Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

Ten serwis zostanie wyłączony 2025-02-11.

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Ograniczanie wyników

2 Listy filologické (Folia philologica)

2 De Decker F.

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

The Use and Absence of the Augment in the Forms εδωκ(ε)(ν) and δωκ(ε)(ν) in the Odyssey, with a Brief Discussion of the Origin of the Augment

100%

De Decker F.

Listy filologické (Folia philologica)

2018

tom 141

nr 1-2

7-44

The article discusses the use and absence of the augment in the third person singular and plural forms εδωκ(ε)(ν) and δωκ(ε)(ν) in the Odyssey. It uses metrically secure forms and lists the criteria for determining these secure forms. The article then proceeds to analyse them and verify if they confirm to previous syntactic and semantic observations which have been made for the use and absence of the augment: the clitic rule by Drewitt and Beck, the reduction rule by Kiparsky and the distinctions speech versus narrative, foreground versus background and remote versus recent past. It is argued that we are only dealing with tendencies and not with absolute rules, and that, as a consequence, there are exceptions to the rules mentioned. These tendencies can explain, however, most of the (un)augmented forms in early epic Greek and it can be argued that the augment was originally a marker of the near-deixis.

The Difference in Use between the Active and Middle Forms of φημι in Speech Conclusions in Homer

100%

De Decker F.

Listy filologické (Folia philologica)

2017

tom 140

nr 1-2

7-37

This article analyses the use of the active and middle diathesis in the Homeric speech conclusions of the type “so (s)he/they spoke” with the simplex verb φημι. It starts by listing the instances and discusses the metrical aspects of the different formulae. The article then proceeds to the previous suggestions that have been made to explain the co-occurrence of active and middle forms. The first explanation was that the middle forms were the result of a so-called Diathesenwechsel by which a middle past tense form could be used besides an active present form. The second one stated that the forms were used because of metrical necessities. The article shows that both explanations cannot be sustained, because many middle forms have a metrically equivalent counterpart with an active form and vice versa, and argues that the distinction between active and middle can be explained by the fact that the middle is used to stress the involvement of the subject, whereas the active is not. This explains why the middle is preferred when the subject is mentioned and is never used with undefined subjects.