Does this mean like, "She was 70 when she was originally enrolled for the widows' support. That was 10 years ago, this year she's 61, so next year will be her last year. When she becomes 59 she will be young enough to look after herself." After a long dark night ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 28th, 2014, 8:40 amStephen Carlson wrote: "not having become less than sixty years old"
cwconrad wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
It seems to me that γεγονυῖα is an integral part of the idiomatic expression meaning "x years old", while construing γεγονυῖα with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή -- a Greek equivalent of the idiomatic Latin laudatory epithet univira, "committed life-long to one husband" -- strikes me as absurd. ι think that the μὴ does qualify just the phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα and that the genitive phrase is clearly a genitive of comparison construed with ἔλαττον. ι see no problem with assuming an elliptical ὢν with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
People are duscussing the relatives strengths of the (merel hypothetical /conjectured) participles, ι would like to change that emphasis. ι think that the strength (or recognisability ) of the element with which the particle is used will have bearing on the tendencies for elision.
If ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή was a readily recognisable laudatory epithet (as claimed) (virtually = adjectival unit) for an older woman (alive or no longer alive) then it would be less likely to need the aid of the (a) participle to bring attention to bear on it's meaning, than the variable phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα would need.
ι think the force of the statement ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή requires a participle that can give the force of "she has always been". The ούσα suggested above may or may not convey that, and ι feel that the suggestion of
γενομένη might do so, but the best would be a doubling of the γεγονυῖα.
If it was doubled, then it would be lost from the strongest (independent - self-standing) element and retained by the weakest (non-independent, the one that needs help to stand, least-able-stand-by-itself) element.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 29th, 2014, 4:41 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote:
So if ι understand Carl correctly:
ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = 60 years old
ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = less than 60 years old
μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = not less than 60 years old
And μὴ negates the entire phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, not just ἔλαττον?
Yes, that's precisely how i understand it. ι believe that the perfect ptc. with an adverbial expression indicating number of years bears the sense "χ years old."
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 29th, 2014, 12:10 pm
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 29th, 2014, 11:33 am
Thanks for your comments, Randall. ι appreciate your taking a look at this, as well as your scholarship generally.
Randall Tan wrote:One could assume an elided participle--but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)--but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
ι suppose γενομένη could be supplied to get the appropriate sense.
Randall Tan wrote:The first problem we noticed was the question, "What is the scope of μή?" (much like the question posed in Stephen Carlson's initial post for this thread). Then, we also noticed similar problems to what Stephen Hughes discussed in his "April 28th, 2014, 7:02 am" post above (though we did consider taking μὴ in the sense of μήπω & γεγονυῖα in the sense of ὤν as Stephen Carlson further suggested). In addition, οὐ would have been expected over μή, if the scope of the negation was just the nominative complement ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα.
ι have this concern as well. ι was assuming that μή has to scope over a participle (or else be οὐ), but ι began to wonder whether that was just an assumption ι was making. Maybe it can take scope over a smaller constituent but takes its form as μή instead of οὐ because it is within the scope of some irrealis or other kind of operator.
Randall Tan wrote:
One could assume an elided participle--but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)--but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
ι'm sorry, but ι still don't understand what this is all about. It seems to me that γεγονυῖα is an integral part of the idiomatic expression meaning "x years old", while construing γεγονυῖα with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή -- a Greek equivalent of the idiomatic Latin laudatory epithet univira, "committed life-long to one husband" -- strikes me as absurd. ι think that the μὴ does qualify just the phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα and that the genitive phrase is clearly a genitive of comparison construed with ἔλαττον. ι see no problem with assuming an elliptical ὢν with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή. ι guess ι must be missing something.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 29th, 2014, 7:14 am
The first problem we noticed was the question, "What is the scope of μή?" (much like the question posed in Stephen Carlson's initial post for this thread). Then, we also noticed similar problems to what Stephen Hughes discussed in his "April 28th, 2014, 7:02 am" post above (though we did consider taking μὴ in the sense of μήπω & γεγονυῖα in the sense of ὤν as Stephen Carlson further suggested). In addition, οὐ would have been expected over μή, if the scope of the negation was just the nominative complement ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα.