# Ancient Greek: Nature of pronominal εὑ



## Michael Zwingli

I have seen the genitive pronoun _εὑ_ described as being "enclitic". I am wondering if this means that it is _only used_ enclitically, or if it menas that it _has the ability to be used_ as an enclitic. Can anybody explicate how _εὑ_ might have been used. More specifically, could _εὑ_ be used in a phrase with either the _personal_ or _impersonal_ pronoun "_it_" as a subject: either as _"το εὑ ἐστῐ́..."_ ("it is of him..."), or _"εὑ ἐστῐ́..." _(it is of him..."), respectively? Thank you.


----------



## Perseas

Michael Zwingli said:


> _"το εὑ ἐστῐ́..."_ ("it is of him..."), or _"εὑ ἐστῐ́..." _(it is of him...")


I' m not sure that *εὑ* (the Ionic form of *οὗ*) can be used this way. I think here one should use the demonstrative pronoun αὐτῷ (αὐτῷ ἐστι). But I've found an example that shows how *εὑ *is used:



> *of him, her, it *
> 800 BCE – 600 BCE, Homer, Iliad 15.165:
> 
> ... ἐπεί *ἑό* [or *εὑ*] φημι βίῃ πολὺ φέρτερος εἶναι
> καὶ γενεῇ πρότερος
> ... epeí *heó *[or *heu*] phēmi bíēi polù phérteros eînai
> kaì geneêi próteros
> For I avow to be far better than *him* in might,
> and the elder in birth.


Source: οὗ - Wiktionary


----------



## Michael Zwingli

Perseas said:


> I've found an example that shows how *εὑ *is used:
> ... ἐπεί *ἑό* [or *εὑ*] φημι βίῃ πολὺ φέρτερος εἶναι
> καὶ γενεῇ πρότερος


This is a bit difficult to make sense of; it seems to be a genitive of comparison (?), in which case it would seem to not be used as an enclitic at all, but rather takes the genitive to stand in juxtaposition to unstated _ἐγώ_, itself suggested by _φημί...πολὺ φέρτερος εἶναι_, etc. Am I at all correct in so thinking?


Perseas said:


> I' m not sure that *εὑ* (the Ionic form of *οὗ*) can be used this way. I think here one should use the demonstrative pronoun αὐτῷ...


Ah...do you mean _τούτου_? In Classical Attic, "he" was _οὗτος_ (genitive _τούτου_ "of him")...which in Classical Ionic was _ὁ_ ("he"), the genitive of which was _τοῦ_ ("of him"). [As an aside, I remember reading that linguists believe that Attic _οὗτος_ arose as a reduplication of an original _ὁ_ (with a lengthening of the initial vowel (_ὁ_ > _ου_) which seems more apparent in the genitive forms.] This, however, leaves me wondering where _εὑ_ came from in the first place, unless of course it is not really a genitive of _ὁ_, as I have been thinking, or even a genitive at all. Is it, maybe, one of those things just used in the Homeric tradition alone (perhaps in the interest of meter), like _αἰέν_, for instance? This _εὑ_ is a strange and mysterious little word!


----------



## ioanell

Michael Zwingli said:


> More specifically, could _εὑ_ be used in a phrase with either the _personal_ or _impersonal_ pronoun "_it_" as a subject: either as _"το εὑ ἐστῐ́..."_ ("it is of him..."), or _"εὑ ἐστῐ́..." _(it is of him..."), respectively?


Michael, I think no-one could give you an answer for constructions like the ones you are asking about.

Taken into account the definition given by the grammar that an enclitic is a word that is associated with the word that comes before it, often unaccented or contracted, talking about “εὑ” [genitive] as enclitic is meaningless, as long as in the relevant example from Homer, quoted in LSJ, *εὑ* is the object in genitive of the verb ἀκήδεσεν [ἀκηδέω τινός] in “τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων οὔ τίς εὑ ἀκήδεσεν” (=and of the rest was no man unheedful *of him*/who took no care for him), Iliad 14.427, and likewise the object of the verb ἐκπειρῷτο [ἐκπειράομαι/ἐκπειρῶμαι τινός] in “Δημοκήδης δὲ δείσας μή *εὑ* ἐκπειρῷτο Δαρεῖος” (=but Democedes was afraid that Darius was making trial *of him*), Herodotus, Histories, 3.135

Notice that ἑο, one of the alternative forms of *εὑ *given in the same LSJ entry, is also the object in genitive of the verb κήδετο [κήδομαί τινος] in “ἐπεί ἑο κήδετο λίην” (=because he so much cared for him) Hom. Od. 14.461


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ioanell said:


> Taken into account the definition given by the grammar that an enclitic is a word that is associated with the word that comes before it, often unaccented or contracted, talking about “εὑ” [genitive] as enclitic is meaningless, as long as in the relevant example from Homer...*εὑ* is the object in genitive of the verb ἀκήδεσεν...Iliad 14.427...and likewise the object of the verb ἐκπειρῷτο...Herodotus, Histories, 3.135. [...] Notice that ἑο, one of the alternative forms of *εὑ *given in the same LSJ entry, is also the object in genitive of the verb κήδετο [κήδομαί τινος] in Hom. Od. 14.461


Thank you, Ioanell, this seems helpful as it indicates that these pronominals can be used in manner other than as enclitics. In your opinion, then, should we avoid the suggestion that any of these forms of *οὗ* are "enclitic"? I guess another way of asking this, is to ask "can these forms of *οὗ* be used enclitically?" Are there any attestations of them being used as enclitics?


