|
|
Friday, January 1st, 2010
| |
11:28 pm - Oresteia online
|
novanglus
|
Although it isn't in Greek, readers here might like the excellent production of all three plays of the Oresteia that are now available on YouTube. Here's Part 1 and you can follow the links from there:
The performances are all in the Classical style, with masks and a spare set, and the translation is a wonderfully earthy metrical English rendering with an Anglo-Saxon feel.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, December 1st, 2009
| |
6:01 pm - odyssey in greek
|
swimchica623
|
Hi,
I am teaching the Odyssey in my 7th grade history enrichment class. We are discussing how stories were put into poems to help remember them and transmit culture. Does anyone have the first 6 lines or a line or two of those lines in the original ancient text? I think I have it shoved in my college books somewhere but not on me now. It would be most helpful.
Thank you!
As a side note, it still fascinates me that several translations have stressed and unstressed syllables, maintaining this unique structure. As if translating the text(s) was not difficult enough....
|
|
(5 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, October 25th, 2009
| |
2:16 pm - Imperatives Question
|
electrikalstorm
|
My Greek class is working its way through the first few chapters of Athenaze and I have a question about accents and verbs. Basically, I’m trying to figure out how they work with imperatives. So far, my understanding is that the singular and plural imperatives for –w verbs end in –e and –ete, respectively, and -ew verbs with –ei and –ei~te. At the same time, I realize that the accents on verbs are supposed to be recessive, so to some extent I can see why they are changing places in the examples below. However, I have questions about what’s going on with the accents in the following situations: 1) 1) Sullamba&nw changes to sulla&mbane in the singular imperative. What is the reason for the accent’s shift to another syllable?
2) 2) Kaqeu&dei changes to ka&qeude in the singular imperative. Is there a reason the original acute doesn’t change to a circumflex, given that the final syllable in the imperative is now short? This is what appears to happen in speu&dei’s change to speu=de in the singular imperative. There are other examples of imperatives in the chapters which I can memorize, but am unable to change from singular to plural or vice-versa because the changes in accents remain unclear to me (e.g. plh/qu<ne, e3lkete, a0rou=te). Is anyone able to explain what’s happening with the accents in these imperatives? I’ve looked through a few different resources, but without much luck. (For those of you who just happen to have your copies of Athenaze within arm’s reach, the forms in question can be found in chapter 2(b).) Thanks for any help!
|
|
(9 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, September 20th, 2009
| |
11:58 am - Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, III. v. 3 (1113b12)
|
leopold_paula_b
|
...ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἄρα τὸ ἐπιεικέσι καὶ φαύλοις εἶναι: it consequently depends on us whether we are virtuous or vicious.
I don't understand the datives ἐπιεικέσι καὶ φαύλοις. Because of ἡμῖν?
|
|
(6 comments | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, August 29th, 2009
| |
8:15 am - Two Questions on Athenaze
|
electrikalstorm
|
I'll be starting my studies of Classical Greek in the fall, and I know that I've got my work cut out for me. The reason for my post is because the text we'll be using is Athenaze, which, after doing a little research on Amazon, looks like a book students either adore or utterly, utterly despise. I skimmed through some copies of the first and second book, and I couldn't help but notice that the passages (even in the second book) are edited selections from Herodotus, Aristophanes, and others. I was hoping that - at least by the end of the second book, if not the first - we'd be able to read selections from different authors without too much editing, but the fact that so many of the readings are adapations is a bit discouraging (unless the adaptations are quite minor, but I'm in no position to judge).
That said, my questions for the community are these:
1) For those of you who have used Athenaze, did you find it to be sufficient preparation as a jumping-off point for most ancient writers?
2) Are there any supplemental materials anyone recommends for the Athenaze series, such as useful grammars, dictionaries, or even other textbooks that are useful?
I only ask because my university only offers two years of Greek, so Athenaze is likely going to be my only shot at ever acquiring a knowledge of the language. Whether you loved or hated the series or just have general tips on approaching Greek as a beginner, I'd appreciate your insights!
|
|
(11 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, August 25th, 2009
| |
6:39 pm
|
leopold_paula_b
|
I'm having a mental blackout with a grammar exercise (again):
ἀγγέλλων: Part. Praes. Act.
ἀγγέλων: _______________?
ἀγγελῶν: Part. Fut. Act.
ἄγγελον: _______________ ?
