Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>An examination of Herodotus’s use of the circumstantial participle in the future tense with and without the adverbial particle ς reveals that Herodotus reserves ς almost exclusively for those cases in which the expectations or intentions represented by the participle are ultimately disappointed. This observation should teach us to distrust the conventional assertion that the appearance of ς with the circumstantial participle has no implications for an author’s thoughts. It also suggests that, in those cases where we lack direct knowledge of historical outcomes, the presence of ς with a circumstantial participle may permit us to be reasonably certain that any expectations or intentions expressed by that participle are likely to have gone unfulfilled. Thus, Herodotus’s use of the phrase ς νασοντες at the end of the Histories to refer to the Athenians’ intentions to dedicate the equipment from Xerxes’ bridge (9.121) should probably be understood as implying that no such dedication ever took place.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
Mnemosyne – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2010
Keywords: Greek grammar; Herodotus; participles
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.