Table Of ContentLINGUISTICS AND FORMULAS IN HOMER
LINGUISTICS
AND FORMULAS
IN HOMER
Scalarity and the description of the particle per
by
EGBERT J. BAKKER
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA
1988
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Bakker, Egbert J.
Linguistics and formulas in Homer: scalarity and the description of the particle per / by
Egbert J. Bakker.
p. cm.
Bibliography: p.
Includes indexes.
1. Homer -- Language - Grammar. 2. Greek language — Particles. 3. Per (The Greek
word). 4. Oral-formulaic analysis. I. Title.
PA4201.B35 1988
883'.01-dc l9 88-10110
ISBN 90 272 2057 3 (Eur.) / ISBN 1-55619-046-8 (US) (hb. ; alk. paper) CIP
® Copyright 1988 - John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or
any other means, without written permission from the publisher.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ix
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 Aims of the investigation 1
1.1 Per in Homer and after 1
1.2 Facts from the data-base 3
1.3 Per in Greek linguistics 7
1.3.1 Emphasis 7
1.3.2 Concession and strengthening 9
1.3.3 Fraenkel: "per heisst 'auch'" 11
1.3.4 Etymology and diachrony 12
1.4 Categories and prototypes 14
1.5 Linguistics and formulas in Homer 19
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1 23
2 THE LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND: SCALARTTY 27
2.0 Introduction 27
2.1 Scales 28
2.1.1 Scalarity: introductory 28
2.1.2 Superlatives: scalar and attributive 30
2.1.3 The non-referentiality of scalar superlatives 31
2.1.4 Irrealis modality 32
2.2 Scalarity and referentiality 36
2.2.1 Attributive and referential superlatives 36
2.2.2 Intension and extension 37
2.2.3 Scalarity and extensional terms 39
2.3 Focus particles and focus contexts 40
2.3.1 Even as a focus particle 40
2.3.1.1 Conventional implicature and the meaning of even . .40
2.3.1.2 Elocution and the use of even 43
2.3.1.3 Focus and scope 44
2.3.1.4 Scope dependence and scope independence 45
2.3.1.5 Scope ambiguity 46
2.3.1.6 Even if: concession and concessive conditionals . . . .48
vi CONTENTS
2.3.2 Types of focus context 49
2.4 Negative and positive polarity 52
2.4.1 Positive polarity items 52
2.4.2 Negative polarity items and scale reversal 54
NOTES TO CHAPTER2 57
3 SCΑLΑRITΎ ΑΝD ΤΗΕ ΡΑRTICLE PER 67
3.0 Introduction 67
3.1 Intensional terms 68
3.1.1 Scalar superlatives 68
3.1.2 Scalar superlatives and the etymology of per 71
3.1.3 Epic te and generic modality 72
3.1.4 A remark on diachrony 73
3.2 Extensional terms 75
3.2.1 The intension of focus constituents 76
3.2.2 Superlativeness, comparativeness and the illocution of even . 77
3.2.3 The concessive relative clause 80
3.2.4 Scalar expressions and the Homeric narrator 81
3.3 Scalarity and comparatives 83
3.4 Negative polar scalarity 85
3.4.1 Declarative sentences 85
3.4.2 Non-assertive contexts and negative polarity 86
3.4.3 Scalar superlatives and negative polarity 87
3.4.4 The strengthening of negation 89
3.5 Scalarity in wishes and commands 90
3.5.1 Imperative and optative sentences 90
3.5.2 Inclusiveness and exclusiveness 91
3.5.3 Scales of desirability and acceptability 94
3.5.4 Per,ge and exclusion 97
3.5.5 The diachronic aspect of per in wishes 98
3.6 Some unclassifiable instances 98
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3 101
4 PARTICIPLES I: LINGUISTICS 107
4.0 Introduction 107
4.1 On participles 108
4.1.1 Kinds of adverbial relation 108
4.1.2 Syntactic independence and modal autonomy 110
4.2 From scalarity to concession 113
CONTENTS vii
4.2.1 The intension of circumstances 113
4.2.2 Diachronic aspects of kai hôs 116
4.2.3 Syntactic intermezzo: correlation and apposition 117
4.3 The concessive participial phrase 120
4.3.1 The prototypical properties of participle + per' 120
4.3.2 Loss of superlativeness 124
4.3.3 Dependent participles 131
4.3.4 Modally embedded participles 133
4.4 From linguistics to the formula 137
4.4.1'Participle + pef and generic modality 137
4.4.2 Kai, mala and strengthening 140
