Lambros Kamperidis and Denise Harvey (eds.), Alexandros Papadiamandis, The Boundless Garden. Selected Short Stories, Volume II. Limni, Evia: Denise Harvey (Publisher), 2019. Pp. xx, 363.

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY BYZANTINE AND MODERN GREEK STUDIES Pub Date : 2021-06-17 DOI:10.1017/byz.2021.9
R. Fowler
{"title":"Lambros Kamperidis and Denise Harvey (eds.), Alexandros Papadiamandis, The Boundless Garden. Selected Short Stories, Volume II. Limni, Evia: Denise Harvey (Publisher), 2019. Pp. xx, 363.","authors":"R. Fowler","doi":"10.1017/byz.2021.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"geographical source of examples, nor does it figure in the list of locations under ‘regional variation’ in the Index, though it does appear in the title of one subsection on p. 1949. One might have welcomed an explanation for the almost complete absence of the Βασιλεύουσα from the Grammar: does it imply that there is little regionally specific linguistic evidence to be found in texts from Constantinople, or that texts from Constantinople were composed in a non-regional variety – or neither? Although some eighteenth-century examples are included in the Grammar, from a linguistic point of view that century largely remains a terra incognita in the history of Greek. Should we think of it as being the final stage of ‘Early Modern Greek’, as Tasos Kaplanis has suggested, or (as the authors seem to imply) as the first stage of ‘Modern Greek’? On this score, it is interesting that the authors of the Grammar appear to have discovered no instance of the epistemic use of θέλει + personal verb. By contrast, eighteenth-century writers from Constantinople, who frequently use personal θέλω + infinitive for the future (θέλουν έρθει ‘they will come’), besides θενα and θα + personal verb, reserve impersonal θέλει + personal verb for epistemic use (θέλει ήρθαν ‘they must have come’). The term ‘epistemic’ is absent from the index of the Grammar, as are ‘probability’ and ‘possibility’. It would be good to know what constructions were available for the expression of probability during the period covered by the Grammar. In a brief review it is impossible to do justice to such a monumental intellectual undertaking as the CGMEMG. Suffice it to say that technical language is always elucidated, and the volumes are impeccably edited; the number of typographical errors is infinitesimal given the length and complexity of the text.","PeriodicalId":43258,"journal":{"name":"BYZANTINE AND MODERN GREEK STUDIES","volume":"45 1","pages":"284 - 287"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/byz.2021.9","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BYZANTINE AND MODERN GREEK STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/byz.2021.9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

geographical source of examples, nor does it figure in the list of locations under ‘regional variation’ in the Index, though it does appear in the title of one subsection on p. 1949. One might have welcomed an explanation for the almost complete absence of the Βασιλεύουσα from the Grammar: does it imply that there is little regionally specific linguistic evidence to be found in texts from Constantinople, or that texts from Constantinople were composed in a non-regional variety – or neither? Although some eighteenth-century examples are included in the Grammar, from a linguistic point of view that century largely remains a terra incognita in the history of Greek. Should we think of it as being the final stage of ‘Early Modern Greek’, as Tasos Kaplanis has suggested, or (as the authors seem to imply) as the first stage of ‘Modern Greek’? On this score, it is interesting that the authors of the Grammar appear to have discovered no instance of the epistemic use of θέλει + personal verb. By contrast, eighteenth-century writers from Constantinople, who frequently use personal θέλω + infinitive for the future (θέλουν έρθει ‘they will come’), besides θενα and θα + personal verb, reserve impersonal θέλει + personal verb for epistemic use (θέλει ήρθαν ‘they must have come’). The term ‘epistemic’ is absent from the index of the Grammar, as are ‘probability’ and ‘possibility’. It would be good to know what constructions were available for the expression of probability during the period covered by the Grammar. In a brief review it is impossible to do justice to such a monumental intellectual undertaking as the CGMEMG. Suffice it to say that technical language is always elucidated, and the volumes are impeccably edited; the number of typographical errors is infinitesimal given the length and complexity of the text.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Lambros Kamperidis和Denise Harvey(编辑),Alexandros Papadimandis,《无界花园》。短篇小说选集,第二卷。林妮,埃维亚:丹尼斯·哈维(出版社),2019。第xx页,第363页。
例子的地理来源,也没有出现在索引中“区域差异”下的地点列表中,尽管它确实出现在1949年的一个小节的标题中。有人可能会欢迎对语法中几乎完全没有¦Βασιλείσυσα的解释:这是否意味着在君士坦丁堡的文本中几乎找不到特定于地区的语言证据,或者君士坦丁堡的文字是以非地区的变体组成的——或者两者都没有?尽管《语法》中包含了一些18世纪的例子,但从语言学的角度来看,该世纪在希腊历史上基本上仍然是一个未知的领域。我们应该像Tasos Kaplanis所建议的那样,将其视为“早期现代希腊语”的最后阶段,还是(正如作者似乎暗示的那样)视为“现代希腊语的第一阶段?在这一点上,有趣的是,《语法》的作者似乎没有发现θίλει+个人动词的认知用法。相比之下,来自君士坦丁堡的18世纪作家,他们经常使用个人θί。语法索引中没有“认知的”一词,“概率”和“可能性”也是如此。如果能知道在语法所涵盖的时期内,有什么结构可用于表达概率,那就太好了。在简短的回顾中,不可能公正地对待像CGMEMG这样具有里程碑意义的智力事业。只需说,技术语言总是被阐明的,而且这些卷都经过了无可挑剔的编辑;考虑到文本的长度和复杂性,印刷错误的数量是无穷小的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BYZANTINE AND MODERN GREEK STUDIES
BYZANTINE AND MODERN GREEK STUDIES HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies is an internationally recognised, peer-reviewed journal and one of the leading publications in its field. It is viewed as an important outlet for current research. Published twice a year in spring and autumn, its remit has always been to facilitate the publication of high-quality research and discussion in all aspects of Byzantine and Modern Greek scholarship, whether historical, literary or social-anthropological. It welcomes research, criticism, contributions on theory and method in the form of articles, critical studies and short notes.
期刊最新文献
Georgia Gotsi, Ελίζαμπεθ Μ. ´Εντμοντς, μια βικτωριανή βιογραφεί τον Ρήγα, Εισαγωγή – Κείμενο – Σχόλια. Athens: Ε.Ι.Ε. /Ι.Ι.Ε, 2020. Pp. 161 Βασίλης Μακρυδήμας, Στον αστερισμό των αντιθέσεων. Ο κριτικός και δοκιμιογράφος Τ.Κ. Παπατσώνης. Αthens: Gutenberg 2021. pp. 499. Baukje van den Berg, Homer the Rhetorician: Eustathios of Thessaloniki on the Composition of the Iliad (Oxford Studies in Byzantium). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. Pp. XVIII, 260 Mark Mazower, The Greek Revolution: 1821 and the Making of Modern Europe. London: Allen Lane, 2021 and Paschalis M. Kitromilides and Constantinos Tsoukalas (eds), The Greek Revolution: A Critical Dictionary, Cambridge MA, The Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, 2021. Greek Folk Songs, translated by Joshua Barley. Athens: Aiora Press, 2022. Pp. 184.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1