User talk:Wareh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives
|
Contents |
[edit] Thanks
Hi Wareh and thanks for assisting with Greek text. Much appreciated. One thing though - what's wrong with hemichous? My lexicon doesn't have either hemichous or hemichoun but it does have chous. I tried to follow your suggested link but I couldn't see the relevance. I'm pretty sure it's hemichous.Lucretius (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Actually, I've just noticed your list of contributions. You're The Dude when it comes to classicism and I'm keeping your discussion page on my watchlist for whenever I need help. Hope that's OK! I'll accept your advice about hemichoun. I guess it must be listed somewhere on that page of inscriptions you cited. Lucretius (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad I was able to help! Hemichous seems logical (prefix + chous), and I left it in as the English term because this is more often used in scholarly writing (often Latinized to hemichus in German). However, our actual Ancient Greek texts show, not masc./fem. hemichous, but neuter hemichoon (contracted in Attic Greek to hemichoun). This can become obscured because many of the forms that actually show up are ambiguous (the plural form is always hemichoa, neuter, but that by itself doesn't prove anything about the singular; chous also shows a mixture of forms, with third declension choes showing up in the plural). After some initial hesitation, I realized that to write Greek ἡμίχους would be to perpetrate a fiction, since I can't find any solid evidence that such a masc./fem. form was ever used in any Ancient Greek literary text or inscription. The inscription whose URL I mentioned in my edit summary includes the text ἔλαιον χοῦς ἡμίχουν, "olive oil, a chous and a half": here the masc./fem. nominative chous appears right next to the neuter nominative hemichoun, so that sealed the deal for me. Until proven wrong, I'm maintaining that there is no solid evidence for a Greek word hemichous, despite the fact that moderns have adopted this as a translation of hemichoun. All this is admittedly complicated and tedious, but, bottom line, I'm pretty sure I made the right call. For what it's worth, there is one Googleable scholarly reference to "hemichoun" as an adopted English term, but this isn't the norm, so let's not add reforming English usage to our agenda here! Wareh (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That's amazing scholarship. I hope it's not all from memory! It takes me many encounters to remember a word and life isn't long enough for me to manage what you managed just now. But I'll keep plodding along at my own pace. Thanks Dude. Lucretius (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for performing necromancy on this section (not that it was dead, mind)! Hesychius has "<ἡμίχους>· μέτρον μεδίμνου <εἰκοστὸν> τέταρτον" which would translate to "hemichous. measure of medimnus - 1/24", I believe? Take a look if you'd like and enlighten us! 3rdAlcove (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- That appears to be quite right. In Latte's edition, which I can check via TLG (no app. crit.), ἡμίχους is printed without angle brackets (are you using them just to indicate a lemma?). So, without checking a proper edition of Hesychius, it does look like this throws a wrench into what I said, especially because many of LSJ's citations are ambiguous oblique forms (this is at least true of the Aristotle and Hippocratic passages). I suppose we can say that both nominative forms are attested, and that it remains to study the evidence of nominative forms carefully enough to state a preference for any given purpose. Wareh (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I had a look at Hesychius (and the Stephanus Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, London 1825, vol. VII, col. 10552d). Here's my take. As a lexicographer, perhaps Hesychius is giving the lemma for the adjective meaning "holding or consisting in half a χοῦς" (naturally, Hesychius would be interested in the word as parallel to δίχους, ἑξάχους etc.). The take of LSJ, giving the lemma ἡμίχοον, would be that in practice this adjective is used only in the neuter, with the noun μέτρον or ἀγγεῖον understood. (Do we have to take Hesychius as saying "a ἡμίχους is a μέτρον," or could it be, "ἡμίχους: said of a μέτρον / in the neuter to indicate a μέτρον...."?) Anyway, perhaps one can dig up an actual unambiguously masc./fem. (and substantival) usage; meanwhile Hesychius' lemma doesn't seem much of a substitute for one "in the wild." Wareh (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Greek text
Hi again Wareh! I've been scouring the web for some hours trying to find any freely available copies of poems by Alcaeus. All I could find was about 6 fragments, which didn't look very impressive to me compared, for instance, with fragments by Archilochus. If you can direct me to a web site with Alcaeus odds and ends, that would be much appreciated. It would be nice if Wiki had its own copy of poems by seminal Greek masters like Alcaeus, especially since the number of fragments is quite small. But that would need somebody to sit down for some hours and type them up using whatever program or code is used for Greek with breathings, accents etc. Not that I am hinting at anything. Just dreaming. The cost of texts is prohibitive and these poems, or what's left of them, should be as freely available as the air we breathe. Lucretius (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- The best online collection of Alcaeus' texts (in Unicode) is E. Gottwein's. The only supplement to this collection I found by checking with my usual sources & methods was fr. 42 (greek-language.gr). (The less prohibitively priced source for all the fragments in Greek and English is the Loeb Classical Library: Greek Lyric, vol. 1, ed. David Campbell, ISBN 0674991575.) Best wishes for your work in the cause of freely available Greek! Wareh (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this help. I took a copy of the Gottwein fragments. Loeb has already profited from my interest in Greek but I'll probably end up buying a combined Sappho/Alcaeus text anyway. In the meantime, Cheers. Lucretius (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template
Yes, I see your point. I'll avoid putting the date in further sep entries.--Aldux (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] please note
User:Bbpowell now redirects to User:Wakantanka. 04:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhilleus (talk • contribs)
- Wow, I'm surprised to see an account
so plausiblypurportedly belonging to a scholar with some reputation trolling so desperately as to insist Greg Nagy's work is "wild and of no lasting value" and betraying anxiety over who is an "important scholar." It would seem appropriate to revert any of his edits, e.g. the latest one to Homer, on principle (how can a scholar attached to particular and controversial views be the one giving important overviews of encyclopedic consensus their cast?). Let me know if more active involvement on my part would be helpful. Wareh (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)- Yes, it's very strange. If he were willing to set his idiosyncratic opinions aside, Wakantanka could be a valuable contributor, but he seems to be here to promote his own ideas and pursue petty grudges. It makes me wonder if he is who he claimed to be; I would prefer to think it's an impersonator, rather than someone whose work I've found enjoyable (though often implausible). --Akhilleus (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you could always send the real Barry Powell an email inquiring whether he's aware of a possible defamatory impersonator. The idea did cross my mind, but I chickened out; it would be awkward if the answer were, "Yes, that's me." Wareh (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's very strange. If he were willing to set his idiosyncratic opinions aside, Wakantanka could be a valuable contributor, but he seems to be here to promote his own ideas and pursue petty grudges. It makes me wonder if he is who he claimed to be; I would prefer to think it's an impersonator, rather than someone whose work I've found enjoyable (though often implausible). --Akhilleus (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
