Search

Since West’s seminal 1898 article, it has been assumed that there were (only) four instances in epic Greek (Homer, Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns) in which the injunctive (often called an unaugmented indicative in the commentaries) could be interpreted as having a timeless (or omnitemporal) meaning. In the second part of the article, I will argue and show that there could be more of these injunctive forms than West originally argued for. I will also analyze several other instances in which an injunctive has been transmitted, instances in which it refers to a background action or an event in a remote past, and argue that some injunctive forms indeed describe the timeless habits of the gods, while others are not timeless, but refer to actions in a remote or even mythical past, or describe background actions; moreover, even some indicative present forms could conceal older timeless injunctive forms (without arguing that the indicative forms should be altered, however). In all these instances I will also investigate and describe the aspectual stems, as well as show that their use can be explained by the distinction perfective – imperfective, which agrees with what we would find in Attic Greek and is not controlled by the metre. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since West's seminal 1989 article, it has been assumed that there were (only) four instances in epic Greek (Homer, Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns) in which the injunctive (often called an unaugmented indicative in the commentaries) could be interpreted as having a timeless (or omnitemporal) meaning. In an article, divided into two parts, I will argue and show that there could be more of these forms. I will also analyze several other instances in which an injunctive has been transmitted, instances in which it refers to a background action or an event in a remote past. In part 1, I address the interaction and difference in use between the injunctive and the (augmented) indicative in epic Greek, paying special attention to the gnomic aorist, the similia, the instances with te-épique and the so-called "Hymnic aorist", explaining why they mostly comprise the augment. Following West 1989 for Greek and Hoffmann 1967 for Vedic, I argue that the injunctives or unaugmented indicatives are not simply metrical variants of the indicative, but have their own distinct meanings and functions, as they are used to "mention" or describe background actions, preserve an old "timeless" meaning or refer to a more remote (and often mythical) past. As some of the instances have an aorist and others a present injunctive, I also take into account the aspectual difference(s) between these forms, discussing scholarship on tense and aspect in general and Homer in particular. In part 2, I proceed to actual instances and will investigate them for both the use of the injunctive or indicative and for that of the aspectual stem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

That it can explain the phenomenon of transparency, namely the fact that if you resolve whether p, you have thereby resolved whether to believe that p, was originally put forward as a great virtue of normativist conceptions of belief. However, non-normativists have convincingly shown that the permissive version of the truth norm of belief, which is one of the most plausible and promising versions of it, cannot in fact accommodate this phenomenon. Alarmed by this situation, in this paper I re-assess the transparency phenomenon and its relation to different versions of the truth norm of belief. I argue that, contrary to how it appears, it is not even clear that the most tenable injunctive versions of the truth norm explain this phenomenon. I then argue that the transparency phenomenon consists of two distinct aspects which should be, but have not been, distinguished. What I call the ‘question-shifting’ aspect is explained by the truth norm, irrespective of how it is formulated, while what I call the ‘answer-shifting’ aspect is explanatorily empty and does not require any explanation, be it normative or otherwise. Therefore, understood properly, explaining transparency does remain a strength of normativist accounts of belief, and has no implications for which particular formulation of the truth norm we may adopt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates the co-occurrence of iterative forms in -σκ-, unaugmented and augmented verb forms in Iliad 24. I first give an in-depth overview of the scholarship on the origin (§ 2) and meaning (§ 3) of the suffix. Second, I describe how I determine my corpus of metrically secure forms (§ 4). As the transmission of the text is not always secure, I restrict myself to those forms where the presence or absence of the augment is guaranteed by the metre. Third, I discuss in great length the previous scholarship on the origin and meaning of the augment (§ 5), focusing particularly on the theories by Lazzeroni and Willi, before proceeding to the actual analysis of the passages in Book 24 where iterative forms, unaugmented and augmented forms co-occur, including the forms ἔσκε and ἦ(ε)ν. I argue (§ 6 and § 7) that (a) the iterative suffix marks repeated actions and is different from the unaugmented forms without suffix, (b) that the forms with suffix can be used to contrast the repeated actions of one (group of) protagonist(s) with that of the other(s), (c) the augmented forms convey emphasis and highlighting and (d) the unaugmented forms describe the background and scene setting or appear in negated sentences that refer to past actions that never occurred and can never happen anymore in the future. At the end I also mention the exceptions to the rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During a 45-year career Paul Watzlawick and colleagues at the Mental Research Institute (MRI) profoundly influenced the development of the communication theory conception of behavior qua behavior, and the practice of marital and brief therapy. This paper highlights three ideas that Watzlawick