ἄγγειλον: Imper. Aor. Act.
ἀγγελεῖ: 3 Sg. Fut. Act.
ἀγγεῖλαι: Inf. Aor. Act.
ἀγγείλειε: 3 Sg. Opt. Aor. Act.
Thanks for any hint.
(I should know this. I do feel a bit stupid for having to ask.)
EDIT: Oh, I knew I should have known it. Thank you bela_block and atheneglaukopis!
|
|
(10 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, June 21st, 2009
| |
5:18 pm - Brushing Up My Greek
|
leopold_paula_b
|
Brushing up one's rusty Greek is full of surprises. I decided to work on textbooks with a lot of grammar exercises and alternately to read the real stuff. I started with Plutarch on the Cleverness of Animals. Currently it's Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. So far things are going well. But here comes a grammar exercise that confuses me. Maybe I just got my wires crossed for a moment?:
Find the odd one out:
a) τύχῃ, ῥώμῃ, τέχνῃ, τάττῃ
b) αἰσθάνῃ, γράφῃ, μέμφῃ, ὀργίζῃ
c) κρίνῃ, ἀμύνῃ, νίκῃ, ἐθίζῃ
d) πείθῃ, φυλάττῃ, παύῃ, κόρῃ
Now a), c), and d) are easy:
a) τάττῃ (the other ones are nouns)
c) νίκῃ (the other ones are verbs)
d) κόρῃ (the other ones are verbs)
But what about (b)? They all are "Indikativ or Konjunktiv Präsens Medium/Passiv Singular 2. Person". Right? γράφῃ is the only word that also has got an active voice. Is that the difference?
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, June 18th, 2009
| |
4:31 pm - Word of the Day: εὐτραπελία
|
leopold_paula_b
|
περὶ δὲ τὸ ἠδὺ τὸ μὲν ἐν παιδιᾷ ὁ μὲν μέσος εὐτράπελος καὶ ἡ διάθεσις εὐτραπελία, ἡ δ' ὑπερβολὴ βωμολοχία καὶ ὁ ἔχων αύτὴν βωμολόχος, ὁ δ' ἐλλείπων άγροῖκός τις καὶ ἡ ἕξις ἀγροικία·
In respect of pleasantness in social amusement, the middle character is witty and the middle disposition Wittiness; the excess is Buffoonery and its possessor a buffoon; the deficient man may be called boorish, and his disposition Boorishness. - Nicomachean Ethics 1108 a 24 ff.
καὶ αἰσχρότης καὶ μωρολογία ἢ εὐτραπελία, ἃ ούκ άνῆκεν, άλλὰ μᾶλλον εύχαριστία.
Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. - Ephesians 5:4.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009
| |
10:42 pm - A Joycean Look At Odyssey XIX, Subliminally Woolly
|
leopold_paula_b
|
The following is part of Fritz Senn's essay Remodelling Homer.
produce your credentials (Ulysses 16.1342)
All signals have to be treated with caution, and we cannot tell what is or is not a signal, sign or sema. Odysseus, on his return, has to disguise himself and fake names and origins in order to find out whom he can trust. It takes skill to hide one's identity, but it is also difficult to prove it. Names are particularly unreliable, for anyone can make up a story. One's looks change with age, naturally or by divine interference. Some bodily marks, however, remain as tokens of recognition, like the scar the nurse Eurykleia discovers in one of the most memorable scenes. The scar does what a name cannot do.( Read more... )
Caveat: 'A lay reader conditioned by Joyce, deformed by Finnegans Wake, will naturally project features that historical philologists may disprove.' (From the same essay.)
The typos, however, are mine. If you find some, please tell me. I'll be glad to correct them.
