36 CHAPTER TWO GREECE 37

:he first two link, (syngf1ldai syntactical observations of earlier writers, many deriving from rhetorical
lmked pair, of ten .: hi (OVYYEv<lal»)of Thrax arc the sam. as
. ses wit In the a f studies. He made use of the same set of eight word classes as those
p 1enon set up by th S . speets 0 completion and incom-
diff e teres though th . given in the Technr. but he redefined some of them, more particularly
mers in part a d h" e termmology of the two schools
S tOICSas
. ' n t e aonst and f t to make greater use of philosophical terminology and to establish a
being b th . d . u ure were also associated by the
f 0 In ctermlllate t ':\-1 common class meaning for each word class."? He defined the pronoun
a regular Greek verb h enses Iv orphologically the forms
h s s ow prop ti I not merely as a noun substitute as Thrax had done, but additionally as
t e first pair being b 'It or rona correspondences (analo.lal)
UI on the pr ' , standing for substance (ousla (ovala)) without qualities, a statement
(re d uplicated) stem d h . esent stem, the second on the perfect
tho h h ,an t e third each havi , . repeated by Priscian and of considerable importance later in mediaeval
ug t e two were prob bl avmg a sigmatic ' (-s-) stem,
a linguistic thought,"
the similarities betwee th y not etymologically connected.vs Despite Though he worked on the basis of the morphological description of
rec ogmtlon. . to the as n el two di system 8, Th rax 'ss fai allure to give proper Greek set down by the Alexandrian school, his general outlook on
G k pecrua dirnensi ,
ree tenses must be id sion In the semantic structure of the linguistic matters was more mentalist than theirs and owed much to
Th e five inflected consi ' d ered a defini rute 1oss of insight. Stoic influences, He sharply distinguished form and meaning (schima
h
last tree, uninflectedwor or . classes . are d efined and described first: the ("Xi\~a) and ennoia (EVVOIa)in his terminology), and assigned gramma-
syntactic grounds thou hmvahrl~bleword classes, are distinguished on tical structure to the side of meaning, in statements markedly similar to
dealr wi'It.h T'he adve b'g tdesi en synt ac t'rc f unctions are not further
some found among writers of 'general grammar' today."?
adverbi. r IS eSlgnated P' h-
.; um; and English ad, b) . e lrr ema (whence the Latin Just as the nominal and verbal constituents of the Greek sentence
with ibiverb S (Th fax and those uer r 11 from. Its pnncrpa ' , I syntactic association
were !he first to be recognized as distinct and ,vere always regarded as
pasS! dIty o f' Its Immed' , t >0 awmg hi m seem to h'ave Ignored the
the most fundamental division in the grammar of the language, Apol-
word. cl ass, tough h this 13" e constitue ney 'with . members of any other lanius expressly built his syntactic description on the relations of the
me:iotes no 10 IS quIte common· G k
tion' nger in use for the wh I I m ree), The Stoic term noun and the verb to each other and of the remaining classes of words
dead"as the na me for a sub I 0 e c ass ' ap pears In 'Th rax's descnp- '
to these two.80 In describing these relations he relied on the cases of
L Jecllvali . h
Y WIt the suffix _ c ass of adYe b
r s. namely those formed nominally inflected words in their different interconnections with each
th al,terwork in Greek g -a" other and with verbs, and on the three classes of verbs, active (transi-
e lOguisti d rammar took th f
rnents c . eseription summ . d' e orm of developments from tive), passive, and neutral (intransitive), with their separate relation-
of modon speedl ,c passages in it anze I .In Th rax 'g T'r:chni and of com- ships to the nominal case form,. One finds under the active verbs the
ern hng' , . tsmamo " f
though h U1Shcswas the b miSSIOn rom the standpoint statement that they designate an action 'passing over to something or
t e term . a sence of a '
sis Was syntaxl, (ovlITa< ) ny sectIOns on syntax al- someone else', whence the Latin verbum transitivum and English
partly pr ,I~ was empl d d .'
Syntax esupposed in oye an syntactic anal)'- transitit'e verb may be said to originate.sl
Was dealt "h some definit' . ,
Alexandria i "It extensively b A lO~s given In the Tech"l. These developments foreshadow the distinction of subject and object
bOoks onl n the seCond century y polIonms Dyscolus writing in and of later concepts such as government (rection) and dependency,
, y some of h' h A.D, He Wr t 1
earlier writi w Ie Survive d' 0 e a arge number of Such however do not appear to have been part of Apollanius's descrip-
ngs On Gr k ,an It would
h ensive synta t' ee syntax his W h appear that despite tive apparatus. He devotes considerable attention to concordia! relations
. . c iC deser' . as t e first att
HIS ImpOrta IPhon and I' empt at a com pre- (katallil6tis (KCX'TaAATjA6-n)S),
akolouthiii (CrKoAov6ia)), which hold, for
nee, togeth' ana ySIS of th G
cessors, and th er With that of Th e reek language. example, between a finite verb form and a nominative case noun or pro-
later referred e gre~tLatin gramm' ra.x, was realized by his sue- noun in respect of number and person, but not between a finite verb and
ex r . to hun arlan, PrIscian
an oblique case form.82:Of more abstract syntactic relations, such as can
l

