No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
οὔκουν OR οὐκοῦν? MANUSCRIPTS, EDITORS AND PRAGMATICS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2025
Abstract
This article offers principles to be followed when editing οὔκουν and οὐκοῦν. The distinction between these words is supported by the ancient grammarians, but manuscript readings oscillate to such a degree that modern editors often do not trust them. The most common principles thus far available are those established by Kühner–Gerth and Denniston. Some are so subjective, however, that editors do not always agree on the accentuation of a non-negligible number of instances. This article takes into account the pragmatic contexts in which the particle is used in Attic drama to effect a distinction by applying a conversation analytic methodology to their interpretation. All instances appearing in the extant plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes have been analysed.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Footnotes
*
This study has been financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain within the research project ‘Actos de habla e interacción en griego antiguo’ (PID2021-122489NB-I00).
References
1 R. Fiengo, Asking Questions. Using Meaningful Structures to Imply Ignorance (Oxford, 2007), 65–8.
2 Greek texts are reproduced according to the editions available in the TLG, preserving the particle’s accentuation even when it differs from our proposal. English translations are those available in the Perseus project, with slight modifications in order to make clear the function of the particle. The translation of Ar. Av. 1185–7 is based on A.H. Sommerstein, The Comedies of Aristophanes, Vol. 6. Birds (Warminster, 1987). Translations of the passages of the grammarians and lexicographers are mine.
3 Diff. 360.1–4 οὔκουν, παροξυτόνως μὲν τὸ ἀποφα{ν}τικὸν ἴσον τῷ οὐχιοῦν, οἷον “οὔκουν ἀπιστϵῖν” [Thuc. 1.10.3]. πϵρισπωμένως δὲ συλλογιστικός ἐστι σύνδϵσμος καὶ σημαίνϵι ἀπόφα<ν>σιν.
4 C. Denizot, Donner des ordres en grec ancien (Mont-Saint-Aignan, 2011), 470–3.
5 J.D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (Oxford, 19542), 430.
6 V.C.F Rost, Über Ableitung, Bedeutung und Gebrauch der Partikel οὖν (Gotha, 1859), 8–11.
7 Rightly criticized by H. Wähdel, Über Bedeutung und Gebrauch der Partikel οὖν beim Aristophanes (Stralsund, 1869), 10.
8 F. Paley, A Short Treatise on the Greek Particles and their Combinations according to Attic Usage (Cambridge, 1881), 58.
9 ‘Both οὐκοῦν and οὔκουν occur, where the accented syllable alone has its force. In all cases however οὐκ οὖν should be taken separately, and the meaning determined by the addition or absence of the interrogation.’ See also W.S. Barrett, Euripides. Hippolytos (Oxford, 1964), 220–1.
10 Denniston (n. 5), 430–41; cf. R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. II: Satzlehre. Zweiter Band (Hannover and Leipzig, 19043), 163–7.
11 For the literature on this particle from the eighteenth century until today, see the repository of A. Bonifazi, A. Drummen and M. de Kreij, Particles in Ancient Greek Discourse: Exploring Particle Use across Genres (Washington, DC, 2016); also E. van Emde Boas, A. Rijksbaron, L. Huitink and M. de Bakker, Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (Cambridge, 2019), 680–1. A more refined interpretation of the questions introduced by it, though also based on intuitive principles, is found in C.M.J. Sicking, ‘Particles in questions in Plato’, in A. Rijksbaron (ed.), New Approaches to Greek Particles (Amsterdam, 1997), 157–74, at 158–64. Sicking states that “οὐκοῦν-questions … differ from οὔκουν-questions in that the latter are rhetorical questions expressing the questioner’s disbelief that his interlocutor really means what he says, whereas the former typically are assent-seeking or apodeictic questions.” Sicking’s ideas are relatively close to the views put forth in this article. See further O. Hackstein, ‘Negative interrogatives and whatnot. The conversion of negation in Indo-European’, Indo-European Linguistics 4 (2016), 150–89.
12 Denniston (n. 5), 431. Kühner–Gerth’s explanation: ‘Durch eine Frage mit οὔκουν wird nicht, wie durch die mit οὐκοῦν, etwas gefolgert, was sich aus einem anderen Gedanken von selbst ergiebt, sondern es wird ein bestimmtes und festes Urteil von einem, dessen Gemüt heftig erregt ist, mit allem Ernste in der Form einer Frage ausgesprochen.’