current music: Joseph Haydn: Die Jahreszeiten
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009
| |
4:52 pm - doggy stylings
|
|
| Friday, May 15th, 2009
| |
11:41 am - Struggling with Aristotle
|
leopold_paula_b
|
Οἱ δὴ κομίσαντες τὴν δόξαν ταύτην οὐκ ἐποίουν ἰδέας ἐν οἷς τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον ἔλεγον, διόπερ οὐδὲ τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἰδέαν κατεσκεύαζον· τὸ δ᾽ ἀγαθὸν λέγεται καὶ ἐν (20) τῷ τί ἐστι καὶ ἐν τῷ ποιῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ πρός τι, τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ καὶ ἡ οὐσία πρότερον τῇ φύσει τοῦ πρός τι (παραφυάδι γὰρ τοῦτ᾽ ἔοικε καὶ συμβεβηκότι τοῦ ὄντος)· ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἂν εἴη κοινή τις ἐπὶ τούτοις ἰδέα. (Nicomachean Ethics 1096 a 18-23)
The originators of this theory, then, used not to postulate Ideas of groups of things in which they posited an order of priority and posteriority (for which reason they did not construct an Idea of numbers in general). But Good is predicated alike in the Categories of Substance, of Quality, and of Relation; yet the Absolute, or Substance, is prior in nature to the Relative, which seems to b a sort of offshoot or 'accident' of Substance; so that there cannot be a common Idea corresponding to the absolutely good and the relatively good. (H. Rackham)
Die Begründer dieser Lehre haben keine gemeinsamen "Ideen" solcher Dinge aufgestellt, bei denen sie von "früher" und "später" sprachen, weshalb sie auch keine die Zahlen umfassende Idee angesetzt haben. Nun wird jedoch "gut" ausgesagt in der Kategorie der Substanz, der Qualität und der Relation, das An-sich aber, die Substanz, ist von Natur früher als die Relation. Diese gleicht ja einem Seitensproß und Akzidens des Seienden. Folglich kann es über den genannten Erscheinungsformen von "gut" keine gemeinsame "Idee" geben. (Franz Dirlmeier; Anm.: Die Platoniker kennen (zu Recht) keine Idee von Genera und analogen Begriffen, innerhalb derer es Primäres, Unabhängiges und Sekundäres, Angewiesenes gibt, wie z.B. innerhalb des Seienden die Kategorie der Substanz und die der Relation, und zwar weil sonst der Widersinn entstünde, daß dem Primären (z.B. der Substanz) Primäres (nämlich die Idee) vorauszuordnen wäre. In der Annahme der Idee des Guten als Allgemeinbegriff liegt nach A. insofern ein Widerspruch, als "gut" analog den Kategorien des Seienden ausgesagt werde. - Not helpful.)
I don't think it's the language alone why I can't make head or tail of this. How important is it to understand this for reading the whole of Nicomachean Ethics? I realise it's Aristotle's criticism at Plato. Immediately above this he famously states that amicus Plato, sed magis amica Veritas. I did understand the preceding paragraphs and the ones that followed.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, May 2nd, 2009
| |
7:47 pm - More questions...
|
|
| Tuesday, April 14th, 2009
| |
11:26 pm - Ecclesiastes
|
electracide
|
Can anyone point me to a good website for biblical Greek? I'm looking for Ecclesiastes 1-9 in Ancient and Modern...hopefully in Greek, not transliteration. Euxaristo poli!
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, April 12th, 2009
| |
3:03 am - Unde et quo Catius? Ὦ φίλε Φαῖδρε, ποῖ δὴ καὶ πόθεν;
|
leopold_paula_b
|
Hor. Unde et quo Catius? Cat. Non est mihi tempus aventi
ponere signa novis praeceptis, qualia vincant
Pythagoran Anytique reum doctumque Platona.
Hor. Peccatum fateor, cum te sic tempore laevo
interpellarim; sed des veniam bonus, oro.
Quod si interciderit tibi nunc aliquid, repetes mox,
sive est naturae hoc sive artis, mirus utroque.
Cat. Quin id erat curae, quo pacto cuncta tenerem,
utpote res tenuis, tenui sermone peractas.
[...]
Hor. Docte Cati, per amicitiam divosque rogatus
ducere me auditum, perges quocumque, memento.
nam quamvis memori referas mihi pectore cuncta,
non tamen interpres tantundem iuveris. [...]' (Horace, Satires 2 . 4 . 1-9; 88-91)
ΣΩ. Ὦ φίλε Φαῖδρε, ποῖ δὴ καὶ πόθεν;
[...]
