Word Order in Ancient Greek: A Pragmatic Account of Word Order Variation in Herodotus (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, 5) 9050634575, 9789050634571

Table of contents :
WORD ORDER IN ANCIENT GREEK: A PRAGMATIC ACCOUNT OF WORD ORDER VARIATION IN HERODOTUS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
1 Introduction
1.1 Word order variation in Greek
1.2 Domains and explanations of word order: a preliminary survey
1.2.1 Euphony
1.2.2 Syntax
1.2.3 Semantics
1.2.4 Pragmatics
1.3 Method
2 The Pragmatic Framework
Step 1: The status of referents at the level of the text
Step 2: The presentation of referents at the level of the clause
3 The Greek Particles Revisited: Implications for Word Order and Information Structure
3.1 'Peninitial position' and the unit of analysis
3.1.1 Postpositives in classical Greek
3.1.2 Second word in the sentence
3.1.3 Postpositives as boundary markers
3.1.4 Implications for the analysis of Greek sentences
3.1.5 Postpositive-like behaviour of mobile elements
3.2 Pragmatic function markers
3.2.1 Markers for counter-presuppositional Focus
3.2.2 Advancing through selection: the role of καὶ δὴ καί
3.2.3 The structure of contrast: About μέν and δέ
4 The Order of Warfare: Στρατεύομαι
4.1 Permutations of the predicate and its arguments: a survey
4.2 Topic assignment and the predicate
4.3 Some problems in Focus assignment
4.3.1 Complex Focus
4.3.2 Counter-presuppositional Focus
4.4 Beyond the limits of the clause
4.4.1 Expansion by extension
4.4.2 Discontinuity
4.4.3 Heads and participles: apart and/or together?
4.5 Appendix, statistics, and conclusion
5 To Rule Or Be Ruled: The Use of .... and βασιλεύω in Discourse
5.1 The first argument of βασιλεύω
5.1.1 Preposed first arguments
5.1.2 Postposed first arguments
5.1.3 The first argument of βασιλεύω - conclusion
5.2 The second argument of βασιλεύω
5.3 The order of command: ἄρχω in the Histories
5.4 ἄρχω in 'normal narrative'
5.4.1 Al-A2-P
5.4.2 A2-Al-P
5.4.3 Al-P-A2
5.4.4 A2-P-Al
5.4.5 P-Al-A2
5.4.6 P-A2-Al
5.5 ἄρχω in the catalogue of Xerxes' troops (7.61-80)
5.6 The predicate στρατηγέω
5.7 Other cases of interest
5.7.1 Subdivision
5.7.2 Focus assignment
5.7.3 Two problems
5.8 Appendix
5.8.1 βασιλεύω
5.8.2 ἄρχω
6 Four Manners of Speaking
6.0 Introduction
6.1 The position of the first argument
6.1.1 The position of the first argument with λέγει
6.1.2 The position of the first argument with ἔγεγε
6.1.3 The position of the first argument with εἶπε
6.1.4 The position of the first argument with ἔλεε
6.2 The position of the addressee constituent
6.2.1 The position of the addressee constituent with λέγει
6.2.2 The position of the addressee constituent with έλεγε
6.2.3 The position of the addressee constituent with είπε
6.2.4 The position of the addressee constituent with έλεξε
6.3.1 The position of the second argument
6.3.2 Pronominal second arguments and other constituents
6.4 The function of the forms
6.5 Appendix
6.5.1 λέγει
6.5.2 ἔλεγε
6.5.3 εἶπε
6.5.4 έλεξε
7 Predicates Can Be Topics
7.1 Predicate constituents as Topics - the data
7.1.1 (Near) synonyms
7.1.2 From highly to hardly inferrable predicates
7.1.3 Identification, location, possession, attribution, ... presentation: The description of clauseinitial είναι
7.1.4 Interim conclusion: The case for Topic assignment to predicate constituents
7.2 Introducing new participants
8 Toward the Analysis of Running Discourse
8.1 Word order in the description of Thrace (5.3-5.10)
8.2 Word order in the Pythius episode (7.27-29)
9 Studies in Greek Word Order
9.1 Dover (1960): Greek Word Order
9.2 Loepfe (1940): Die Wortstellung im griechischen Sprechsatz
9.3 Frisk (1933): Studien zur griechischen Wortstellung
9.4 Epilogue - On syntactical approaches
References
Index
SAMENVATTING