13 J.M. Jiménez Delgado, ‘From disjunct to connective. The particle οὖν in Herodotus’ Histories and its association with anaphoric elements’, in Proceedings of the 10th International Colloquium of Ancient Greek Linguistics (Berlin, 2025) (forthcoming).
14 R.C. Jebb, Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments. Volume 3: Antigone (Cambridge, 1888), 150.
15 J.C. Kamerbeek, The Plays of Sophocles. Part III: The Antigone (Leiden, 1978), 148.
16 M. Griffith, Sophocles. Antigone (Cambridge, 1999), 268.
17 B.M.W. Knox, The Heroic Temper: Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1964), 176–7.
18 [Aesch.] PV 322, 518; Soph. Ant. 321, 993, OT 565, 1357, OC 651, 848, 924, Phil. 872, 907, 1389; Eur. Andr. 444, Hel. 124, 917, 1251, Heracl. 191, 1005, Herc. 168, 1251, IA 9, 1430, Ion 356, 746, IT 516, 601, Med. 890, Or. 1607, Phoen. 1589, Supp. 342; Ar. Eccl. 343, 350, 926, Eq. 465, Plut. 342, 889, Ran. 1065, Vesp. 823. All the instances are followed by γϵ with an intervening word or expression except for Soph. Phil. 872; Eur. Hel. 917, Herc. 168, IA 1430, Ion 746, IT 601, Med. 890, Phoen. 1589, Supp. 342.
19 [Aesch.] PV 52; Soph. Ant. 244, El. 630, 795, OC 897, OT 676; Eur. Alc. 794, Cyc. 241, 632, Hel. 458, Hipp. 332; Ar. Av. 991, 1260, Eccl. 43, 1144, Lys. 386, Nub. 1253, Pax 261, 274, 950, Plut. 71, 974, Ran. 193, 200, 201, 339, 480, 649.
20 This sort of semantic change has been described by C.E. Traugott and R.B. Dasher, Regularity in Semantic Change (New York, 2002), 34–5, within the frame of their Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change.
21 See also C.H. Han, ‘Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions’, Lingua 112 (2002), 201–29.
22 G. Martin, Euripides, Ion. Edition and Commentary (Berlin and Boston, 2018), 471; J.C. Gibert, Euripides. Ion (Cambridge, 2019), 314.
23 See Kühner–Gerth (n. 10), 166: ‘Denn bei οὐκοῦν liegt das ganze Gewicht des Gedankens in οὖν, d. h. in der Folgerung, sodass, wie wir gesehen haben, an der Stelle des zusammengesetzten οὐκοῦν auch das einfache οὖν gesetzt werden könnte; bei οὔκουν hingegen herrscht die Negation so vor, dass an der Stelle des zusammengesetzten οὔκουν auch das einfache οὔ in fast gleichem Sinne gebraucht werden kann, nach Wegnahme der Negation aber entweder ein durchaus entgegengesetzter oder wenigstens unpassender Gedanke bezeichnet würde.’
24 J.D. Denniston, Euripides. Electra (Oxford, 1939).
25 On this use of οὐκοῦν χρή in our corpus, see below. Not all of the examples are the same, since the deontic construction can be used in this sort of question with ironic overtone to reject the course of action suggested by the interlocutor: cf. Soph. OT 342; Eur. Heracl. 111, IT 810; Ar. Pax 135, Vesp. 1148.
26 T. Keisanen, ‘Stancetaking as an interactional activity: challenging the prior speaker’, in R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 2007), 253–81, at 255.
27 The instances that have been considered challenges, excluding the directive questions compiled in n. 19 above, are those in Aesch. Eum. 725, Sept. 248, Supp. 838, [Aesch.] PV 377; Soph. Aj. 79, Ant. 91, 512, 817, OT 342, 440, Phil. 628; Eur. Andr. 236, 585, Bacch. 959, El. 239, 1004, Heracl. 111, 255, 262, 734, 971, Herc. 251, 1254, IT 810, 1190, 1196, Or. 1238, Phoen. 1653, 1690, [Eur.] Rhes. 481, 585; Ar. Av. 1682, Eccl. 95, 116, 608, 638, Eq. 810, 820, 878, 1381, Lys. 247, 587, 594, Nub. 692, 1377, 1421, Pax 135, 364, 1026, Plut. 257, 261, 309, 431, 549, 587, 916, 1031, 1124, 1185, Ran. 27, Thesm. 226, Vesp. 47, 1148.