emphasized as central to his conceptual approach as well as his clinical intervention strategy. Several case examples are included that exemplify how these three concepts guided his thinking and behavior in the therapy room. These three ideas include, distinguishing between indicative and injunctive language, learning and using the client's language, and understanding and avoiding negation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I discuss the use of the augment in fragmentary hexametric Greek texts outside of early epic Greek (Homer, Hesiod, and the Homeric Hymns) and the mock-epic works (such as the Batrakhomyomakhia). I quote them after West 2003 but also analyze fragments that are not found in West. I determine the metrically secure forms, discuss previous scholarship on the meaning of the augment in epic Greek, and then proceed to the actual analysis. For my investigation, I divide the fragments in three categories: first, those that can be analyzed; second, those that have fewer forms and that allow for an analysis but require more caution than those of the first category; and third, the ones that have no or not enough metrically secure forms but are still intellegible. The starting point for my investigation is that the augment had near-deictic/visual-evidential meaning and that it was used in focused and highlighted passages as well as to emphasize new information. This is confirmed by the fragments, but as was the case in the larger epic corpus, there are exceptions to the rules in the Cycle as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the final part of the investigation into the use of the (un)augmented 3rd singular forms ἔθηκε(ν) and θῆκε(ν) in the Iliad, I focus on some loose ends, such as the enjambments, the compound forms, the formulaic nature of the epic language, the subordinate and negative sentences, and on some thornier issues such as the exceptions to the rules and the Mycenaean te ke and do ke and what this can tell us about the original meaning and origin of the augment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I discuss the use and absence of the augment in the 3rd singular forms ἔθηκε(ν) and θῆκε(ν) in the Iliad. In the previous article (De Decker 2020), I explained why I chose this corpus and determined the value of the different forms. Here I proceed to the actual analysis of the forms: do they confirm the previous syntactic and semantic observations that have been made for the use and absence of the augment (the clitic rule by Drewitt and Beck, the reduction rule by Kiparsky and the distinctions: speech versus narrative, foreground versus background and remote versus recent past)? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I discuss the use of the aorist infinitive in a corpus of Greek literary texts that date back to the first and second centuries AD, drawing attention to a potential parallel between the use of the aorist infinitive in this corpus and the aorist injunctive in Vedic Sanskrit. These data suggest that the Greek aorist infinitive encoded the perfective aspect rather than (relative) tense – which appears to remain a controversial issue – and that, as a result, it conveyed anteriority in specific, predictable contexts. This view contrasts with earlier approaches such as those of Miller (2002: 34) and Bary (2012: 43), who relate the use of the aorist infinitive conveying anteriority to its tense marker. Furthermore, my data indicate that in the period investigated the aorist infinitive, when used in declarative infinitive clauses, underwent a significant decline, which resulted from the spread of the perfect infinitive in this construction (Kavčič 2016; cf. Bentein 2018: 94). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the use and absence of the augment in the third person singular and plural forms εδωκ(ε)(v) and 6 δωκ(ε)(v) in the Odyssey. It uses metrically secure forms and lists the criteria for determining these secure forms. The article then proceeds to analyse them and verify if they confirm to previous syntactic and semantic observations which have been made for the use and absence of the augment: the clitic rule by Drewitt and Beck, the reduction rule by Kiparsky and the distinctions speech versus narrative, foreground versus background and remote versus recent past. It is argued that we are only dealing with tendencies and not with absolute rules, and that, as a consequence, there are exceptions to the rules mentioned. These tendencies can explain, however, most of the (un)augmented forms in early epic Greek and it can be argued that the augment was originally a marker of the near-deixis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This exploratory qualitative study examined the influence of injunctive and descriptive norms on breastfeeding, a health-improving behaviour related to a highly committed personal decision. The research explores the different mechanisms through which social norms impact breastfeeding behaviour pre or post-adoption of breastfeeding practice. A qualitative approach was used by performing in-depth analysis of cross-sectional accounts of women in Lebanon contemplating adoption of breastfeeding practice and women who already breastfed. Interviews were also conducted with medical professionals, lactation specialists, and breastfeeding activists. On one hand, the attitude of the medical professionals and the government efforts are two mechanisms that stimulate the injunctive norms. On the other hand, the descriptive norms are defined by community attitude aggregated with societal beliefs and expectations on women's image and role in society. Both types of social norms are in constant interplay with personal norms and each type becomes more salient at different periods over time. The findings suggest that social norms are major determinants of breastfeeding behaviour. The influence of the type of social norm-descriptive or injunctive-on the decision to breastfeed varies according to the moment of life the mother is living. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]