Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Historical Syntax
Edited by Carlotta Viti
[Studies in Language Companion Series 169] 2015
► pp. 251–270

Problematizing syndetic coordination

Ancient Greek ‘and’ from Homer to Aristophanes

| University of Heidelberg

The article problematizes the interpretation of three ancient Greek particles, te, kaí and dé, which represent the most common ‘and’ coordination devices in Archaic and Classical Greek. They show a considerable degree of variation in occurrence, combination, function and meaning across time and in different genres. Such a variation calls for the consideration of discourse phenomena that transcend syntactic distinctions.

Keywords: ‘and’-coordination, ancient Greek particles, discourse, literary genres, pragmatic implications, semantic co-text
Published online: 29 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.169.10bon
References
Allan, Rutger J
2007 Sense and sentence complexity. Sentence structure, sentence connection, and tense-aspect as indicators of narrative mode in Thucydides' Histories . In The Language of Literature. Linguistic Approaches to Classical Texts, Rutger J. Allan, Michael Buijs, Irene. J.F. de Jong & Albert Rijksbaron (eds), 93-121. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira
2010 Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Egbert J
1997 Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar
2012 Of Ens ’n’ Ands: Observations on the phonetic make-up of a coordinator and its uses in talk-in-interaction. Language and Speech 55: 35-56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bäumlein, Wilhelm
1861 Untersuchungen über griechische Partikeln. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Bloch, Alfred
1955 Was bedeuted das “epische” ΤΕ? Museum Helveticum 12: 145-153.Google Scholar
Bonifazi, Anna, Drummen Annemieke, De Kreij, Mark
Forthcoming. Particles in Ancient Greek Discourse. Pragmatic studies of particle use across genres. Washington DC & Cambridge, MA: Center for Hellenic Studies & Harvard University Press.
Brown, Gillian & Yule, George
1983 Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper III, Guy L
1998 Attic Greek Prose Syntax, Vol. 2. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Denniston, John D
1950 The Greek Particles, 2nd edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Devarius, Matthaeus
1588 Liber de graecae linguae particulis. Rome: F. Zannetti.Google Scholar
Dover, Kenneth J
1997 The Evolution of Greek Prose Style. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Van Erp Taalman Kip, A. Maria
2009  Kai mên, kai dê and êdê in tragedy and comedy. In Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, Gerry C. Wakker & Stephanie J. Bakker (eds), 111-133. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonda, Jan
1954 The history and original function of the Indo-European particle *kwe, especially in Greek and Latin. Mnemosyne 4: 177-214 and 265-296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grégoire, Antoine
1930 Notes sur la place occupée par les particules γε and δέ dans la versification homérique. Serta Leodiensia 44: 154-176.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1975 Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 41-58. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Griffith, Mark
(ed.) 1999 Sophocles: Antigone. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hajnal, Ivo
2004  e-ke-qe oder e-ke? – Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in den mykenischen Palastarchiven. In Analecta Homini Universalis Dicata. Arbeiten zur Indogermanistik, Linguistik, Philologie, Politik, Musik und Dichtung. Festschrift für Oswald Panagl zum 65. Geburtstag, Thomas Krisch, Thomas Lindner & Ulrich Müller (eds), 233-251. Stuttgart: Hans-Dieter Heinz.Google Scholar
Hammer, Bruno
1904 De τε [te] particulae usu Herodoteo, Thucydideo, Xenophonteo. Leipzig: Noske.Google Scholar
Hammond, Martin
2009 Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Henderson, Jeffrey
(ed.) 2000 Aristophanes: Birds, Lysistrata, Women at the Thesmophoria. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hilgard, Alfred
1901 Scholia in Dionysii Thracis artem grammaticam. Grammatici Graceci 1.3. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A. & Melchert, Craig H
2008 A Grammar of the Hittite language. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Hoogeveen, Hendrick
1769 Doctrina particularum linguae graecae. Leiden.Google Scholar
Humbert, Jean
1960 Syntaxe grecque, 3rd edn. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Klein, Jared. S
1992 Some Indo-European systems of conjunction: Rigveda, Old Persian, Homer. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94: 1-51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T
1971 If’s, and’s, and but’s about conjunctions. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Charles. J. Fillmore & D. Terence Langendoen (eds), 114-49. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Lattimore, Richard
1967 The Odyssey of Homer. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
1988 The grammaticization of coordination. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 331-359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, Bruce. R
1972 Doublets. Notes on Translation 43: 3-34.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Eugene
1938 Aristophanes. Women at the Thesmophoria. New York NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Orlandini, Anna & Poccetti, Paolo
2007 L’expression de la coordination connective et copulative en latin et dans les langues de l’Italie ancienne, In Actes du XIII Colloque International de Linguistique Latin, Gérald Prunelle (ed.), 129-142. Liège: Université de Liège.Google Scholar
Race, William H
(ed.) 1997 Pindar: Nemean Odes, Isthmian Odes, Fragments. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rijksbaron, Albert
1997 Adverb or connector? The case of kai ... de . In New Approaches to Greek Particles, Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), 187-208. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.Google Scholar
Ruijgh, Cornelis J
1971 Autour de ‘TE epique’: Études sur la syntaxe grecque. Amsterdam: Hakkert.Google Scholar
Segal, Erwin M., Duchan, Judith F. & Scott, Paula J
1991 The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults' interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes 14: 27-54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, Susan F
1975 Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 211-231. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Smyth, Herbert W
1920 Greek Grammar. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stephens, Edward
1837 A Treatise On The Greek Expletive Particles. Oxford: Talboys.Google Scholar
Stuart Jones, Henry & Powell, John E
1942 Thucydidis historiae, 2 Vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre & Wouters, Alfons
2002 Grammatical Theory and Philosophy of Language in Antiquity. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Titrud, Kermit
1991 The overlooked καί [kai] in the Greek New Testament. Notes on Translation 5: 1-28.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth
1986 On the origins of “and” and “but” connectives in English. Studies in Language 10: 137-150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trenkner, Sophie
1960 Le style καί [kaí] dans le récit attique oral. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Vigerus, Franciscus
1834[originally published in 1627]. De praecipuis graecae dictionis idiotismis liber cum animdsversionibus H. Hoogevenii, et I.c. Zeunii. Ed. et annotationes addidit G. Hermannus, 4th edn. Leipzig: Sumtibus Librariae Hahnianae.Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta
2006 AND in the Early Indo-European languages. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 91: 129-165.Google Scholar
2008 The meanings of coordination in the early Indo-European languages. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 24: 35-64.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard
2005 Co-compounds and Natural Coordination. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wentzel, Eduard
1847 Über den Gebrauch der Part. τε [te] bei Homer. Glogau: Flemming.Google Scholar