News of Textkit Greek and Latin Forums

ἀκριβέστερον μὲν οὖν ἴσως ὁ περὶ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν μεταβολῆς τῶν πολιτειῶν εἰς ἀλλήλας διευκρινεῖται λόγος παρὰ Πλάτωνι καί τισιν ἑτέροις τῶν φιλοσόφων: ποικίλος δ᾽ ὢν καὶ διὰ πλειόνων λεγόμενος ὀλίγοις ἐφικτός ἐστιν. διόπερ ὅσον ἀνήκειν ὑπολαμβάνομεν αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὴν πραγματικὴν ἱστορίαν καὶ τὴν κοινὴν ἐπίνοιαν, τοῦτο πειρασόμεθα κεφαλαιωδῶς διελθεῖν...

αὐτοῦ is giving me a fair bit of difficulty.

Possibility 1:

On account of which, as much of it as we understand to come up ...

Does this reader have an available answer key?

A.Ag.1468-1474
Χορός
δαῖμον, ὃς ἐμπίτνεις δώμασι καὶ διφυί-
οισι Τανταλίδαισιν,
1470κράτος <τ’> ἰσόψυχον ἐκ γυναικῶν
καρδιόδηκτον ἐμοὶ κρατύνεις.
ἐπὶ δὲ σώματος δίκαν μοι
κόρακος ἐχθροῦ σταθεῖσ’ ἐκνόμως
1474ὕμνον ὑμνεῖν ἐπεύχεται <˘¯>

1468
Chorus
O Fiend who falls upon this house and Tantalus' two descendants,
1470you who by the hands of women exert a rule matching their temper, a rule bitter to my soul! Perched over his body like a hateful raven, ...

Salvete Omnes,

Just for fun I have been working through Voragine's Historia De Sancto Antonio in the Legendum Aureum. It's not too difficult, but I ran into a word that I cannot find in my Lewis and Short or through searching around the web. I fear I'm making an obvious error. The text of the sentence is below.

Quadem vice dum spiritum fornicationis virtute fidei superasset, diabolus in specie pueri ante eum prostrans apparuit et ...

Here's an answer from Orberg's LLPSI Exercitium 2 Cap XXXIX.

Paridis iudicii memor Iuno Troianos persequebatur.


Now I know that Latin can be concise but isn't there a missing word here or shouldn't 'memor' be in ablative case (on account of the memory etc...)?

I mean we have: the memory of the judgement of Paris Iuno followed the Trojans...if it were: memore iudicii Paridis Iuno Troianos persequebatur...then it would make sense... What am I missing..?

Is this a mistake?

In Orberg LLPSI Exercitium 8 of Cap XXXIX he has:

'Filius et nopos Anchisae suadent ne omnes suos secum perd_.'

The idea is to provide the correct subjunctive after 'ut' or 'ne'. His answer is:

'Filius et nepos Anchisae suadent ne omnes suos secum perderet.'

But this is surely wrong as suadent is present and so the subjunctive should be present also...giving us suadeant?

Thanks in advance Textkit people for any help you can give with this problem. You've been a huge help in the past.

It looks like the Greek-language version of Nicomachean Ethics on Perseus displays only Bekker pages, which I can't figure out how to navigate.  Is there a Book/Chapter option in the Greek-language Ethics t.o.c. that I'm missing (the way there is with other Perseus texts)?  Or does anyone know where I could find the ...

This sentence is not from one of the readings but from an exercise
but it has me stumped.

ἐάν τὰ αὐτά αὖθις ὑπίσχηται, μὴ πιστεύσῃς τῷ ῥέτορι.

the meaning must be "if he again these things promise you will not trust the orator.

However, I would have expected it in the form
ἐάν + subjunctive - future indicative.
but the subjunctive, πιστεύσῃς, is instead in the apodosis. Or maybe things are more flexible that the ...

It seems odd that here speaking methods seem to have universal support
while in the wider world traditional methods still rule.
I thought it would be interesting to check whether we are really as unanimous as we seem to be

I highly appreciate if someone translate it for me. This is urgent for me and I am grateful for your translation please please please.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?eojqb77fygr05bc

Thanks,