28 Sicking (n. 11), 161 prefers οὐκοῦν here on the basis of Xanthias’ reaction: ‘the point apparently is that Xanthias refuses the affirmative answer Dionysus has been leading up to in an almost Socratic way.’
29 T. Keisanen, Patterns of Stance Taking: Negative Yes/No Interrogatives and Tag Questions in American English Conversation (Oulu, 2006), 117.
30 M. Griffith, Aeschylus. Prometheus Bound (Cambridge, 1983), 94.
31 J.W. Du Bois, ‘The stance triangle’, in R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 2007), 139–82. This model is articulated in a set of triangular relations that include evaluation, positioning and alignment. Evaluation is the process whereby a stance is taken about a referential object or target toward which the stance is being directed regarding some quality or value; positioning has to do with stance responsibility along an epistemic or affective scale; alignment has to do with the relationship between the speaker’s stance and the addressee’s stance.
32 For instance, examples in which the assessment is based upon δϵινόν and derivatives (Soph. Phil. 628; Ar. Eq. 810, 820, 878, Lys. 587), or upon δίκαιον and derivatives (Aesch. Eum. 725; Eur. Hec. 1254; Ar. Nub. 692, 1377, Plut. 1124). The expression οὔκουν ὁρᾷς; ‘don’t you see?’ can also be considered to introduce an assessment, as it assesses the following proposition as evident with a negative implication; cf. Eur. El. 239, Heracl. 734; Ar. Plut. 257.
33 The instances classified in this group are those of Aesch. Sept. 217, Supp. 300; Soph. Aj. 1051, OT 581, 973, Phil. 639, 1270, Trach. 419; Eur. Alc. 148, Andr. 677, Cyc. 179, El. 355, 662, Hel. 1414, Heracl. 525, Herc. 311, 592, IA 528, Phoen. 979, Or. 780, 788, [Eur.] Rhes. 543; Ar. Av. 477, Pax 43, 470, 491, 865, Plut. 135, 833, 918, 929, 1168, Ran. 89, 1139, Thesm. 153, Vesp. 50, 985.
34 Eur. El. 662, Hec. 311, Heracl. 525, Or. 780, Phoen. 979; Ar. Vesp. 50. These include assessments with δϵινόν (Eur. Hec. 592; Ar. Pax 491) as well as δίκαιον and its derivatives (Eur. Andr. 677; Ar. Pax 865).
35 Denizot (n. 4), 456–83 and A.R. Revuelta Puigdollers, ‘El verbo (III). Modo y modalidad’, in M.D. Jiménez López (ed.), Sintaxis del griego antiguo (Madrid, 20222), 637–78, at 662–3.
36 C. Denizot, ‘Impolite orders in ancient Greek: the οὐκ ἐρϵῖς; type’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13 (2012), 110–28.
37 All the instances are in the first person except for the Aeschylean one, which is in the second-person singular.
38 Not all the questions constructed with a deontic impersonal form are necessarily directive; some of them are rather challenges; cf. Eur. Phoen. 1690, [Eur.] Rhes. 585. Moreover, the examples mentioned in n. 25 above are directive but still challenging, unlike those collected above.
39 P. Brown and S.C. Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Cambridge, 1987), 190. Negative politeness appeals to a person’s negative face, i.e. their desire not to be imposed upon or impeded. Positive politeness, on the other hand, appeals to the positive face, i.e. the want to be approved or admired.
40 A. Rijksbaron, Grammatical Observations of Euripides’ Bacchae (Amsterdam, 1991), 31.
41 Kühner–Gerth speak of Aufforderung ‘request, invitation’: cf. R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. II: Satzlehre. Erster Band (Hannover and Leipzig, 18983), 177. Denizot (n. 4), 149–54 explains the first-person plural exhortative subjunctive as a polite form of directive speech act.
42 The label ‘presumptive’ is used by L.P.E. Parker, Euripides. Alcestis (Oxford, 2007), 65 to refer to οὔκουν.
43 J.M. Jiménez Delgado, ‘Nonveridicality and the use of οὐ and μή in rhetorical questions in classical Greek’, Philologia Classica 18 (2023), 205–15.
44 On the conventionalization of indirect speech acts, see M.K. McGowan, S.S. Tam and M. Hall, ‘On indirect speech acts and linguistic communication: a response to Bertolet’, Philosophy 84 (2009), 495–513.