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4 143
5 PARTICIPLES II: FORMULAS AND METRICS 151
5.0 Introduction 151
5.1 Onformulas 152
5.1.1 Formular language and ordinary language 154
5.1.2 Formula and metre 158
5.1.3 Types of recurrence 159
5.2 Formulas and form: the localization of formulas 164
5.2.1 The dactylic hexameter 165
5.2.2 The localization of' participle + pef 171
5.3 Formulas and meaning: the integration of formulas 186
5.3.1 Levels of integration 187
5.3.2 Prototypicality and the semantic integration of formulas . . 189
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5 197
6 CONCESSIVE CONDITIONALS 205
6.0 Introduction 205
6.1 Concessives, conditionals and concessive conditionals 206
6.2 Kinds of concessive conditional 207
6.3 Concessive conditionals in Homer 209
6.3.1 Per in concessive conditionals 209
6.3.2 Kai in concessive conditionals 219
6.3.3 Ei per and kai ei in a diachronic perspective 224
6.4 Concessive and non-concessive conditionals 227
6.4.1 Two kinds of neutralization 227
6.4.2 The two senses of ei per: 'even if and 'if really' 229
6.4.3 From concessive to non-concessive eiper 230
Viii CONTENTS
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6 233
7 PERIPHERAL INSTANCES 239
7.0 Introduction 239
7.1 Linguistic irregularity in Homer 239
7.1.1 Unclassifiable vs. divergent instances 239
7.1.2 The explanation of peripheral instances in Homer 240
7.2 Semantic integration of formulas again 243
7.2.1 Formular or linguistic irregularity? 246
7.3 Divergence: changes in form and meaning 249
7.3.1 Changes in meaning 249
7.3.2 Changes in form 252
7.3.3 From prototype to periphery 256
7.4 Per and inclusive focus particles 257
7.5 At the outer periphery 259
7.6 From Homeric to Attic per 262
NOTES TO CHAPTER 7 267
8 OVERVIEW 271
APPENDIX 277
REFERENCES 281
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 293
INDEX OFNAMES 305
PREFACE
This study was submitted as a doctoral thesis to the Faculty of Arts of the
University of Leiden. Originally, the description of the use of the particle per
in Homer was undertaken as part of a larger project, the description of the
diachronic development of per from Homeric to Attic Greek. After some
preliminary research, however, it appeared that, owing to the specific problems
the descriptive linguist is faced with in Homer, there were reasons to give the
description of the Homeric material a thematic unity of its own. Accordingly,
the present study has to be viewed as a pubhcation in its own right, rather than
as a piece of subsidiary research.
Professor C.M.J. Sicking, the supervisor of the project, has followed the
progress of my work from the beginning. Many of the adjustments which I have
made in the presentation of the argument are due to his often penetrating
criticism. I wish to thank Professor R.S.P. Beekes also for a number of useful
comments and suggestions.
Professor C.J. Ruijgh read the whole manuscript in an early stage. Not
only did he save me from a number of factual errors; he also influenced the
spirit of the work, by making me attentive to the fact that a too rigid approach
to the facts of language may impair the effectiveness of studies like the present
one.
I am indebted to the Foundation of Linguistic Research of the Nether
lands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z. W.O) for a grant
which enabled me to carry out all the preliminary investigations and to write
the first draft.
The Greek text in this book is presented in italics. The motivation for this
practice, with which some readers may be unaccustomed, is the desire not to
set up an unnecessary barrier for many readers who have primarily or exclusive
ly a linguistic interest and whose judgment I value highly. The Greek word ac-
χ PREFACE
cent was lost in the process, too, owing to a deficiency in the computer charac
ter set which was at my disposal. But for those who have swallowed the first in
convenience this will not be an unsurmountable problem either.
Leiderdorp, april 1988