Citation preview

WORD ORDER IN ANCIENT GREEK

Greek word order, notoriously 'free, yet not random', has puzzled scholars at least since Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Some have formulated rigid syntactical rules that immediately break down when checked against any sample of text, others have given impressionistic accounts that failed to make any real claims. Insights gained from the field of pragmatics can now help us to steer clear of this Scylla and Charybdis. Seeing word order as a reflection of discourse planning and information structuring by the speaker or author can provide us with the right perspective for explaining it. After an introduction and theoretical preliminaries, this book presents a proposal for a unified description of Greek word order, which takes the form of a clause pattern with designated positions for the verb and for constituents with the pragmatic functions of Topic and Focus. This proposal is examined in a number of case studies in Herodotus• Histories, including a clause-by-clause commentary on short samples of expository and narrative text. A final chapter presents a contrastive review of earlier analyses.

AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY EDITORS

ALBERT RIJKSBARON HARM PINKSTER IRENE J.F. DE JONG VOLUME FIVE

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED

1. A. Rijksbaron, Grammatical Observations on Euripides' Bacchae. 1991. 2. R. Risselada, Imperatives and other Directive Expressions in Latin. A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. 1993. 3. G. Wakker, Conditions and Conditionals. An Investigation of Ancient Greek. 1994. 4. C. Kroon, Discourse Particles in Latin. A Study ofnam, enim, autem, vero and at. 1995.

HELMA DIK

WORD ORDER IN ANCIENT GREEK A PRAGMATIC ACCOUNT OF WORD ORDER VARIATION IN HERODOTUS

J.C. GIEBEN, PUBLISHER AMSTERDAM 1995

No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. © by H.J.M. Dik, 1995

I Printed in The Netherlands / ISBN 90 5063 457 5

Voor Simon Dik

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ..................................................................................................... xi 1

Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 1.1 Word order variation in Greek ............................................... 1 1.2 Domains and explanations of word order: a preliminary survey ..................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Euphony ................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Syntax ....................................................................... 5. 1.2.3 Semantics ................................................................. 8 1.2.4 Pragmatics ................................................................ 9 1.3 Method ................................................................................. 15

2

The Pragmatic Framework ............................................................... 19 Step 1: The status of referents at the level of the text .............. 20 Step 2: The presentation of referents at the level of the clause ............................................................................ 23

3

The Greek Particles Revisited: Implications for Word Order and Information Structure ................................................................ 31 3.1 'Peninitial position' and the unit of analysis ......................... 31 3.1.1 Postpositives in classical Greek ............................ 32 3.1.2 Second word in the sentence ................................. 32 3.1.3 Postpositives as boundary markers ........................ 35 3.1.4 Implications for the analysis of Greek sentences .. 36 3.1.5 Postpositive-like behaviour of mobile elements ... 37 3.2 Pragmatic function markers ................................................. 38 3.2.1 Markers for counter-presuppositional Focus ......... 39 3.2.2 Advancing through selection: the role of Kat 011 Kat ......................................................................... 45 3.2.3 The structure of contrast: About µev and .47

oe .........

viii

4

TABLEOFCON'IENTS

The Order of Warfare: fapa'tEuoµm ............................................... 53 4.1 Permutations of the predicate and its arguments: a survey .. 53 4.2 Topic assignment and the predicate ..................................... 64 4.3 Some problems in Focus assignment. .................................. 71 4.3.1 Complex Focus ...................................................... 71 4.3.2 Counter-presuppositional Focus ............................ 74 4.4 Beyond the limits of the clause ............................................ 76 4.4.1 Expansion by extension ......................................... 77 4.4.2 Discontinuity .......................................................... 79 4.4.3 Heads and participles: apart and/or together? ........ 80 4.5 Appendix, statistics, and conclusion .................................... 84