p lCltlyimpo~ed A as the greatest auth .' some three centuries

of the Latin lang polionian methods hi onty on grammar', and be established for all languages and not merely those morphologicall)'
Apolionius W ukage, " on s own full-scale de,cription similar to Latin and Greek, he mentions the relationship of constituent
or ed with h structuring (paralambdnesthai ('lTapaAa~l3cXv,a1lal)to be taken together)
t e material su r
pp led by the Tichni and the
 38 CHAPTER TWO GREECE 39

to refer to the construction of . . mation in the lists of nominal and verbal inflections, known as canons
or of noun or p participle and main verb in a sentence,
ronoun and verb" Su bsti . (kdnones (K6:vove~», on which later paradigms were modelled. The best
(&vevrr6:yeaecxl» occ h . strtutron (anthypdgeslhai
urs w en a word of I known is the complete set of all the theoretically available forms of the
used in place of one f h one c ass, e.g. a pronoun, can be
o anot er class 8' verb typtein (TVTTTelV), to hit, of which, however, in classical Greek only
paralambdneslhai ( , e.g. a noun. • In his use of sym-
lion', something li~~~CXPcx~cxd~f3aveaeCX!), 'to be taken along in addi- a limited number were actually in use.
Byzantine scholars continued the study of the Greek case system,
and hilerarchical rank' e mo ern concepts 0f iimme dilate constituency .
f h lUg seems to be envi d ' and a semantic analysis of the cases by Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-
o t e sentence tachy lth' . .I. nvisage ,as In one of his analyses
OlVTj<J<V ~~a~) quickl e o~ paidion on,sen hemtis (TaxV ,~e6v TTCXl510v 13'0), highly praised by Hjelmslev in his study of this category, was
. ' Y comlUg up a b hI- . one of the linguistic insights carried back to Renaissance Europe from
tac h'Y, quickly is irn d' I ' oy e ped US, In which the adverb
. ,melateyasso' d . Byzantium at the end of the Middle Ages, and became influential in the
havmg come whi h - crate WIth the participle elthon
Ie In turn' . .
IS assocIated with the main verb tn,sen, (he) development of theories of case in modern Europe."
I '.
helped."
These later developments all belong to a post-classical age. By
However
, a good d eaoApoll"d'
I f general recognition the literature of the post_Hellenistic eras never
questlOns was direct d ornus s iscussion of grammatical
of syntachc ' descriptie not so much to ward s t h e elaboration of a theory approached the standard of the classical epochs of Greece, in variety,
of G on as to attempt
reek constructions Th
t I"
5 a exp ammg particular features
spontaneity, or profundity. In the Byzantine period, theological con-
Io;e', phileln (<pl~ejv) . d us, the fact that two verbs meaning 'to troversies apart, literary studies were largely concentrated on the past,
atr ve and genitive case' an f eran ('p5:v) ' ta k e respectively the accus- and in this respect lingu'stic scholarship was a proper product of. the
ate.. and therefore les 15 re erred for exp 1anatton . to the more passion- times. The descriptions, analyses, and explanations of the g:ammanans
eran86. d s controlled nat f h . ' and the commentators formed part of a wider body of learm~g .devo~ed
• 1 an the true e I' ure 0 t e love Involved In
smgul ar verb with a xp anatlon of th e peculiar . to the study of earlier literary works. This was an age of dlet1onanes,
Greek concord of
(ypa~" TO: TTcxt5lcx),
then~uter plur~l, subject noun (graphei tiz paidia glossaries, and commentaries, of working over past originals rather than
fact, as is now known oys h- are_ wntm)g qUIte. escaped him arising in of new creation.
neuter pI I ' Istoncally in th " '. '. It is not difficult to detect omissions and misrepresentations in that
ura Case ending from' e ongln of the nommatlve
Apollonius's Son H . a smgular colJective 87 part of Greek grammar summarized by Dionysius Thrax and in the
e
accentuation ,erodlan, is best kn £' . later contributions of Apollonius Dyscolus and his successors. Wh:l
referr d b and punctuation c . OWn or hIs work on Greek
e to y D'· ,ovenng the fi ld f - , ' this criticism may seem at first sight flattering to modern scholarship,
detail b 10nyslUs Thrax. Th _. e 0 the prosodzaI
it is much less appropriate than is some sympathetic reflection on t~e
symb IY later scholiasts and cam ~ prosodiaz were described in morc
o 'zed by th very great achievements of successive generations of Greek scholars m
in vow I e accent marks e to mdud
. e th e d"lstInctlve
.
