The Grammaticalization of Daimonie at Iliad 24.194
In: MnemosyneHomer’s use of the address form δαιµονίη for Hekabe at Iliad 24.194, has been particularly troublesome, and these problems have remained largely unresolved because the word’s etymology, its later use, and its generally negative tone contrast with the otherwise non-confrontational tone of Priam’s speech at Il. 24.194-199. This mismatch has led to a wide range of interpretations, and no general consensus. In this paper I argue that the term here appears to be undergoing grammaticalization in the direction of a discourse particle, and as such does not characterize the addressee but the context of Priam’s subsequent speech. Although use of the term by later authors shows that this process was terminated, nevertheless, the development of δαιµόνιε proposed here patterns with that of other divine address forms such as Latin mehercule! and edepol!, French mon Dieu!, English oh my God!, etc. which have come to function like other discourse particles such as wow!
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Allen T.W. Homeri Ilias, Vol. I, II, and III 1931, 1979 New York
-
Ameka F. Interjections; The Universal yet Neglected Part of Speech JoP 1992 18 2/3 101 118
-
Arnold T.K. Homer’s Iliad with English Notes and Grammatical References 1852 London
-
Ashdowne R. The Vocative’s Calling? The Syntax of Address in Latin University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 2002 7 143 162
-
Braun F. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures 1988 Berlin
-
Brown H.P. A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Account of Δαιµόνιε in Early Greek Epic GRBS 2011 51 498 528
-
Brunius-Nilsson E. Δαιµόνιε, An Inquiry into a Mode of Apostrophe in Old Greek Literature 1955 Uppsala
-
Chantraine P. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: Histoire des mots 1980 Paris
-
Denniston J.D. The Greek Particles 1950 2nd ed. Oxford
-
Devine A.M. & Stephens L.D. The Prosody of Greek Speech 1994 Oxford
-
Dickey E. Greek Forms of Address from Herodotus to Lucian 1996 Oxford
-
Dunbar H. A Complete Concordance to the Odyssey of Homer 1971 Zürich Revised by B. Marzullo
-
Ernout A. & Meillet A. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: Histoire des mots 1967 Paris
-
Etheridge G. Gibbons B. The Man Of Mode Five Restoration Comedies 1984 London
-
Fraenkel E. Noch einmal Kolon und Satz 1965 München
-
Gehwieler E. From Proper Name to Primary Interjection; the Case of Gee JoHP 2008 9 1 71 93
-
Haliday M.A.K. & Hasen R. Cohesion in English 1976 London
-
Hooker J.T. Homer Iliad III, With Introduction, Notes & Vocabulary 1980 Bristol
-
Hopper P.J. & Traugott E. Grammaticalization 1993 Cambridge
-
Hudson-Williams H.Il. Review of Brunius-Nilsson CR 1957 7 1 76
-
Joseph B.D. Is There Such A Thing As ‘Grammaticalization’? Language Sciences 2001 163 186
-
Lakoff G. Neisser U. Cognitive Models and Prototype Theory Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization 1987 63 100
-
Langacker R.W. Haiman J. Observations and Speculations on Subjectivity Iconicity in Syntax 1985 Amsterdam 109 150
-
Lodge D. The British Museum is Falling Down 1965 London
-
MacLeod C.W. Homer: Iliad XXIV 1982 Cambridge
-
Mader B. LfGE 1982 Vol. 10 Göttingen 197 198
-
Maynard S.K. Linguistic Emotivity 2002 Amsterdam
-
Mosegaard-Hansen M. The Function of Discourse Particles 1998 Amsterdam
-
Richardson N. The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. VI: Books 21-24 1985 Cambridge
-
Rieu E.V. The Iliad 2003 New York
-
Sweetser E.E. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure 1990 Cambridge
-
Szemerényi O. Etyma Graeca VI Minos 1987 20 22 569 580
-
Traugott E. On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change Language 1989 65 1 31 55
-
Traugott E. & Dasher R. Regularity in Semantic Change 2002 Cambridge
-
Verdenius W.J. Review of Brunius-Nilsson Mnemosyne 1959 12 2 147 148
-
de Vries G.J. Remarks on a Greek Form of Address (ὦ τᾶν) Mnemosyne 1966 19 3 225 230
-
Watts R.J. Politeness 2003 Cambridge
-
Wendel T. Die Gesprächsanrede im griechischen Epos und Drama der Blütezeit 1929 Stuttgart
-
West M.L. Homerus Ilias 2002 Vols I-II Stuttgart
-
4
Cf. Brunius-Nilsson 1955, 6-10. She states “[t]he confusion which exists as far as this word is concerned is apparent from the fact that the interpretations of one and the same passage by different scholars, even in quite recent years, can vary between such extremes.”