5

To Rule Or Be Ruled: The Use of apxro and !3amA£uro in Discourse ................................. 95 5 .1 The first argument of !3amA£uro ........................................... 95 5 .1.1 Preposed first arguments ........................................ 95 5.1.2 Postposed first arguments ...................................... 98 5.1.3 The first argument of !3amA.Euro - conclusion...... 100 5.2 The second argument of !3amA£uro .................................... 100 5.3 The order of command: 'tt\V 't'TIV ~t1µi:11v entltr]Kav. 'Such was the penalty imposed on the Halicarnassians'. 26Dover (1960: 10-11) argues for early prose (including inscriptions)as a primary source of information with more eloquence than I could hope to attain. 27 A similar approach can be found in Panhuis's (1982) study on Latin word order. He selected instances of states of affairs involving the exchange of money in Plautus and the sending of embassies in Caesar.

16

CHAPTER 1

assumption underlying this approach is that different ordering patterns found will not be in random distribution, but will reflect differences in the context surrounding the instances, leading to a different information structure and hence to different constituent order. It is further assumed that contexts will be compared more easily when they are alike. Minimal pairs will not be found, but slightly-more-than-minimal sets of instances are widely available. I should stress that the purpose of this manner of selecting instances is not to reach conclusions about properties of certain lexical predicates. The individual predicates selected should not make any difference to the outcome but merely facilitate analysis. If not, we would have to conclude that word order is determined by lexical factors, 2 8 and that, in tum, would necessitate exhaustive study of all existing predicates and the ordering patterns associated with them. In fact, selection was rather a matter of coincidence, with frequency and semantic specificity providing obvious minimum requirements. For instance, 1totero, 'make, do' is highly frequent, but not at all semantically specific. Selecting all instances of clauses with 1totero would result in a heterogeneous corpus and practically defeat the purpose of lexical selection. The restriction to a single predicate (or a group of closely related predicates), then, focuses the attention on the presentation of similar events, and makes it easier to decide what differences between contexts may have brought about differences in ordering. Another limitation to the corpus is that I have only selected main clauses, the vast majority of which are declarative. The handful of imperative and interrogative clauses has not been excluded. In the few cases in which there could be doubt as to main or subordinate clause status, those instances have been included in the data. 29 The restriction to main clauses is arbitrary: A priori, it is not certain whether main clauses and subordinate clauses are governed by the same ordering rules; 30 and taking only 28cf. Chapter 9 on Frisk's lexical approach. It could not be assumed a priori that the ~e of predicate was of no influence whatsoever on the order of words. For instance, when a subordinate clause is followed by another clause that is not formally marked as subordinate (3.3. l ,; U: KacrcravliciYT] Kt~) or when a subordinating conjunction introduces an independent clause (3.73.l otE: "(£ apx,6µt0a Kt~). 30Dutch and German, for instance, have distinct ordering patterns for main and subordinate clauses.

INTRODUCTION

17

main clauses into consideration takes care of another possible variable. The case studies conducted in the way described above form the core of this investigation (Chapters 4 through 6). In an attempt to mitigate at least some of the more obvious shortcomings, two more chapters have been added. One concerns verb-initial clauses, a rare but interesting type, which, for want of sufficient material, I was not able to discuss satisfactorily in the case studies; the other presents a 'Wortstellungskommentar' in the tradition of Loepfe (1940). Here I shall apply the findings from the case studies to two short extracts from Herodotus. This will of necessity involve extrapolation and some speculation, but at least it has the advantage of showing what conclusions can be drawn from the present approach and, more importantly, what problems still remain. These can then be contrasted with earlier work on Greek word order, the highlights of which I briefly review in a final chapter. Yet before we can tum to the case studies, a number of issues need to be addressed. First of all, there is the pragmatic apparatus, the theoretical basis of this study, that needs our attention (Chapter 2). Secondly, we must (re )consider the Greek particles, in particular their position in the clause (section 3.1) and the function of particles in the articulation of information structure (section 3.2).