pitch levels
e s and, on wntten w d I devising and systematizing a formal terminology for the description of
vocalic a quanltty in syllable ..or s, ength and shortness the classical Greek language as it was written and read aloud (and t.hey
. nset at th b . s) aSpiratIOn d ..
Ings '), and Such' e egmning of Words C ~n n::)fl~asplratlOn of set their sights no higher), a terminology which, through. the medIUm
word comp !Unctural phenomen rough and smooth breath-
_ Oundmg d a as vowel r '. , . of translation and adaptation to Latin, became the foundal1on for nearly
distinguish est' . ,.an Wordbounda e ISIOO pitch changes In two thousand years of grammatical theory and the teaching and study
('o-rlv 6:~tO~)zta:10s ('<nl Na~lo~) ~ ~arkers 0.£ the type that could of the Greek and Latin languages. From the resources of a language not
aVailahleto k~ e IS Wonhy (perha~ e IS a NaxIan, from estln dxios .. , tt ntsthe
previously required to embody precise metahngUlSltC s a erne
to see the G ePkapan English a noti s fcomparable with the features
ree wod on roman ocean. ) It IS , Greeks had hammered out, through stages that we are able in great part
Ph onetie phe r j)Tos6dld co..' interesting to 1etrace, a detailed and articulated technical vocabulary for gram-
nomena t. ¥ enng v
retent Firthian h 0 which the t ery much the range of
Th P onol . erm prosod h matical description.
e attain'" . f ogIcal analysis" 'Y as been applied in
"",at a 'rhra ' . The Greek triumph in intellectual civilization is to ~~ve done ~o
x s morphology found . . much in so many fields; their work in logic, ethics, pohl1cs, rhetonc,
theIr uJtlmate consurr.-
 40 CHAPTER TWO
GREECE 41
and mathe .
mattes, to mention onl
once. Their achievement' h y SOme subjects, comes to mind at 3. c. D. BUCK, Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin, Chicago, 1933
strn In t at part of I' " .
ngest, namely grammatical th mguisncs 1~ which they were 68-78. On the history of writing,!. J. Gelb, A study of writing,
strong enough to deserve d eory. and grammatical description is Chicago, 1962.
shan to suat . , '
lie as to inspire Our gratitud atn.cn~lcal examination. It is also 4. BUCK, op. cir., 68-74 j The Greek dialects, Chicago, 1928, 16.
e and admIratIOn. 5. e,g. PLATO, Theaetetus 207 B, Philebus 17 B, 18 D.
6. DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae philosophorum 3.25: lTpOOTOS~eec:JPTlaE TiiS'
FOR FURTHER C .
H. AnENS Sr' ON SULTATION Yf-Cq.1~aTIKf1STnV 6vVCCl..1IV.
· ' P ach'll.:lSsenscha1t· d G . 7. W. D. ROSS: Aristotle, London, 1923, 116-17; c. SINGER, A short
bts ZUr Geg 'J" er ang ihrer E . kl
l\: enwart, Freiburg/M ich ntrcic ung 'Vonder Antike history of science, Oxford, 1941, 40-1.
unle
'IBARWICK,'Problerneder t' h (second edition) 1969 3-30
l.mgen d ., h . S DISC en Sprachl h ,. 8. DIOGENES 7.49: rrpcnvetrci f] ecvrccfc, l:16' f} 610:vota ~KI\aATlTIKti
. h er sac slschen Akad . e re und Rherorik ' Abhand-
v-rrapxovcra. 8 m:ccrXEt ~J1T6 Tiis <pcnnacriccs TOUTO h(IJI~PElA6yctJ· id. 7.83:
Iague hi t ' h etn,e der Wi , if '
F. 1-1 - S OYlsc e Klasse 49 3 ( ) ssensc la ten eu Leipzig, philo- lTCwTO TO. TIp6:Y~O:Ta 010: Tiis ~V i\6yOlS 6Ewplos Opaa6ol. id. 7·55: Tiis
. COLSON, 'The : 1957.
qllarterl analoglst and ' OlahEKTn,iis 6ewplo') O'V~<pwvwS OOKEL70i') 1TA~la701S erno TOO rrepl cpwviiS'
E, EGGE Y IJ (1919), 24-36. anomaIrst controversy', Classical
~vaPXEa{lal -rctrcv.
R, Apo/lonius D
dans I'anti: uit ?'seole: essai sur I'histoi • ' 9. DIOGENES 7.62 (70 c-quctvcv and 70 aTl~O:IV6IJEVOV); BARWICK, 1957,
H. ROLL q, I e,
Pans, 1854. Ire des theorzes grammaticales chapter 1; LONG, 1971, chapter 5j F. DE SAUSSURE, Cours de linguistique
ER, DIe Anfan .
5-40. ge der gru:'chischen G generate (fourth edition), Paris, 1949, 156-7.
A. A. LONG ( d) rammatik', Glotta 37 (1958), 10. PLATO, Cratylus, 384 D. On this dialogue see further J. C. RIJLAARSDAM,
e . , Prable .
B. MATES, StOt'c Z' ms zn Stoicism Land Platon tiber die Sprache: ein KQmmentar zum Kratylos, Utrecht, 1978.
M. ~OI-lLENZ, rDi:gl~, B~~keley, 1953 (UCp ;~z:l 1971. II .-1'b'd
1 .,399 C, 414 C, 421 D, 423 B, 426 C-427 D.
dIe Stoa' N ~grundung der abendl" .' 26). 12. ibid., 384 D.
Gtittihgen 'PI .:chr~chten Von der G II andlSchen Sprachlehre durch 13· Lectures on the science of language, London, 1862, lecture 9·
schaff N F Il ologz.sch-hi~·torische Kl eSe schaft der Wissenschaften zu
14· ARISTOTLE, De interpretatione 2: K0:7Ct OVV61\KTlV, OTt IJIVa£1 TWV
J

