interactional 85, 175 ruefulness 125 Russian 85 sadness 91–92, 146 satyr-play 2–3, 7, 42, 71, 101, 114, 170 scholia 1, 4, 14, 27, 44, 103, 110, 116, 130, 154, 159–162, 164, 191 second person 66, 68–69 Second Sophistic 43 secondary interjections 10, 12–13, 20, 22, 29, 32, 35, 38, 68, 78–79, 83, 176, 191, 197, 203, 205 secondary use 136, 168, 184, 190, 200, 203, 207–208, 210 self-address 105 self-referential 208 semantics 5–7, 10, 12–13, 16, 29–30, 33, 35, 70, 74–82, 84–88, 93, 164, 174, 185, 188–189, 191, 193, 195, 206– 207, 210, 246–248 – core 17, 79–80, 84, 94, 110, 142, 169, 188–190, 196, 198, 200–201, 203– 204, 206–208, 249 – generative 32 – linguistic 86 – semantic information 87–89, 188 – semantic invariant 77 – semantic roles 60, 74, 77, 94, 165, 175, 186 semicolon 45, 71 sentence 5, 8, 10, 15, 17, 21, 29–31, 35, 45, 51, 53, 57, 63, 74, 76, 80–81, 83– 84, 86–88, 105, 185, 193–194, 248 – complete 16, 30, 74, 185 – equivalence 7 – incomplete 30 set expression 82

sexual language 79 shame 91 shock 102, 115, 119, 163, 237 shriek 133, 137, 158 sincere 81, 87–89, 93, 142, 200 sobbing 133, 146 sorrow 25, 27, 92, 95, 111, 115, 118, 120, 122–123, 125, 128, 132–134, 143– 146, 224 sound symbolism 9–10, 13, 74, 108, 165, 248 source 59, 93–94, 186 speaker 9–11, 15, 17, 19–21, 32, 34, 37, 42, 48–49, 52, 57, 65, 69, 76, 79–81, 83, 85–88, 91, 93–94, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 110–111, 113–114, 119, 121, 123, 127–129, 143, 146, 152, 161, 164–165, 169, 171, 173–175, 180, 183–194, 196, 198–203, 205–206, 208–209, 215 spectrum analysis 32 speech act theory 11 spontaneousness 11–12, 100, 127, 207 state 9, 11, 15, 17, 20–21, 37, 75, 78, 80, 82, 85, 88–94, 110, 132–134, 145, 149–150, 152, 160, 186, 208–209, 212, 215, 222–224, 230, 238, 248 subjunctive 68–69, 80 Suda 27, 44, 108, 110, 122 suffering 92, 109 summons 111, 113, 139, 166, 201, 223, 226, 243 surprise 28, 31, 80, 83, 91–92, 95–96, 98–103, 105–107, 111–114, 119, 123, 125–126, 133–134, 138, 163, 167, 184–185, 195–196, 208, 211, 215– 219, 223, 232, 236–237, 239, 241, 248 – contented 241 – existential 105 – qualitative 101, 103, 215 – quantitative 103, 216 swear word 78 Swedish 29, 171 syntax 10–11, 15, 17, 24, 28, 31, 38–39, 48–49, 51, 53, 57–58, 68–69, 71–72,

270  Index 79, 82–83, 88, 90, 148, 192, 194, 210, 246–247 taboo word 78–79 terror 96, 133, 143, 162, 206 thanksgiving 82, 136 theme 77, 91, 94, 156, 164–165, 175, 186, 249 threnody 132 Thucydides 136 Timocles 102 tone 32, 34, 65, 98, 111, 119, 173 – height 14 tragedy 3, 7, 14, 53, 55–56, 68, 108, 110, , 114, 117–118, 121, 127, 129, 132, 134– 135, 139, 141, 143–145, 150–152, 163, 170, 200, 210, 218, 232 Trillo, Romero J. 7, 188, 190, 197 trimeter 137, 210–211 triumph 43, 147–150, 215, 230 truth-conditional semantics 74 truth-value 88 turn 196–197, 199, 207 – complete 8, 48–49, 69 T/V-words 192 unmarked 84 utterance 5, 8, 10–12, 14–15, 17, 24, 28, 38, 44, 52–53, 57–58, 68, 76–82, 84–89, 91, 93, 117, 126, 130–131, 137–138, 141, 162, 164–165, 171, 174–175, 177, 180, 184–186, 188– 194, 196–201, 204, 206, 208, 221, 224, 229, 247

– complete 15, 28, 44, 48–49, 69, 82 – constative 90 – non-elliptical 8, 10, 15–16, 22, 247 – performative 90 Wackernagel’s law 53 verb 13, 20, 24, 28, 30, 33, 35, 39, 44–45, 59–60, 65, 68–69, 77–78, 82, 84, 86, 91, 106, 147–148, 154, 164, 171, 186, 248 – verb phrase (VP) 8, 65, 68, 73 vernacular 118 vexation 80, 86, 91, 93, 95, 107–108, 110, 119, 126, 128–129, 159, 173, 185, 191, 198, 203, 211, 216, 225, 227, 231– 232, 235–236, 238–241, 243, 248 Wierzbicka, Anna 5, 77, 85 vocalization 21, 148, 177 vocative 29–30, 32, 34–35, 41, 46, 52, 56–58, 63–67, 80, 94, 105, 119, 138, 142, 161, 165, 167, 169, 194, 196, 202, 227, “wolf” whistle 126 voluntary use 90 wonder 31, 95, 123–124 wrath 91, 96, 217 Xenocrates 102 Xenophon of Athens 66, 68, 70, 148, 168 Xenophon of Ephesus 73