2. Οἵσετε One class of “mixed aorists” consists of the imperatives ἄξετε and ἄξεσθε, οἶσε οἴσετε and οἰσέτω, ὄψεσθε (the singular imperative ὄψεο· ἰδέ often cited as from Hesychius is actually a conjecture of Cobet’s, which Latte does not accept in his edition [1] ); the secondary tense form ἄξοντο; and the infinitives ἀξέμεν and ἀξέμεναι, οἰσέμεν and οἰσέμεναι. [2]… Read more
3. Δύσετο and Βήσετο The “mixed aorists” are by no means a homogeneous group. If οἴσετε, ὄψεσθε, ἄξετε, and ἄξοντο were created by certain processes within the epic language, we cannot therefore assume, as Leumann does, that the same explanation is valid for ἐβήσετο, βήσεο, ἐδύσετο, δύσεο and their compounds. [1] The reading with thematic vowel was upheld by Aristarchus against the… Read more
Chapter 4. Ὄρσεο and Λέξεο In order to say anything useful about the “mixed aorist” imperative ὄρσεο, we must see it in relation to the other forms of the verb ὄρνυμι as they are used in the epic. The basic usage is in the middle and perfect, with intransitive sense; compare the middle forms of the Latin cognate orior. Nearly all the forms of ὄρνυμι attested in… Read more
5. Ἷξον There remains to be considered the aorist ἷξε (second person singular ἷξες, third person plural ἷξον). This verb has given scholars particular difficulty; Wackernagel in 1925, for example, called ἷξον das einzige unerklärte Beispiel des Aoristus mixtus. [1] This is the only “mixed aorist” which is both active and indicative. Some scholars state that ἷξε would be a regular… Read more
6. Conclusions If we try to summarize our findings on the “mixed aorists,” the most evident fact is their heterogeneity. The problems appear to be morphological; and yet the first set of forms treated (οἴσετε, ἄξετε, ὄψεσθε, etc.) could not be explained on the morphological level. It was necessary to move to the syntactical level to show how οἴσετε was created by a transformation of a phrase… Read more
List of Works Cited Ahrens, Heinrich Ludolf. 1839. De dialectis aeolicis et pseudoaeolicis. Vol. 1, De graecae linguae dialectis. Göttingen. Bamberg, Albert von. 1885. Homerische Formen. Vol. 3, Griechische Schulgrammatik, 5th ed. Berlin. Bechtel, Friedrich. 1914. Lexilogus zu Homer. Halle. Benveniste, Emile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris. Bers, Victor. Read more
Prologue [In this on-line version, the page-numbers of the printed version are indicated within braces (“{” and “}”). For example, “{69|70}” indicates where p. 69 of the printed version ends and p. 70 begins. These indications will be useful to readers who need to look up references made elsewhere to the printed version of this book.] Homeric Responses builds on two earlier books, Homeric Questions (1996)… Read more
Introduction. Homeric Responses Four Questions Question 1: About synchronic and diachronic perspectives The terms “synchronic” and “diachronic” stem from a distinction established by a pioneer in the field of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure. [1] For Saussure, synchrony and diachrony designate respectively a current state of a language and a phase in its evolution. [2] I… Read more
Chapter 1. Homeric Responses [1] In Odyssey 8.72-83, the first song of Demodokos, we see a link between the oracular clairvoyance of Apollo and the poetic composition of Homer. Such a link, where the god’s prophecy is equated with the plot of the poet’s narrative, is relevant to the word “responses” in my title, which is meant to capture the meaning of… Read more
Chapter 2. Homeric Responses [1] Homeric Rhapsodes and the Concept of Diachronic Skewing Throughout this book, I maintain that the traditions of rhapsodic performance are essential for understanding the evolution of Homeric composition. Such an understanding, however, is impeded by various assumptions about rhapsodes as performers of Homer. Here I challenge some of those assumptions by reexamining the very concept of… Read more