2

THE PRAGMATIC FRAMEWORK

We shall consider words, phrases and sentences which appear in the textual record of a discourse to be evidence of an attempt by a producer to communicate his message to a recipient... This is clearly an approach which takes the communicative function of language as its primary area of investigation and consequently seeks to describe linguistic form, not as a static object, but as a dynamic means of expressing intended meaning.' (Brown & Yule 1983: 24)

Consider the following sentences from Herodotus:

(1)

~v oe 't'COV 't't~ 'A0rivairov ClVTJP E~ 1tpOO't'O'U~ VE(l)cr't'l naptrov, 't(p ouvoµa µev ~v 0EµtuyEtV, ~v E't'Otµo~· OE Kav0(l'UJ..,T}pavvoc; e0vtcov 'tffiV EV'tOerov 2b). With Powell. I read 'l'aµµircix6v cr4>erov, given the further evidence of pronouns, including µtv, following the first mobile after 1tpiv ft in 3.127.3, 5.72.3, 7.226.1 and 8.12.2. Admittedly, strict peninitial position also occurs: Cf. 6.22.1 and 6.45.1.

38

CHAPTER3

stances, mobiles may show postpositive-like behaviour. Thus, Wackernagel himself (1892: 430f.) mentions a range of examples with the verb in second position, causing a discontinuous subject phrase, as in: Iluppo~ e:noiricrev 'A0riva1o~ 'Pyrrhus the Athenian made [me]'. From a diachronic perspective, this could be ascribed to the originally clitic nature of verbs. Loepfe and Dover argue that topical elements (unbetonte Worter; 'concomitants') take positions comparable to postpositives. Needless to say, we cannot assume any placement rule where these lexical items are concerned. It remains to be seen whether we need postulate a position for topical, non-postpositive words. 3.2 Pragmatic function markers

Most Greek particles perform functions on the level of the discourse. They give indications of how utterances are to be interpreted in relation to other (sets of) utterances,70 e.g., as a motivation for, or as a conclusion drawn from another utterance. As such, they help determine the external relationships of utterances (for example, the structure of a text), but do not tell us anything about the internal pragmatic structure of individual utterances. There are, however, a number of exceptions. Below, I shall list some common particles and fixed combinations of particles that do serve as indications of clause-internal pragmatic structure or have scope over (parts of) constituents rather than utterances. The most straightforward instances involve Focus markers that can be categorized as types of counter-presuppositional Focus. We speak of counter-presuppositional Focus when the salience of a certain piece of information does not result from its being new, but from the expectation on the part of the speaker that it contradicts assumptions on the part of the addressee (cf. Dik (1989: 282-5). Secondly, we shall consider a Focus construction, Kat OTJ Kai, which is very frequent in Herodotus but not as readily classifiable as counter-presuppositional. Rather, I will discuss its function in the presentation of the narrative, in which it typically paves the way for the introduction of a new element. Thirdly and finally, we will have a look at µiv andM. 70other important functions of particles involve reflections of the extra-linguistic context. I will here concentrate on what is relevant to the present study, viz. the role of particles in textual organisation.

THE GREEK PARTICLES REvlsITED

39

3.2.1 Markers for counter-presuppositional Focus The first group of expressions concerns counter-presuppositional Focus. Table 3.1 gives an overview, characterising the four types that can be distinguished. In the table, S stands for Speaker/Writer and A for Addressee/Reader. When S uses a counter-presuppositional type of Focus, he assumes, or purports to assume, that A holds a certain erroneous assumption. By uttering the counter-presuppositional Focus expression, he communicates to A that A should replace the erroneous piece of information (given under 'S thinks A thinks') with the correct alternative offered by S (the 'S tells A' column). Table 3.1: Types of counter-presuppositional Focus Focus type S thinks A thinks S tells A expression replacing 'X' 'Y' OUK X a')J.J,. r, r Kat OUK X expanding 'X' 'X and Y' Iou µ6vov X a')J.J,.] Kat T restricting 'X and Y' 'Y' r µ6vov selecting 'X or Y' 'Y' 1 "{E Below, I shall discuss instances from Herodotus of the various types of Focus and the constructions associated with them. Although constituent order is not our primary concern here, I will at times remark on it, in anticipation of later chapters.

