Индоевропейское языкознание и классическая филология - XXII. Материалы чтений, посвященных памяти профессора Иосифа Моисеевича Тронского, 18-20 июня 2018 г.
The paper discusses 10 Old Frisian verbal constructions that can be considered noun-incorporated verbs. Nominal incorporation is wide-spread in Indo-European. In Germanic, nominal incorporation as applied to verbs is not productive as a word-formation tool, except for Frisian. S. Dyk, a linguist and an expert in Frisian, has carried out a comprehensive research on noun-incorporation in Modern Frisian (Dyk 1997). Some incorporated verbs are part of Middle Frisian texts. Yet, as the author states, no words following this word-formation pattern had been attested in Old Frisian. This paper present new data achieved within a PhD-thesis on compounding in Old Frisian (including all the attested lexis, which amounts to ca. 11,750 lemmas). The findings are 10 Old Frisian lexical constructions that might be treated as noun-incorporated (proto-)compounds due to a set of reasons. The arguments for considering these words to be noun-incorporated compounds are: (1) ‘terminological’ specification of their semantics; (2) proven evaluation of this word-formation pattern into a productive and frequent mechanism in Modern Frisian through Middle Frisian. The arguments against considering these words to be noun-incorporated compounds are: (3) no conjugational paradigm present in the actual contexts, i. e. the 10 words occur exclusively as substantivized infinitives and do not function as finite verbs yet; (4) the 10 words are not frequent in terms of being attested in various sources distinguished by chronological, spatial and genre-based criteria. Moreover, the paper discusses some limitations of the words’ possible interpretations, and their formal and semantic features are described. The 10 words are: bon-skelda ‘to impose a fine’, brond-skatta ‘to commit arson’, hēr-plokkia ‘to pull at someone’s hair’, holt-sāgia ‘to cut wood’, hreg-breka ‘to break someone’s back’, mes-lūka ‘to pull a knife’, rēd-slā ‘to give advice’, stēn-drega ‘to carry stones around the town (as a punishment)’, stēn-fēra ‘to move stones’, wax-drāia ‘to produce wax candles’. Semantically, most of the words refer to criminal, legal actions; two of them (‘to cut wood’ and ‘to produce wax candles’) are designations of highly frequent occupational actions. One of them, ‘to give advice’, is well-known for having cognates in other Germanic languages. These meanings might have been rendered through a noun-incorporating pattern for a reason: they denote some actions so frequent and collocational that they were bound to form ‘terminological’ items and develop into a productive ford-formation model.
Section (1) explains why the Deveni papyrus has often been misunderstood: among the main reasons are the wrong label “Orphic” and the confusion of two types of pantheism in Greek thought: the ethico-religious and the naturalistic. The Orphic hymn to Zeus is a classical example of the first type, the Derveni commentary – of the second (which is incompatible with the immortality of the soul and afterlife). Section (2) deals with the literary genre, the general purpose and the hermeneutical method of the Derveni treatise, and draws a preliminary intellectual portrait of its author describing his peculiar features, a kind of «composite image». In the section (3) we argue for Prodicus as the author of PDervand present 18 testimoniaon which this attribution is based. These include both the verbatimquotations with Prodicus' name that find an exact correspondence in the text ofPDervand the common peculiar features of the language and style. In the section (4) we propose a reconstruction and interpretation of the text of the col.IV that contains a quotation from Heraclitus. This column is of primary importance for the understanding of the aims and allegorical method of the author in general as well as for his theory of names. Section (5) detects a neglected (polemical) peritrope of Prodicus' benefaction theory of the origin of religion in Xenophon's Memorabillia4.4. In the section (6) the problems of the original title and date of the Derveni treatise are addressed, as well as its relation to the Psephismaof Diopeithes (432 BC) as well as the trial and death of Anaxagoras. The last section (7) clarifies our use of the term peritropeand explains the Derveni treatise as a polemical naturalistic peritropeof a religious text (Orphic theogony).
This article is the second part of our research aiming at introducing into common scholarly usage a new concept, which we designate “symbolic tale” (ST). The term refers to a shorter and «uncrowded» prosaic literary genre; based on traditional folkloric and mythological images which it reinterprets in order to match with actual and important ideological, religious or social tasks. In this part of the work we add to our previous description only two new characteristics of ST, which have been only cursorily mentioned in the first part—namely, discontineous flow of time combined with symbolic count of years and days (three, seven, eight, twelve), and elliptical composition with two centres, peaks or culminations. These features are present, to a greater or lesser degree, in all the analysed ST, despite their compositional differences and the large diversity of ways they deal with the time. Thus, in “The Story of our father Agapius” two climaxes are required both ideologically and narratively, because they have important historical implications; while in the Book of Ruth the mere presence of two culminations is questionable. Symbolism in the count of days is extremely important in the Book of Judith and in the “Acts of Paul and Thecla”, while it is almost absent in “Cupid and Psyche”. Nevertheless, from the shortest ST of Susanna and the Elders (ch. 13 of the Greek Book of Daniel), where the narrative is just three days long and culminations are barely outlined, up to the extensive “Life of Aesop”, where the narration time takes longer than the lifetime of the hero and no culmination can be discovered at first glance, one can notice that the time and the composition of these works do not aim at verisimilitude, but are completely subordinated to their ideological task.
Latin translations of Aristotle’s Historia animalium had been an important source of scientific animal names at least until the 18th c. Theodore Gaza, the author of the most influential translation, made in the 3rd quarter of the 15th c., rendered many animal names using neologisms of his own coinage. Thus, the word sargiacus was supposed to be his translation of the Greek fish name σαργῖνος which appears only once in the Aristotelian text (“ἀθερῖνοι, σαργῖνοι, βελόναι, τευθοί”, 610b6). Indeed, in the posthumous editio princeps of Gaza’s translation prepared in 1476, as well as in the later 15th-century editions, that passage is rendered as “aristulae, sargiacus, lolii” (with an omission of the equivalent for βελόναι). In his 1504 edition, Aldus Manutius replaced the word sargiacus by a 2nd declension plural sargiaci. All the following editions apparently preserved Aldus’ conjecture. Still, the manuscript Vat. lat. 2094, which is, as John Monfasani has shown, the copy Gaza presented to the pope Sixtus IV in the early 1470s, reads “aristulae, sargi, acus, lolii”. Sargus and acus were regularly employed by Gaza elsewhere in the text for the fish names σαργός and βελόνη respectively. He used to emend the Aristotelian text extensively, so it is no wonder that he suggested reading the well-attested fish name σαργός here instead of the extremely rare word σαργῖνος. Most probably he was not aware of the only other occurrence of the latter, namely in Ath. 7.117.10–16 (partially repeated in Ath. 7.93.6–8) and considered σαργῖνος a scribal error. So, the text of the Vatican codex makes it clear that the word sargiacus originated from the skipped punctuation mark in the editio princeps (or in the manuscript underlying it). Neither the correct spelling “sargi, acus” in Agostino Nifo’s commentary on the Historia animalium (1546), nor Edward Wotton’s suggestion that the word sargiacus might be a typo (1552) attracted attention of the contemporaries. The word sargiacus is widely attested in scientific writings of the 16th–18th centuries, as well as in some dictionaries, and appears in print as late as in 1864.
This paper is an attempt to clarify a few puzzling contexts of 12 Pyth., taking into account some specific features of auletic techniques