----------



## ioanell

Michael Zwingli said:


> "can these forms of *οὗ* be used enclitically?" Are there any attestations of them being used as enclitics?


Attestations of the usage of the different forms of *οὗ *as enclitics could be found in several places within the huge Ancient Greek literature (this, of course, requires a specific, laborious research); an instance of this usage is when these forms closely follow a preposition, as e.g. in “*ἐκ* γάρ *εὑ* φρένας εἵλετο μητίετα Ζεύς.” (=because the wise Zeus deprived him of his mind), Hom. Il. 9.377, or in “ἥ δὲ μέγα ἰάχουσα *ἀπὸ ἕο* κάββαλεν υἱὸν” (=she then, crying out [_in pain_], let her son fall down), Hom. Il. 5.343.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ioanell said:


> this, of course, requires a specific, laborious research


Yes indeed, a mountainous problem! I very often find myself wishing that the Packard Humanities Institute would initiate a searchable database of the Ancient Greek corpus, as they have done for the Latin. It provides a powerful tool for lexical study!

I have one question which I have noticed in your examples and elsewhere, which confuses me:


ioanell said:


> as e.g. in “*ἐκ* γάρ *εὑ* φρένας εἵλετο μητίετα Ζεύς.” (=because the wise Zeus deprived him of his mind), Hom. Il. 9.377


Why is *εὑ* here not given in the accusative,_*ἕ*_ , as it appears to be objective in nature, both in the original and in translation?


----------



## ioanell

Michael Zwingli said:


> Why is *εὑ* here not given in the accusative,_*ἕ*_ , as it appears to be objective in nature, both in the original and in translation?


Objects are not always in accusative. Objects in Ancient Greek, depending on each single verb’s peculiarity, can be in any of the oblique cases, that is genitive, dative and accusative. In the specific sentence the verb *εἵλετο *(aorist 3rd person sing. of the verb *αἱρέομαι / ἀφαιρέομαι-οῦμαι*=take away from, deprive of) as a verb denoting deprivation takes a direct object in accusative “φρένας” (=mind) and an indirect object consisting of the preposition *ἐκ* and the genitive *εὑ*, one of the alternatives of *οὗ*. Notice that the preposition *ἐκ* always goes with the genitive case; that’s why *ἐκ* could not go with the accusative *ἕ*, but only with the genitive *εὑ*, the combination ἐκ [or ἐξ, in this case] + εὑ meaning “away from him”.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ioanell said:


> *εἵλετο...*as a verb denoting deprivation takes a direct object in accusative “φρένας” (=mind) and an indirect object consisting of the preposition *ἐκ* and the genitive *εὑ*, one of the alternatives of *οὗ*. Notice that the preposition *ἐκ* always goes with the genitive case; that’s why *ἐκ* could not go with the accusative *ἕ*, but only with the genitive *εὑ*, the combination ἐκ [or ἐξ, in this case] + εὑ meaning “away from him”.


Thank you, this is wonderful! In this, you presaged another question in my mind: whether an objective genitive was ever used as an _indirect object_ or a _direct object_ equally. I begin to think that a construction such as is my _το εὑ ἐστῐ́..."_ / _"εὑ ἐστῐ́..."_ is probably invalid unless followed by a transitive verb, without which _εὑ_ would seem to represent an object without a reason for being.


----------



## ioanell

Michael Zwingli said:


> whether an objective genitive was ever used as an _indirect object_ or a _direct object_ equally.


As I have noticed, you are using the term “objective genitive”. Let me tell you that in Ancient Greek grammar/syntax “objective genitive” is one thing and an “object in genitive” is another. “Objective genitive” is called the genitive which follows a noun or an adjective and denotes the object of an action, provided this noun or adjective has a corresponding / cognate verb, e.g.

Μιμηταὶ (noun) _τῶν προγόνων_ [objective genitive] (= imitators of the ancestors) = Οὖτοι μιμοῦνται (verb) _τοὺς προγόνους_ [object in accusative] (=they imitate the ancestors)     
                                                                                           Μνήμων (adj.) εἰμὶ _τῶν προγόνων_ [objective genitive] (=I am mindful of the ancestors) = Μέμνημαι (verb) _τῶν προγόνων_ [object in genitive] (=I remember the ancestors).

If by the term “objective genitive” you (erroneously) mean “object in genitive”, have in mind that a noun (or pronoun) in genitive can be the only object of the verb (so, we can't talk about direct or indirect), e.g.

Πολλοῖς ἡ γλῶττα [subject] προτρέχει [verb] _τῆς διανοίας_ [object in genitive] = The tongue of many people runs before their mind (that is, they talk without thinking first),                               

or an indirect object of the verb, e.g.

Μέλητος [subject] Σωκράτη [direct object in accusative] _ἀσεβείας _[indirect object in genitive] ἐγράψατο [verb] = Meletos accused Socrates of irreverence



Michael Zwingli said:


> _το εὑ ἐστῐ́..."_ / _"εὑ ἐστῐ́..."_ is probably invalid


Terminating my contribution to this thread I must say the above don’t look like correct Ancient Greek (re)constructions.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ioanell said:


> ...in Ancient Greek grammar/syntax “objective genitive” is one thing and an “object in genitive” is another.


This is an important distinction to remember. Thanks for all of your help, Ioanell. You are superb at discerning where hidden difficulties may lie.


----------