• Replacing Focus instructs the addressee to replace a wrong assumption or, at any rate, it makes sure that this assumption will not be held and 'replaces' it with the correct information. 'It is not X, but Y'. (1)

KaA.EOV'tat OE 01) Xj)OXOOEtA,()t ilA,A,{l xaµ'\jmt· KpOKOOElAf)'U~ OE "IcovE~ cov6µacrav, ElXt ~v 0uµo~ µaA.tO"'ta, Kat 'tOU~ oivtKa~ OtaKEAEUcraµevou~ opµfjcrm en' au'ta~. Ta~ µEV OT\ nMova~ 'tffiV yuvmKrov anouydv, 'tT\V 8E 'Iouv O"UV 'tT)V EO"'taA,JIBVOt ecnpateuovto·(7.62.1) (27) 'A).,apootot 00 Kat :Ea.anmp~ Ka'ta. 1tEp Ko).,:xot Ol1t>.,tO"JIBVOt ecnpa-muovto. (7.79) In all these cases it seems obvious that we should treat the subject and the participial phrase as separate constituents. This description presents no problem for the stipulated clause pattern, since the Topic and Focus constituents are in their expected positions preceding the main predicate. This, however, is not true for all subject plus participial phrases preceding the predicate. Reconsider (28) (=(14)): (28) Taiha ~ a1tevetx8evta i\icoucrav oi Aaiceomµovt0t, 'Apicciorov µev trov {lA,A,(l)V a1teixov't0, oi ot ntom; cj>EpOµEVOt tm TE')'Ell• 'ta; EO"'tpa'tEUOV'tO, XP11crµ4> Kt~OTJA.q) 1ticruvot, 00.,(l011;·( ... )'H µsv OTJ ta exa-yroy6tata otoax0e'icra im:o tou 1tatpo~ e'J..£-ye 1tpo~ aut6v· os imo1Cptv6µevo~ Eo/11 ouoaµa 11~etv e~ K6ptv0ov, fot' av 1tUV0t 1tpO'tEpOt aU'tOt vriucrt E~o,wricrav E1tt Mecrcrriviouc;, roe; OE AaKeomµovtot Myoucrt, ouK o'ihro nµropfjcrat oeoµivotcrt :Eaµiotcrt Ecr'tpa'tE'UOV'tO roe; 'tEtcracr0at ~O'UA.OµEVOt 'tO'U Kpri'tf\poc; 'tf\c; apnayfjc;, 'tOV ~yov Kpotcrq>, Kat 'tO'U 0ropriKoc;, 'tOV aU'tOtcrt » Aµamc; oAiyunwu ~crtA.Euc; e1ttµ'JfE oropov. (3.47.1) In itself, it is not surprising that the Spartans, as a highly topical participant, follow the predicate and that a Setting element napacrKeuacraµevot precedes, but what determines the choice between the order participial phrase-subject-predicate and participial phrase-predicate-subject is not clear to me. In the following chapters we will encounter more instances with participial phrases, and at that point we will come back to this problem. For now, let me briefly recapitulate the conclusions so far:

There is reason to retain both options in describing the ordering of participial phrases. The first option (regarding the subject and the participial phrase as separate) is attractive where the two parts have distinct pragmatic functions .. The second option (describing the whole as a single constituent) allows one to generalise over contrastive Topics with and without participial phrases and retains the subject as a candidate for Topic function in the main clause. Finally, I proposed to treat participial phrases in which the subject does not take initial position as Setting phrases. The question remains as to what determines the choice between expressing the subject in this Setting phrase and placing it later in the clause with the main predicate.

