Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:23:32.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Construction with Mh Oy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. C. Moorhouse
A. C. Moorhouse
Affiliation:
University College, Swansea.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In line 1171 of Aeschylus' Agamemnon the MSS. read μή The remainder of the sentence, after μή, is much disputed, but I am not concerned with finding the true reading of it. The whole sentence runs, in the MSS., as follows: ἄκος δ' οὐδὲν ἐπήρκεσαντὸ μὴ πόλιν μὲν ὥσπερ ον ἔχει παθεν: which appears in Thomson's Oresteia as:… ἐπήρκεσεν τὸ μὴ oὐk ἔχειν πόλιν μὲν ὥσπερ ον ἔχει. It is the note on this passage in Thomson to which I wish to draw attention. It is from Headlam, and says, in justification of reading μὴ οὐκ, that in such phrases the scribes, finding μὴ οὐ, constantly omitted οὐ as περιττόν. It adds that οὐ should always be restored, at any rate where there is any trace of it.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 34 , Issue 1-2 , April 1940 , pp. 70 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1940

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Oresteia, Thomson, G., 1938.Google Scholar

2 Agamemnon, Headlam, W., 1925.Google Scholar

3 M. and T., 1929, par. 812.Google Scholar

4 Ausführl. Gramm, d. griech. Sprache, 1904, ii. 2, p. 218.Google Scholar

5 Here and subsequently K-G. should be understood to mean Kühner-Gerth, , op. cit. ii. 2.Google Scholar

1 Lat. Gramm., Leumann-Hofmann, , p. 287.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., p. 785.

3 , K-G., pp. 203 ffGoogle Scholar. The redundancy is not literary only, it appears on inscriptions, cf. Sammlg. Inschr. 5315. 34 (Euboea); 5464. 11 and 12 (Thasos). This repetition occurs in other languages, e.g. in Slavonic. Cf. Hirt, , Idg. Gramm. vii, pp. 79 and 80.Google Scholar

4 K.V.G., p. 603Google Scholar; cf. Thompson, , Synt. of Alt. Gk. (1907), p. 247.Google Scholar

5 The dative appears to be one origin of the inf. in IE. and also in Greek (v. Buck, , Comp. Gramm., p. 305)Google Scholar, if we so explain the inf. in -σΘαι On the other hand, the Gk. inf. in -αι is a locative rather than a dative, as earlier held: cf. Hirt, , Idg. Gramm. iv, p. 92Google Scholar. Also Schwyzer, , Griech. Gramm., pp. 808, 809.Google Scholar

1 And there is even τό with inf. after negative verb: Soph. Phil. 118Google Scholar, οὐκ ἂν ἀρνοίμην τὸ δρν: though this has not escaped the attention of emenders.

2 There is neither μή nor μὴ οὐ here: but I apply Goodwin's words to this original, simple τό with inf. class, where they are no less applicable than where the negative particles are present.

1 Diels, , Frg. Vorsokr. 5 ii, p. 33: Anax. 3.Google Scholar

1 I have not found any inscriptional occurrences of μὴ οὐ of early or of classical date: but do not venture to deny their existence. It would be of very great assistance to discover some.

2 Robertson, , Gramm. of Gk. New Test. 3, p. 1171.Google Scholar

3 1. 1873; 1. 2095 (οὐ Dobree); 2. 1813; 3. 511; 3. 824; 6. 112; 6. 88; 7. 52; 8. 572; 8. 981; 8. 1003; 8. 119; 8. 1262; 9. 122.

4 These two are at 1. 1122; 7. 281 (both of class (2)).

1 For μὴ οὐ after an interrogative μέλω form, cf. Aesch. P.V. 627Google Scholar, τί δτα μέλλεις μὴ οὐ γεγωνί-σκειν τὸ πν; and Soph. Ai. 540Google Scholar, τὴ δτα μέλλει μὴ οὐ παρουσίαν ἔχειν;

2 For μὴ οὐ after αἰσχρόν, cf. Plat. Prot. 352Google Scholar D αἰσχρόν ἐστι μὴ οὐχὶ φάναι: Xen. Cy. 2. 2. 20, etc.Google Scholar

1 Schmid-Stählin, , Gr. Lit. i. 1, p. 520.Google Scholar

2 Thumb-Kieckers, , Gr. Dial. i, p. 219.Google Scholar

3 Schmid-Stählin, , i. 2, pp. 148, 290, 485–6.Google Scholar

4 Pickard-Cambridge, , Dith. Trag. and Com., p. 147.Google Scholar

5 So more recently Mahlow, G. H., Neue Wege durch d. griech. Sprache u. Dichtung.Google Scholar The author is making a most useful and necessary point when he argues so frequently that we expect too much uniformity in Attic, and that we establish our rules concerning what may be Attic with too much rigidity in view of the incomplete nature of the evidence available. But despite this I cannot agree that a and η for the same IE. sound existed in Attic side by side, as Mahlow supposes.