ΣΩ. Ὦ Φαῖδρε, εἰ ἐγὼ Φαῖδρον ἀγνοῶ, καὶ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπιλέλησμαι. ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐδέτερά ἐστι τούτων· εὖ οἶδα, ὅτι Λυσίου λόγον ἀκούων ἐκεῖνος οὐ μόνον ἅπαξ ἤκουσεν, ἀλλὰ πολλάκις ἐπαναλαμβάνων ἐκέλευέν οἱ λέγειν, ὁ δὲ ἐπείθετο προθύμως. Τῷ δὲ οὐδὲ ταῦτα ἦν ἱκανά, ἀλλὰ τελευτῶν παραλαβὼν τὸ βιβλίον, ἃ μάλιστα ἐπεθύμει, ἐπεσκόπει, καὶ τοῦτο δρῶν ἐξ ἑωθινοῦ καθήμενος ἀπειπὼν εἰς περίπατον ᾔει, ὡς μὲν ἐγὼ οἶμαι, νὴ τὸν κύνα, ἐξεπιστάμενος τὸν λόγον, εἰ μὴ πάνυ τι ἦν μακρός. Ἐπορεύετο δ’ ἐκτὸς τείχους, ἵνα μελετῴη. ἀπαντήσας δὲ τῷ νοσοῦντι περὶ λόγων ἀκοήν, ἰδὼν μέν, ἰδών, ἥσθη, ὅτι ἕξοι τὸν συγκορυβαντιῶντα, καὶ προάγειν ἐκέλευε. Δεομένου δὲ λέγειν τοῦ τῶν λόγων ἐραστοῦ, ἐθρύπτετο, ὡς δὴ οὐκ ἐπιθυμῶν λέγειν τελευτῶν δὲ ἔμελλε, καὶ εἰ μή τις ἑκὼν ἀκούοι, βίᾳ ἐρεῖν. Σὺ οὖν, ὦ Φαῖδρε, αὐτοῦ δεήθητι, ὅπερ τάχα πάντως ποιήσει, νῦν ἤδη ποιεῖν. ΦΑΙ. Ἐμοὶ ὡς ἀληθῶς πολὺ κράτιστόν ἐστιν οὕτως, ὅπως δύναμαι λέγειν, ὥς μοι δοκεῖς σὺ οὐδαμῶς με ἀφήσειν, πρὶν ἂν εἴπω ἁμῶς γέ πως.
ΣΩ. Πάνυ γάρ σοι ἀληθῆ δοκῶ.
ΦΑΙ. Οὑτωσὶ τοίνυν ποιήσω. Τῷ ὄντι γάρ, ὦ Σώκρατες, παντὸς μᾶλλον τά γε ῥήματα οὐκ ἐξέμαθον· τὴν μέντοι διάνοιαν σχεδὸν ἁπάντων, οἷς ἔφη διαφέρειν τὰ τοῦ ἐρῶντος ἢ τὰ τοῦ μή, ἐν κεφαλαίοις ἕκαστον ἐφεξῆς δίειμι, ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου.
ΣΩ. Δείξας γε πρῶτον, ὦ φιλότης, τί ἄρα ἐν τῇ ἀριστερᾷ ἔχεις ὑπὸ τῷ ἱματίῳ· τοπάζω γάρ σε ἔχειν τὸν λόγον αὐτόν. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτό ἐστιν, οὑτωσὶ διανοοῦ περὶ ἐμοῦ, ὡς ἐγώ σε πάνυ μὲν φιλῶ, παρόντος δὲ καὶ Λυσίου, ἐμαυτόν σοι ἐμμελετᾶν παρέχειν οὐ πάνυ δέδοκται. ἀλλ’ ἴθι, δείκνυε. (Plato, Phaedrus 227a; 228a-e)
Neat, isn't it? Apart from the identical beginning of the Horatian satire and the Platonic dialogue, both Catius and Phaidros try to practise their memory, while Horace and Sokrates seek nearer acquaintance to the source itself. (But yes, I realize that "per amicitiam" doesn't exactly equal "ὦ φιλότης".)
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Saturday, March 28th, 2009
| |
4:52 pm
|
hongi
|
Foist of all, I hope I'm not being too annoying with these questions. I don't have an answer key unfortunately so I must recourse to asking, and even then I haven't found a community for Greek other than this one.
( questions )
|
|
(8 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, March 18th, 2009
| |
8:42 pm - Newbie Greek questions
|
hongi
|
Hi, I just started Ancient Greek at Uni and got a bunch of questions about accents and what not. We're using Mastronarde's textbook, which is pretty cool.
