Βλήμενος ἦν (Iliad 4.211): Lexical or Periphrastic?

Abstract

In this article, we consider whether the form Βλήμενος ἦν in Il. 4.211 should be considered lexical or periphrastic. Based on a discussion of the context, an analysis of the usage of the verb βάλλω elsewhere in the Iliad, and an application of some generally accepted criteria of periphrasticity, we conclude that both interpretations are in fact possible. We connect this to the diachronic development of periphrastic constructions, which, in an early stage of grammaticalization, are often ambiguous.

Keywords:

• Iliad
• periphrasis
• grammaticalization
• Ancient Greek

Notes

1 We would like to thank a number of anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

2 We follow the edition and translation of Wyatt and Murray (1999), unless otherwise indicated.

3 It is worth mentioning that Chantraine, in his short paragraph on periphrasis in Homer (1953, 321), does not discuss this specific case, or any other cases with the aorist participle.

4 Mader (1991, 455) refers to Ameis and Hentze (1922, 19). In our opinion, however, the translation given by Ameis and Hentze (“als Verwundeter sich befand”) clearly indicates that they did not interpret the example periphrastically. Mader (1991, 455) also mentions another example, ἄρμενος εἴη (Hes., Op. 617), but not all editors agree upon this reading (Evelyn-White gives ἄρμενος εἶσιν).

5 Cf. Fanning (1990, 311); Evans (2001, 230–231).

6 Cf. Evans (2001, 221). With the passive perfect participle, for example, there is much less confusion.

7 Compare parallel passages such as αἶψα δ’ ἔπειθ’ ἵκανον ὅθι Σκαιαὶ πύλαι ἦσαν (Il. 3.145) “and with speed they came to the place where were the Scaean gates”, where we also have a verb of motion followed by ὅθι and a form of εἰμί indicating location.

8 Amenta (2003, 78–79) specifies that problems of interpretation mainly occur when an adjunct of place is placed between the finite and the non-finite verb. As she shows, it is not the presence of adverbials that compromises periphrastic interpretation, but their position: they have to be placed in a position where they relate to the verbal group as a whole. Of course, in our example, the relative adverb constitutes a special case, as it always comes in initial position.

9 Cf. Friedrich (1974, 15) and Katz (2006, 6) for the aorist referring to an event prior to another past event.

10 See, e.g. Friedrich (1974, 16–17).

11 Cf. Friedrich (1974, 12) for the term “resultative aorist” (e.g. τέκε “bore” (a child)).

12 βλήμενος: Il. 8.514, 11.191, 11.206, 12.391, 15.495, 15.580, 17.726, 21.594; βεβλημένος: Il. 11.475, 11.592, 11.612, 11.650, 11.659, 11.664, 11.809, 11.822, 11.826, 12.2, 13.212, 13.764, 14.63, 16.24, 16.819 (participles preceding the governing verb underlined).

13 See the recent work of Pompei (2006) for a more detailed treatment of the conjunct participle in Classical Greek.

14 For the notions of foregrounding and backgrounding, and their relationship with perfective and imperfective aspect, see the classic paper by Hopper (1979).

15 βλῆτο/ἔβλητο: Il. 4.518, 16.570, 16.753, 17.598; ξύμβλητο: Il. 14.39; 14.231.

16 See Haspelmath (2000) for a recent treatment.

17 Compare, e.g. Bentein (2016, 69–79) with regard to Classical Greek.

18 Il. 4.211, 5.177, 5.191, 13.764.

19 Cf. Parry ([1929] 1971, esp. 252ff.).

20 Higbie (1990, 50). Cf. Lanérès (1994, esp. 297ff., 576).

21 Janse (1997, esp. 110ff. for Homeric Greek).

22 There are six other instances where ὅθι (ὅθ’) is combined with a form of εἰμί (with locative meaning): Il. 2.783, 3.145, 18.521, 20.320, 20.391, 24.615. In none of these does the latter occur in enjambment. Furthermore, in all cases with a finite form (Il. 3.145, 18.521, 20.320, 20.391), ὅθι and εἰμί are separated only by the subject, in three out of four cases accompanied by an attributive adjective.

23 For these lexical classes, compare Levin (1993).

24 Some have argued that in case of verbal periphrasis with the aorist participle, “the aorist may be regarded as the short-hand of the perfect” (Gildersleeve 1900, 125), but this does not seem to be an adequate characterization (Porter 1989, 476–477).

25 Another interesting (post-Homeric) formation, based on the root aorist βλῆτο, is the actively inflected passive ἔβλην (McCullagh 2002, esp. 73–74).

26 A being the initial stage, Ab a stage of potential ambiguity, aB a stage of extension, whereby the lexical meaning becomes less and less likely, and B the stage in which the new, grammatical value is clearly separated from the old, lexical one.

27 See, e.g. the material collected by Lasso de la Vega (1955, 165–183).

28 E.g. with the perfect participle: Il. 13.682, Od. 17.195, 20.365–366; with the present participle: Il. 11.722, Od. 7.125–126, 17.157–159; with the aorist participle: Il. 5.177, 5.191, 13.764. For additional examples, see Lasso de la Vega (1955, 171ff.). Especially for the perfect participle, a secondary (related) source construction might be at work, that is, the copulative one (εἰμί with adjective).

29 Aerts (1965, 27–35) gives, among others, the following examples: ἐξαρκέσας ἦν (Eur., Suppl. 511); κατασταθεὶς ἦν (Hdt., Hist. 3.120); ἐπιβουλεύσαντες ἦσαν (Lys., Polystr. 1); ἦν ῥηθέντα (Pl., Theag. 123a); ἦσαν γενόμενοι (Thuc., Hist. 4.54.3, 5.32.5); κατασκευασάμενος ἦν (Theop., FgrHist. 115 F 236). See further Bentein (2016, 293–304).

30 See further Bentein (2016, 152–203).

Additional information

Funding

The first author’s research is funded by the Research Foundation – Flanders [WO13/PDO/008].