What would this pun mean?
In a conversation with a fellow Ancient Greek enthusiast, the name "Medusa" (Μέδουσα, "ruling") came up. I made a rather tortured pun by switching the epsilon to an eta, creating μὴ δοῦσα.
Now, μή is a negative particle, and δοῦσα is a participle from δέω, "bind". I dimly remember using μή, rather than οὐ, with participles. But is this particular construction grammatical? If so, what would it mean?
greek participium negation
asked Dec 17 at 4:41
Draconis
14.4k11960
add a comment |
In a conversation with a fellow Ancient Greek enthusiast, the name "Medusa" (Μέδουσα, "ruling") came up. I made a rather tortured pun by switching the epsilon to an eta, creating μὴ δοῦσα.
Now, μή is a negative particle, and δοῦσα is a participle from δέω, "bind". I dimly remember using μή, rather than οὐ, with participles. But is this particular construction grammatical? If so, what would it mean?
greek participium negation
asked Dec 17 at 4:41
Draconis
14.4k11960
add a comment |
In a conversation with a fellow Ancient Greek enthusiast, the name "Medusa" (Μέδουσα, "ruling") came up. I made a rather tortured pun by switching the epsilon to an eta, creating μὴ δοῦσα.
Now, μή is a negative particle, and δοῦσα is a participle from δέω, "bind". I dimly remember using μή, rather than οὐ, with participles. But is this particular construction grammatical? If so, what would it mean?
greek participium negation
asked Dec 17 at 4:41
Draconis
14.4k11960
In a conversation with a fellow Ancient Greek enthusiast, the name "Medusa" (Μέδουσα, "ruling") came up. I made a rather tortured pun by switching the epsilon to an eta, creating μὴ δοῦσα.
Now, μή is a negative particle, and δοῦσα is a participle from δέω, "bind". I dimly remember using μή, rather than οὐ, with participles. But is this particular construction grammatical? If so, what would it mean?
greek participium negation
greek participium negation
asked Dec 17 at 4:41
Draconis
14.4k11960
asked Dec 17 at 4:41
Draconis
14.4k11960
asked Dec 17 at 4:41
Draconis
14.4k11960
asked Dec 17 at 4:41
Draconis
14.4k11960
asked Dec 17 at 4:41
Draconis
14.4k11960
14.4k11960
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
δοῦσα is a feminine nom. sg. participle, but it's more likely to be taken as the aorist participle of δίδωμι 'give' than the present participle of δέω 'bind': generally, monosyllabic stems (like δε-) don't contract. That said, there are exceptions, and it looks like δοῦσα is actually attested as an alternate of the regular form δέουσα.
μή negates a participle when it has a conditional or general meaning. So μὴ δοῦσα could mean, if taking δοῦσα from δίδωμι, "if she had not given" or "whoever (fem.) did not give"; if taking it from δέω, it could mean "if she were not binding" or "whoever (fem.) does not bind". But note that as brianpck points out in comments, participles don't have absolute tense, so the tense of the translation would vary depending on the main verb and the context.
answered Dec 17 at 5:14
TKR
13.5k2755
A minor quibble: the aorist in a participle modifies the "aspect," not the temporality, so it wouldn't necessarily need to be translated by English past or past perfect.
– brianpck
Dec 17 at 14:42
1
@brianpck True, hence my "could" (I was giving examples to keep things short). I've added an explanatory note. Generally though the tense of participles does line up pretty well with temporality, but relative rather than absolute -- aorist for time prior to the main verb, present for contemporaneous.
– TKR
Dec 17 at 18:53
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "644"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8734%2fwhat-would-this-pun-mean%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
δοῦσα is a feminine nom. sg. participle, but it's more likely to be taken as the aorist participle of δίδωμι 'give' than the present participle of δέω 'bind': generally, monosyllabic stems (like δε-) don't contract. That said, there are exceptions, and it looks like δοῦσα is actually attested as an alternate of the regular form δέουσα.
μή negates a participle when it has a conditional or general meaning. So μὴ δοῦσα could mean, if taking δοῦσα from δίδωμι, "if she had not given" or "whoever (fem.) did not give"; if taking it from δέω, it could mean "if she were not binding" or "whoever (fem.) does not bind". But note that as brianpck points out in comments, participles don't have absolute tense, so the tense of the translation would vary depending on the main verb and the context.
answered Dec 17 at 5:14
TKR
13.5k2755
A minor quibble: the aorist in a participle modifies the "aspect," not the temporality, so it wouldn't necessarily need to be translated by English past or past perfect.
– brianpck
Dec 17 at 14:42
1
@brianpck True, hence my "could" (I was giving examples to keep things short). I've added an explanatory note. Generally though the tense of participles does line up pretty well with temporality, but relative rather than absolute -- aorist for time prior to the main verb, present for contemporaneous.