84

APPENDIX TO

CllAP'IBR 4

4.5 Appendix, statistics, and conclusion In this section I will list all instances of cr-rpa·muoµm in Herodotus, together with a brief analysis. Most have not been discussed prior to this section because of their relatively straightforward structure; some have problematic aspects not covered in 4.2 through 4.4. The format of this section is as follows. I will present an analysis of the instances in order of their appearance in Herodotus, referring to previous sections where relevant and discussing instances at greater length where necessary. The chapter concludes with a brief look at the statistics of the ordering patterns of the predicate and its two arguments, which provided the starting point in section 4.1.

empa"CE'UE"CO OE 'U1t0 crupi:yycov "CE Kat 7tTIK"CtOCOV Kat aUA,O'U yuvatKTJlO'U "CE Kat avopTJlO'U. (1.17 .1) 'He marched to the sound of pipes and harps and flutes bass and treble.'

.- 4.2 (7) Tau-ra roe; pOV'tt~OV'trn; O'UOEV 't'Tlc; nOA-tOpKtllc;. 'When Darius heard of this he mustered all his power and led it against Babylon, and he marched to the town and laid siege to it; but the townsmen cared nothing for what he did.'

-Compare 4.4.3 (30): The participial phrase functions as a Setting, which precedes the predicate (Focus); the second argument (en' au'touc;) is postpositive, and takes second position in the main clause.

ii OE 0aA.acrcra m\yvmat Kat 6 Bocrnopoc; nae; 6 KtµµEptoc;, Kat ent 'tO'U

KpumaUou oi EK'toc; 'ta'tEpov µot dpT}'tat, LKU0at

e-rea ourov Mov-ra 'tptTJKOV"CO. Ktµµeptou~ yap emotroKOV"CE~ ECJepawv £~ TllV 'Aatnv. Ka'ta1ta'UOV"CE~ 'ti,~ apxfi~ Mrioou~· O'U'tOt yap 1tptv 11 l:Ku0a~ amKea0at -qpxov.-ri,~ 'Amn~- Toi>~ oe l:Ku0a~ Cl7tOOTJµriaav-ra~ OK"CC.0 Kat EtKOO't e-rea Kat Ota xpovou "COCJOU"COU KO"CtOV"Ca~ £~ TllV mpE"CEpTJV eseM~a"CO OUK E,A,(l(J~ avopa~ aya0ou~ nµav, e~ eµe "CE 1cat 'ta eµa npriyµa-ra a1toPA£1tOV"CE~. Oihro OE Kat uµe'i~ £i 001.TJ'tE uµea~ ffll"CO'U~ pamMt (8eoosrocr0e yap 7tp0~ O'U"CO'U avope~ elvat ayaeot). EKaoµevoc; EV 't'iJ XepO'OVTJO'q}, 6 OE vero'tepoc; nap' aU'tq) Ktµcovt 'A811v11crt, ouvoµa excov Cl1t0 'tO'U OtKtO''tECO 'tllc; XepcroVTIO'OU MtA'ttOOECO MtAnao11c;. (104) Ouwc; OT] &v 'tO'tE 6 MtA'tt0011c; i\Kcov EK 'tlleuycix; omMov 0avawv EO''tpO'tTl"(EE 'A011vatcov· aµa µEV yap oi otvtKec; amov oi E1ttotrosav'tec; µexpt "lµf3pou 1tept 1t0AAO'U E1tOtE'UV'tO Aaj3e'iv 'tE Kat avayaye'iv 1tapa f3amMa, aµa OE EKq>uyoV'ta 'tE 'tO'\l'tOU E7ttKO'ttjµevoc; XEtpiot 7tAE1J apyupiou, euye EK .I:mip'tl"lc; 'U7t0 OtKaO"tTjptov u1tax8Eic;, Kat 'tCX OtKia oi Ka'tEO'KO'tEpOt O'U'tOt OOEA U"(El, 'tt €,0}0'\, 1te1tA.11POOµEVat'

(8.61.2)

'Thereupon Themistocles spoke long and bitterly against Adimantus and the Corinthians, giving them plainly to understand that the Athenians had a city and country greater than theirs, as long as they had two hundred ships fully manned.'

