Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

In Defence of the Traditional Interpretation of Xenophanes Frag. I8

In Defence of the Traditional Interpretation of Xenophanes Frag. I8 135 (The Hague), 102, p. 371 ff.). Compare in Greek also crx6cpog; ("deminuierend" Schwyzer-Debrunner,?) ; 6TEVE6V Hes. besides 6TEVOC?CC60C HeF. The verb O"X'YJPL1tTO(.LOCL "to support oneself" however should rather be explained as a blending (see e.g. O. Jespersen, Language, p. 312 ff.); cf. e.g. Fr. rendre <Vulg. Lat. *rendere<reddere x pyendere (see e.g. E. Gamillscheg, Etym. Wtb. d. franz. SPY., 1928, p. 755): O"X?1tTO(.LOCLX Cf. also E. Thomas, Studien zur lat. und griech. Spyachgesch., 19 12, p. 32 ff. : lat. madulsa<madëre X mulsa. Utrecht, van Limburg Stirumstraat 17 J. GONDA IN DEFENCE OF THE TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION OF XENOPHANES FRAG. I8 Verdenius' new interpretation of this fragment 1) does not sound very convincing for several reasons. From a philological point of view it is much more probable that ourot. is meant as a negation of the whole following clause, because the words ....... 1<£8ci§av undoubtedly re- produce current opinion 2). Besides, when one connects 06<oi with as Verdenius does, the sentence loses its perspicuity, because then OÜTOL may belong either to tX1t' or to 7riv-roc, and in both cases the meaning would be different, viz. : the gods did not show all things in the be- ginning (but http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Mnemosyne Brill

In Defence of the Traditional Interpretation of Xenophanes Frag. I8

Loenen, J.H.
Mnemosyne , Volume 9 (1): 135 – Jan 1, 1956
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/in-defence-of-the-traditional-interpretation-of-xenophanes-frag-i8-pJvxmEs8To

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1956 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0026-7074
eISSN
1568-525X
DOI
10.1163/156852556X00197
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

135 (The Hague), 102, p. 371 ff.). Compare in Greek also crx6cpog; ("deminuierend" Schwyzer-Debrunner,?) ; 6TEVE6V Hes. besides 6TEVOC?CC60C HeF. The verb O"X'YJPL1tTO(.LOCL "to support oneself" however should rather be explained as a blending (see e.g. O. Jespersen, Language, p. 312 ff.); cf. e.g. Fr. rendre <Vulg. Lat. *rendere<reddere x pyendere (see e.g. E. Gamillscheg, Etym. Wtb. d. franz. SPY., 1928, p. 755): O"X?1tTO(.LOCLX Cf. also E. Thomas, Studien zur lat. und griech. Spyachgesch., 19 12, p. 32 ff. : lat. madulsa<madëre X mulsa. Utrecht, van Limburg Stirumstraat 17 J. GONDA IN DEFENCE OF THE TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION OF XENOPHANES FRAG. I8 Verdenius' new interpretation of this fragment 1) does not sound very convincing for several reasons. From a philological point of view it is much more probable that ourot. is meant as a negation of the whole following clause, because the words ....... 1<£8ci§av undoubtedly re- produce current opinion 2). Besides, when one connects 06<oi with as Verdenius does, the sentence loses its perspicuity, because then OÜTOL may belong either to tX1t' or to 7riv-roc, and in both cases the meaning would be different, viz. : the gods did not show all things in the be- ginning (but

Journal

Mnemosyne – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 1956

There are no references for this article.