1) Why do the genitive/dative cases of a word with an accented ultima have a circumflex accent?
e.g. θεά, θεᾶσ
Is there a reason why this is the case? The textbook just tells me the rule: 'Any noun of the a-declesion with an accented ultima (acute on U in the nom. sing) has the circumflex on U in the genitive and dative of all numbers', but doesn't really explain why this is the case.
2) Here's another rule: 'All a-declesion nouns have a circumflex accent on the omega of the gen.pl. (the form was originally -άων and has been contracted to -ῶν)'.
Can someone explain to me why/how the circumflex appears when the -άων contracts to -ῶν?
3) Why is the eta subgroup of the short-vowel feminine nouns (where the alpha in nom, acc and voc sing is short) so different to the eta subgroup of the long vowel feminine nouns (where the alpha in nom, acc and voc sing is long)? For example in the short vowel eta subgroup, the eta only appears in the genitive and dative (ησ and ῃ), and the rest have a short alpha (-a, -av) whereas in the long vowel eta subgroup, all the singular endings have an eta in them, with no alpha. Does it have something to do with this 'vowel shift' that the book mentions?
4) Does the definite article ever appear on its own? It seems to me that if it always appears in a connected context, they should always be depicted with a grave accent...it saves the hassle of converting the acute accent into a grave.
Thank you!
|
|
(7 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, March 10th, 2009
| |
7:35 pm - Arrian/Diodorus online
|
bela_black
|
Hi fellow Greeks, I'm wondering whether there are online versions of Arrian and Diodorus - I didn't find anything on Perseus
or anywhere else for that matter, so I thought I'd ask here.
I'm precisely looking for Arrian's work on Alexander the Great and Diodorus' 17th book about the conquests of Alexander.
And in case anyone knows a online version of Plutarch's moralia, especially "On the Fortune and Virtue of Alexander", I'd also be very happy. Of course the translation is what matters most, but I'd not reject the Greek text either. Obviously my school's library doesn't have any original Alexander sources expect Plutarch's biography and it seems to be sort of difficult to get them anywhere else, so it'd be great if there was something online. Thank you :) EDIT: Ok, I just discovered that Diodorus is indeed on Perseus, so let me re-phrase that: Does anyone know a Diodorus version other than Perseus because Perseus often doesn't work for me ... ?
current mood:  curious
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, February 10th, 2009
| |
11:10 pm - Greek student's first Loeb
|
erebrandir
|
I won a free Loeb of my choice tonight from my friends, and I would like one in Greek. I'm only a Greek beginner, about halfway through Hansen and Quinn's Intensive Greek Course, so I feel I should choose something in the Attic dialect, and preferably something whose difficulty won't kill me. The trouble is, I know very little about Greek literature. I've enjoyed reading the great tragedians, Euripides, Sophocles, and Aeschylus, in English. How would they be in terms of difficulty? Can anybody recommend any other author that would be good for a beginner -- both an enjoyable read and a style I could choke through?
|
|
(15 comments | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, January 31st, 2009
| |
9:22 pm - An Attic question
|
erture
|
Hello, all. I've got a quick homework question for English-Greek translation. The sentence in question: I cannot look at the treasure which was found in the house.
I'm supposed to translate using a participle. Doesn't "which was found" require an aorist passive participle? (I'm hung up on this because I haven't learned the aorist passive participle yet!)
Thanks for your help!
|
|
(6 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, January 13th, 2009
| |
2:45 pm - Hesychii Alexandrini Lexikon -- searching for electronic version
|
kassian
|
Does anybody possess scanned version of new Hesychius edition?
Vol.1-2 (A-O) were edited by K.Latte (1953, 1966).
Vol.3 (P-Sigma) was prepared by A.Hansen (1995).
K.Schmidt's edition is available (short version 1867), but it's too out-of-date.
Thank you.
UPD. Latte's vol.1-2 as well as Schmidt's large version is available in TLG (Musaios) base:
Lexicon (A–O), ed. K. Latte, Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon,
vols. 1-2. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1:1953; 2:1966: 1:3-492;
2:1-806.
(Cod: 235,261: Lexicogr.)
Lexicon (P–W), ed. M. Schmidt, Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon,
vols. 3-4. Halle: *n.p., 3:1861; 4:1862 (repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1965):
3:251-439; 4:1-336.
(Cod: 67,413: Lexicogr.)
So the Hansen's vol.3 (1995) remains a problem.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
classicalgreek![[info]](http://stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}