e'A,eye is here used for abuse: Themistocles calls Adeimantus (-.ccivov) and his fellow Corinthians a lot of names. no'A,'A,a 'te Kat -.ca-.ca has Focus, and so, probably, does -.cciv6v 'te Kat wuc; Koptv0iouc;, making this a complex Focus construction Alternatively, we can analyse that constituent as the Topic of a new clause segment, corresponding to eromo'icrt in the next clause). Tau'ta µEV ~i-.cmoc; o 0eo-.cuoeoc; F,1,,£y£, ~11µapT}'tOU 'te -.cat (lA,A,(l}V (8.65.6) µap't'llprov -.cmam6µevoc;. 'This was the tale told by Dicaeus, son of Theocydes; and Demaratus and others (he said) could prove it true.'

,.. 6.1.2b (23)

"Oc; 'tO'te nwicp Cl1tt1C6µevoc; F-A£Y£ 1tpoc; 'tOU0et~ 'U1t0 Map8oviou, EA£"fE 'ta8e· (8.140a.1) 'When he came to Athens, sent there by Mardonius, he said: .. .'

·o 8£ V OE 'tCOV E1ttKATJ'tO>V, 'tCOV µEV OUK etOO'tO>V 'tOU~ XP'llO"µou~. 'tCOV 8£ et8o'tO>V µev, EV a8et1J 8e OU 1t0teuµevrov 'tO AE"fetv, OU'tO~ ['te] (9.42.2) Mapoovto~ EA£"fE" When they that were summoned said nought, some not knowing the prophecies and some knowing them but deeming it perilous to speak, Mardonius himself said: .. .'

.- 6.l.2b (24) 'A1ttKOµevotcn OE EA,F,"(E 'AM!;av8po~ 'ta8i::· 'When they had arrived, Alexander said to them: .. .'

(9.45.1)

FOUR MANNERS OF SPEAKING

191

'O OE 'tO'll'tq} 't(p Myq> Ka-rappcooiJcmc; -rouc; IIepcmc; EA£YE 'tClOE" (9.46.1) 'At the message Pausanias was struck with fear of the Persians, and said: .. .'

'E1td oE Ka-recr-r11crav Ec; -rac; apxaiac; -rastc;, 1teµ\j/ac; o Mapoovtoc; KTJpUKa Ee; -rouc; l:1tapniJ-rac; EA£"(E 'tClOE" (9.48.1) 'When all were at their former posts again, Mardonius sent a herald to the Lacedaemonians with this message: .. .'

Mapoovtoc; OE ci>c; E1tU0E'tO -rouc; "E1.1.11vac; cop11Ka Kat -rouc; EOUc; amou Eupu1t1JAOV Kat E>paO'UOTJlOV EAE"(E" (9.58.1) 'When Mardonius learnt that the Greeks had parted under cover of night, and saw the ground deserted, he called to himThorax of Larissa and his brothers Eurypylus and Thrasydei:us, and said: .. .'

11 E1tElOTJ eµa0E OVE'Uaas; 6 M aµeiPE'tO" "'Q PaatAEU, ropoiero µev 'tOU Mioero Eiµt na'is, ovoµa.~oµai 0£ "AopT]O"'tOS, q>OVE'Uaas 0£ aOEAq>EOV eµEro'U'tOU aeKrov 7tClpEtµt el;EAT]Aaµevos 'tE 'U7t0 'tOU 7ta'tpos Kat EO"'tEpT]µevos 7tE OE 'tOV xpovov 'tO'O'tOV Mqocov Kual;apri~ o paop'tECO 'tOU AT]tOKECO, 0~ 'tOU~ LKU0a~ 'tOU'tOU~ 'tO µEV 1tpmov 1tEptci1tE EU~ EOV'ta~ tKE'ta~· (1.73.3) 'A tribe of wandering Scythians separated itself from the rest, and escaped into Median territory. This was then ruled by Cyaxares, son of Phraortes, son of Deioces. Cyaxares at first treated the Scythians kindly, as being suppliants for his mercy .. .'

