modus.irrealis wrote:As far as I know, this is very common in all languages with infinitives (at least the European ones I'm familiar with), and in English you could have said "it's not the law to bring me here, but to..." Just in case it comes up later, there are some cases where at least for English, it seems like you have to translate a Greek active infinitive by a passive infinitive because of this implicit subject "one". If you know French, Greek can sometimes do things like "je me fais comprendre" = "I make myself understood", where the French has a sort of implicit "one", "I make one understand me" with the active infinitive.
But I just wanted to add that since the object of the infinitives is also implicit, I read it as με because of the preceding if-clause. That feels more natural to me in context than having a general "person" or something, but looking at different translations, some translators have read it differently.
εἰ δὲ ἄκων διαφθείρω, τῶν τοιούτων [καὶ ἀκουσίων] ἁμαρτημάτων
οὐ δεῦρο νόμος εἰσάγειν ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ ἰδίᾳ λαβόντα διδάσκειν καὶ νουθετεῖν.
Is the subject of the infinitives and participle impersonal?
The law is that one not bring (a person/people) in here for such errors, but teach and admonish by taking (him/them) in private.
Shouldn't there have been τινά, as the subject of inf. and part., or is this the common construction in Greek?
NateD26 wrote:Do you mean that με is the subject of the inf./part, and should be translated by a passive inf.?
"the law is that I not be brought here for such errors, but that I be taken and instructed and admonished in private"
or do you mean that the subject was Meletus, σε, and the object is Socrates, με, and both were omitted because, as Smyth noted in 1972, they have
already been mentioned in this (or the previous) sentence, thus retaining the active meaning?
"...that [you] not bring [me] here for such errors, but..."
Users browsing this forum: polemistes and 90 guests