R . 3.6 (19 ) asse Faehgnipp Al .

e I
I • -,
. Ii, ROBINS A' 39 • tertums'ltJJSsen-
, ,ne/ent and 11led'
6vo~Cnwv ov6~v fe"'-lv (cp. 4).
95 I. chapter I tGe1.'fllgram, ' 15· ibid., I : EO'TI~EV oilv .0: ev .lj <pwvfjTWV ~vTij YJVXii-rraeTll..laTl;UV aV~~oi\a.
_, r Dionysius 'Th natzeal theory £n Europe, London,
Kcxl 'TO: YPC:lP6~Eva TWV £v,.ij ~wvfj.

__
1957,67-106
The d .
, I
rax and the weste
rn grammatical tradition' TPS
16. ORIGEN, Contra Celsum I.Z4: Ws VOI..l(~ouowot arro Ti'iS LTOC(S' cpv-aet
[senl 'TO: 6vollCXTa] 1-.1t1..10VI..1EVWV
700V TIpWTWV cpWVWV TO: 1TPcXylJ.crTCC•
gram ' evelopment of '
matteal trad' . the Word I 17· ibid" 1.24; BARWICK, I957'5WPter,,'f:-
J. E. SAND\'S H' ltton', Foundatio if c ass system of the European
, tstorv if La ns 0 lang , 18. DIOGENES 7.192.
'921, volume 1 • 0 c ssieal scholar h' ua~e:z (1966), 3-19. 19. J. CLASSEN, De grammaticae Graecae primordiis, Bonn, 1829, 80.
T. A. 'EBEOK , fl'uto. . S Ip (third edition) , C am b·d rJ ge,
200. I. BEKKER, Anecdota Graeca, Berlin, 1816) volume 2,629: o:vaAoy1as
H. STEINTHA.L rwgraphy of lin -.
R.ome:rn ( , Gesellicllte der S gUt.f!tcs, 69-1 z6. MOyI0"1J6-s:.
seCond d" praehw£ 21. cpo COLSON, 1919.
A. TRACltA 'L
, as' e lhon) ,rBe I'In r 89. ssensclzaft b ez. den Gr£echen und 22, SEXTUS EMPIRICUS, AdtierSus grammaticos 195; QUINTILIAN, lnstitutio
classic~'ed . ,sternazione ' o.
orlentali 1 ( grammatical'· aratoria 1.6,27.
5 1956), 38-78 e d. DlOnisio Trace' Studt'
NOTES . , z3· SExTUS, op. cit., 148-53.
24· STEINTHAL, 1890, volume I, 360,
I.
l. BlOOl\1FIElO La 25. DIOGENES 7.59.
~. ~£RODOTUS 8' IlgJiage Londo J
26. SANDYS, 1921, 149.
Interpreter :'44.2:,.6 E7\n.nv, . n, 1935,4.
I S in an ' 'I Kav ~6v ~ 27. BEKKER, Anecdota Graeca volume 2, 774-5.
j
angllag tlquity 'OIJO:IJ.t6v '
es amOng the ' .' Ii. S. GEJiM:A Te Ked ouoyi\<JJO"O'OV. On 28. PRISCIAN 1.2.4: Sicut enim ilia (sc. elementa mundi) coeuntia omne
anClents, 'L an casterN, PThe int erpreters of foreign
pediciunt corpus, sic etiam haec (sc. elementa vocis) literalem vocem
, a, 1914.
quasi corpus aliquod componunt.