-
5
See Mosegaard-Hansen 1998, 37-41 for a discussion of the difference between formal and functional categorization of discourse particles. As a technical term, referentiality reflects the ability of lexical items to refer to, or index specific semantic content. Items so used are generally able to enter into grammatical relations with other lexical items. Functionallity, on the other hand, refers to an item’s ability to index grammatical or discursive content. Hopper and Traugott (1998, 4) refer to this distinction as one between content words and function words. In this paper I adopt a largely functional approach.
-
6
On particles, see Mosegaard-Hanse 1998, 37, and Ameka 1992, 108. On the referential meaning of vocative nps, see Braun 1988, 257-259.
-
9
Brunius-Nilsson 1955, 14.
-
21
Dickey 1996, 9-12. Her claim that the vocative functions as a Friendship Term (ft) fails to take into account the term’s special distribution in archaic epic, as well as its use in other, later verse texts. On the exclusion of verse texts from her study see Dickey 1996, 20-22.
-
23
Dickey 1996, 9-10. Thus for example, in Modern English, the term woman, as an address form, is typically used by a man who signals with it that, among other things, the addressee is in a spouse-like relationship with him, and the address usually has strong negative or mock impolite implications. However, as a referential noun, woman has much more general semantic range and usually lacks any of the specific possessive and negative semantics of the vocative use.
-
25
See Braun 1988, 29-32. That is, a mismatch between the addressee and the surface reference of an address form does not automatically result in cognitive dissonance, but invites a contextually based inference that results in a redefinition of the addressee. Thus, formal and semantic agreement are not the primary ways that appropriacy is judged.
-
27
See Hopper and Traugott 1993, 1-2. I distinguish here between grammaticalization, which is descriptive and refers to a well documented phenomenon in language change, and Grammaticalization, which refers to a theoretical claim about language change in general, and so is predictive. On the difference between the two, see Joseph 2001.
-
32
Ameka 1992, 108.
-
42
Ashdowne 2002, 149. See also Braun 1988, 7-8.
-
44
Gehweiler 2008, 74 (following Wierzbicka 1992). The strictly discursive use of forms like geeze, etc., is further suggested by their frequent collocation with the particle oh, which now accompanies genuine vocative addresses only in highly stylized cases, but which regularly appears alone or in combination with other discursive markers, as in oh crap, oh man, etc.
-
46
Cf. Richardson 1985, 296-269, ad loc.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 152 | 45 | 1 |
| Full Text Views | 186 | 4 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 21 | 12 | 2 |
Homer’s use of the address form δαιµονίη for Hekabe at Iliad 24.194, has been particularly troublesome, and these problems have remained largely unresolved because the word’s etymology, its later use, and its generally negative tone contrast with the otherwise non-confrontational tone of Priam’s speech at Il. 24.194-199. This mismatch has led to a wide range of interpretations, and no general consensus. In this paper I argue that the term here appears to be undergoing grammaticalization in the direction of a discourse particle, and as such does not characterize the addressee but the context of Priam’s subsequent speech. Although use of the term by later authors shows that this process was terminated, nevertheless, the development of δαιµόνιε proposed here patterns with that of other divine address forms such as Latin mehercule! and edepol!, French mon Dieu!, English oh my God!, etc. which have come to function like other discourse particles such as wow!
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 152 | 45 | 1 |
| Full Text Views | 186 | 4 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 21 | 12 | 2 |