(25) ...µE'ta1tEµ\jfaµEvo~ OE Kat Ba~UA.COVlOU~ (Kat yap 1tpo~ 'tOU'tOU~

au'tq> E1tE1tOlT]'tO E OE 'tOV xpovov 'tO'O'tOV -cmv Bafl1>1vcovicov Aa~UVTJ'tO~).... (1.77.2) '(planning to) send for the Babylonians also (for with these too he had made an alliance, Labynetus being at this time their sovereign), .. .'

Activities of foreign rulers are twofold; they undertake wars and present votive offerings to Delphi -at least, these are the al;ta1tTJYTJ'ta. Rightfully so, since these are exactly the occasions of contact with the Greek world. Herodotus' narrative about Croesus' predecessors is confined to these two

210 Conversely, a people needs a territory; cf. the characterization of the Nacraµrove~ in 2.32: Kat 'tOV 'fafopxov 4>avai EA-0£1.V lCO'tE nap' (l'\)'t()V Nacraµrova~ avopa~. 'tO M Mvo~ 'tOU'tO

tan µh Atf3U1C6v, viµimn

OE 't'l]V :Eupnv 'tE Kat 't'l]V 1tpo~ rim XCOPTJV

if\~ :Eupno~ OUlC Em 7tOU6v. The sentence is subdivided after 'tO oe e0vo~ 'tOU'tO, stating two particulars ('subTopics'): the people's ethnic origin and its territory.

220

CHAPTER 7

points of interest. Because of this restriction, I propose that in (26), (27), and (28) tcrt~aAE K'tA., E1toAEµ110t and avt0rin: have Topic function. (26) 'EatjiaJ.£ µtv v1>v a'tpa-cu)v Kat ouw~. E7IBt'tE ~PSE, E~ 'tE MiArJ'tOV Kat E~ Lµupvriv, Kat Kowcovo~ 'tO OO"'t'U EiAE. 'AAA O'UOEV yap µtya an' aU'tO'U OAAO Epyov EYEVE'tO ~aO"tAf:UO"aV'tO~ O'UCOV OEOV'ta 'tEO"O"EpaKOV'ta E'tEa, 'tO'U'tOV µEv 1tapi\croµEv 'tOO"aU'ta E1ttµv11cr0EV'tE~. "Apouo~ OE 'tOU ruyEco µE't nape6vn npiJyµan, 'Ell:ui).TrJq 6 EvpvoTjµov dvi/p M11).ievq 11Wt oi ec; ).,6youc; rbal;;E-rat, is a Greek instance of what in Papuan languages is called Tail-Head linkage, where the final verb of one sentential paragraph serves as a 'Frame' for the next. 234 In (5), 'the other women', ai oe a).).m, obviously can be inferred from the chosen one as a contrastive Topic; cruµopT)v µqa).11v has Focus. Probably ovEtooc; in (6) is an inferred Topic: 'That slight is the worst (Focus) that can happen to them.'

5.6.· (1) Tcov oe OT\ aA.A.OlV 0p11ix:rov ecr-rt ooE v6µoc;· (2) nroMoucn -ra -rex:va en' el;ayroyfj. (3) Tac; [oe] nap0evouc; ou u).acrcroucn, ciU' ecocn 'tOtcrt au-ra't l301JAf>V'tat avopam µiayEcr9at. (4) 'tll'tq> M µot is a contrastive Topic, followed by the possessions Pythius wishes to retain (a1to avopa1t6orov 'tE 1eat yEro1teorov has contrastive Focus).

As a conclusion to this paragraph, I will give a simplified paraphrase, with Focus elements in italics: 'Sire, I shall neither hide nor pretend ignorance of my wealth, I shall tell you exactly. For as soon as I heard you were taking to sea, the Greek sea that is, I -because I wanted to give you money for the war- thoroughly examined (the question) and found that I had, of silver: 2000 talents, and of gold: 4,000,000 staters, with 7,000 wanting. And these I give to you. 242 Myself I can live sufficiently243 off (the income from) my slaves and my estate.' 7 .29. (1) ·o µev 'taU'ta EA-EYE, SepsTJ