THE HOMERIC AUGMENT: A DEICTIC PARTICLE by FREDERICK JAMES PAGNIELLO, III (Under the direction of Jared Klein) ABSTRACT Within Homeric Greek is attested the augment, e-, that is prefixed to preterits of the verbal system. Scholarship has long accepted the view of this particle as the marker of past-time whose appearance is solely governed by the needs of the meter; hence, the absence of the augment marks unaugmented preterits as metrical variants, but functional equivalent with the augmented preterits. The recent scholarship by Bakker has suggested that the Homeric augment is actually a deictic particle. Although limited to character speeches and gnomic periods (i.e., statements of general truths), his study suggests that the appearance of augmented preterits correlates with the degree of deixis associated within the narrative environment. The purpose of this study is to examine the thesis of the deictic augment within the context of the entire corpus of Homer. We will show that the appearance of the Homeric augment is essentially a deictic particle. This will show that the Vedic injunctive (formally an unaugmented preterit) does not exist within Homeric Greek, and that it is furthermore an innovation concomitant with the reanalysis of the augment into a temporal marker. This will furthermore show that the thesis of the deictic augment provides a better account for the various traces of the particle, the proto- augment, that are attested outside of the verbal system within various Indo-European languages, thus pointing to the proto-augment having existed within Proto-Indo- European. INDEX WORDS: Augment, Augmented Preterits, Deictic Particle, Homeric Augment, Homeric Greek, Preterits, Proto-Augment, Proto-Indo-European, Temporal Marker, Thesis of the Deictic Augment, Unaugmented Preterits, Vedic Augment, Vedic Injunctive, Vedic Sanskrit THE HOMERIC AUGMENT: A DEICTIC PARTICLE by FREDERICK JAMES PAGNIELLO, III B.S., The University of Bridgeport, 1979 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ATHENS, GEORGIA 2002 ©2002 Frederick James Pagniello, III All Rights Reserved THE HOMERIC AUGMENT: A DEICTIC PARTICLE by FREDERICK JAMES PAGNIELLO, III Approved: Major Professor: Jared Klein Committee: Marlyse Baptista Michael Covington Theodore Lewis William Provost Electronic Version Approved: Gordhan L. Patel Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2002 DEDICATION To the following people do I dedicate this work, which would never have come to pass without their support. My dear parents, whose willingness to tolerate my desire to achieve this degree was irreplaceable, and most especially my mother’s love of museums, which instilled me with a love of scholarship and science. Linda Lassman, Sharon Carroll-Ventura, Denise Wolff, and Tony Bassette, four dear friends who graciously lent their ears to me in a time of troubles. Carmine Vaccarino, Alan Vernon and Irene Spiegelman, without whose generous support by their letters of recommendation greatly assisted in my having been into graduate school. Don McCreary and Debbie Schmidt for their aid at several critical junctures. And, of course, Jared Klein, my teacher and mentor. Without his guidance and kindness toward my quite often tempestuous nature, and his constant faith in my abilities, my journey would have indeed been cut short; my ship would never have reached its port, so to speak. To all of you I am most deeply indebted. It is a debt that I can ever fully repay. Multas gratias vobis nobillimis multo libenter ago. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The achievement of a Ph.D. is much like a journey. It is something of one of those role-playing games, in which players strike their ways through a dungeon to reach a treasure. It is a trip often fraught with perils and dangers, and most certainly enough traps that seem insurmountable lest someone of greater wisdom and knowledge show the way. And let us not forget to mention abidance, for you, the student are but an apprentice learning the ropes of a new profession, so to speak. It was not so much the mere facts that each professor gave, but rather the respective implications and impacts in the field of linguistics that offered the greatest profit to the student. In this regard, I’ve been blessed with a number of guides in my journey. These individuals now only gave their knowledge and experience, but their time, one of the most precious commodities one has. First and foremost I must give credit to my teacher Jared Klein. In no way can his role ever be understated. His expertise in the field of Indo-European studies is formidable, yet he freely welcomes any student who is willing to learn. He may be critical, as he should be, but always in a positive way so that the student becomes better for the experience. The private conferences in his office were at least as illustrative as the classroom lectures; it was a one-on-one experience that went beyond the mere extemporization of facts. He is also one of the most tolerant persons I’ve ever met. As many a person can attest, I have a rather tempestuous nature, which for reason I will not explicate at the moment has become so much fiercer in the past four years. This he tolerated beyond what one could consider reasonable, for which I am v vi eternally grateful. Nor can I forget his call back in 1992, when he inquired about my letters of recommendation. His telling me that I would be well-suited as a grad student and research assistant pretty much took my breath away. What I couldn’t have gotten at any price a decade earlier was placed at my table. I can say this for the other professors in my tenure as a graduate student, although for varying degrees in their respective cases. Debbie Schmidt has been no less an influence in the development of my scholarly attributes with respect to linguistics as well as my personal nature. She freely shared her knowledge and expertise of phonology with her students, although the most memorable experiences with her were during my preparations for my qualification exams; the private conferences allowed us to discuss the various aspects of phonology in greater depth than permitted in the lecture room. She also imparted to me a more than passing interest in the field of syntax, which prior to her advanced lectures was something of a “necessary evil.” It is unfortunate that she, one of immense talent, had to resign from the University because of serious illness. Other professors played no less a role in my development within the general field of scholarly inquiry. Don McCreary assisted me greatly with my first conference presentation from the initial abstract to the final presentation. His attendance at the actual presentation was in a way disconcerting (after all, your teacher is hearing everything you say), but also supportive (all the more so when he gives the occasional nod that “you’ve got it right). No less important was an assistantship he generated for me in my third semester at the University. It was a demonstration of his confidence in my abilities as a potential candidate in the program. vii Michael Covington made syntax a bearable subject for me, a person for whom that area of linguistics originally held only a marginal interest. Had anyone of lesser caliber taught the course, I would more than likely have lost interest prior to the halfway mark. His advice and pointers with regard to the techniques of syntactic analysis proved invaluable toward my successful completion of his course. Just as important, however, was his willingness to answer any question that I might pose to him regardless of the field. His advice with respect to modern computer programming facilitated my reaquaintance with my former profession as well as a speedy acquisition of the latest techniques required for programmers. My experiences with Fredric Dolezal have been on a more limited basis, though despite this, quite profitable. The most enjoyable course with him was a seminar on language and perception. Here we discussed one of the underlying relationships between human perception and the overt structural realization of language on the surface. Although he demanded quality, he gave you the leeway and latitude to find the answer. When my first presentation on Aristotelian classification was less than expected, he offered advice on how to better approach the research, most especially with specific modern scholars who have investigated this subject in detail. I would say, however, the most important aspect was the freedom in your major research project, which for me (an investigation into human perception and its incorporation into language) was one of the most enjoyable papers I’ve ever written as a graduate student. Nancy Felson’s contribution to the dissertation is, in a word, inestimable. It was her course on the Iliad that opened a major door into the underlying thematic structure of that Homeric epic. In a sense she gave me the way to push my understanding of Homer viii to a greater height. Just as important was an insight into narratology, which prior to her course was something of an obscure arcania; I knew of it, but had no idea how to approach such a study. In these two respects she provided me the tools with which I could successfully analyzed Homer in both a grammatical and thematic light. Indeed, without the latter the former could never have been accomplished, for what a writer says is governed by the underlying thoughts and emotions. No less important was her willingness to tolerate my “quaint” emotional structure, which I will admit can be very trying at times.