– TKR
Dec 17 at 18:53
add a comment |
δοῦσα is a feminine nom. sg. participle, but it's more likely to be taken as the aorist participle of δίδωμι 'give' than the present participle of δέω 'bind': generally, monosyllabic stems (like δε-) don't contract. That said, there are exceptions, and it looks like δοῦσα is actually attested as an alternate of the regular form δέουσα.
μή negates a participle when it has a conditional or general meaning. So μὴ δοῦσα could mean, if taking δοῦσα from δίδωμι, "if she had not given" or "whoever (fem.) did not give"; if taking it from δέω, it could mean "if she were not binding" or "whoever (fem.) does not bind". But note that as brianpck points out in comments, participles don't have absolute tense, so the tense of the translation would vary depending on the main verb and the context.
answered Dec 17 at 5:14
TKR
13.5k2755
A minor quibble: the aorist in a participle modifies the "aspect," not the temporality, so it wouldn't necessarily need to be translated by English past or past perfect.
– brianpck
Dec 17 at 14:42
1
@brianpck True, hence my "could" (I was giving examples to keep things short). I've added an explanatory note. Generally though the tense of participles does line up pretty well with temporality, but relative rather than absolute -- aorist for time prior to the main verb, present for contemporaneous.
– TKR
Dec 17 at 18:53
add a comment |
δοῦσα is a feminine nom. sg. participle, but it's more likely to be taken as the aorist participle of δίδωμι 'give' than the present participle of δέω 'bind': generally, monosyllabic stems (like δε-) don't contract. That said, there are exceptions, and it looks like δοῦσα is actually attested as an alternate of the regular form δέουσα.
μή negates a participle when it has a conditional or general meaning. So μὴ δοῦσα could mean, if taking δοῦσα from δίδωμι, "if she had not given" or "whoever (fem.) did not give"; if taking it from δέω, it could mean "if she were not binding" or "whoever (fem.) does not bind". But note that as brianpck points out in comments, participles don't have absolute tense, so the tense of the translation would vary depending on the main verb and the context.
answered Dec 17 at 5:14
TKR
13.5k2755
δοῦσα is a feminine nom. sg. participle, but it's more likely to be taken as the aorist participle of δίδωμι 'give' than the present participle of δέω 'bind': generally, monosyllabic stems (like δε-) don't contract. That said, there are exceptions, and it looks like δοῦσα is actually attested as an alternate of the regular form δέουσα.
μή negates a participle when it has a conditional or general meaning. So μὴ δοῦσα could mean, if taking δοῦσα from δίδωμι, "if she had not given" or "whoever (fem.) did not give"; if taking it from δέω, it could mean "if she were not binding" or "whoever (fem.) does not bind". But note that as brianpck points out in comments, participles don't have absolute tense, so the tense of the translation would vary depending on the main verb and the context.
answered Dec 17 at 5:14
TKR
13.5k2755
edited Dec 17 at 18:53
answered Dec 17 at 5:14
TKR
13.5k2755
answered Dec 17 at 5:14
TKR
13.5k2755
answered Dec 17 at 5:14
TKR
13.5k2755
13.5k2755
A minor quibble: the aorist in a participle modifies the "aspect," not the temporality, so it wouldn't necessarily need to be translated by English past or past perfect.
– brianpck
Dec 17 at 14:42
1
@brianpck True, hence my "could" (I was giving examples to keep things short). I've added an explanatory note. Generally though the tense of participles does line up pretty well with temporality, but relative rather than absolute -- aorist for time prior to the main verb, present for contemporaneous.
– TKR
Dec 17 at 18:53
add a comment |
A minor quibble: the aorist in a participle modifies the "aspect," not the temporality, so it wouldn't necessarily need to be translated by English past or past perfect.
– brianpck
Dec 17 at 14:42
1
@brianpck True, hence my "could" (I was giving examples to keep things short). I've added an explanatory note. Generally though the tense of participles does line up pretty well with temporality, but relative rather than absolute -- aorist for time prior to the main verb, present for contemporaneous.
– TKR
Dec 17 at 18:53
A minor quibble: the aorist in a participle modifies the "aspect," not the temporality, so it wouldn't necessarily need to be translated by English past or past perfect.
– brianpck
Dec 17 at 14:42
A minor quibble: the aorist in a participle modifies the "aspect," not the temporality, so it wouldn't necessarily need to be translated by English past or past perfect.
– brianpck
Dec 17 at 14:42
1
1
@brianpck True, hence my "could" (I was giving examples to keep things short). I've added an explanatory note. Generally though the tense of participles does line up pretty well with temporality, but relative rather than absolute -- aorist for time prior to the main verb, present for contemporaneous.
– TKR
Dec 17 at 18:53
@brianpck True, hence my "could" (I was giving examples to keep things short). I've added an explanatory note. Generally though the tense of participles does line up pretty well with temporality, but relative rather than absolute -- aorist for time prior to the main verb, present for contemporaneous.
– TKR
Dec 17 at 18:53
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Latin Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8734%2fwhat-would-this-pun-mean%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
