Some gripes. These are of different kinds but can all I think be generalized. Curious what people think.
0) I see it all over Sidgwick where he wants to tell us how concise the Greek is but he seems to use overly flowery English to make the contrast vivid.
1) Sidgwick uses "discover" twice in the first sentence but translates it two different ways. Given that this is an introductory book and that he made up the passage himself this strikes me as inexcusably bad pedagogy. If he wants us to use two different words, he can use two different words.
2) At the very end of the first sentence we get: "that he might discover and punish those who deceived him." Here "discover" and "punish" are in parallel. But his translation puts one into a participle. Nice Greek. But if he wants us to go that route, there are ways in English to signal that. For example: "that he might punish those discovered to be deceiving him." Or perhaps: "that discovering those deceiving him he might punish them." Now those are not beautiful English, but they are grammatically correct. And after all we are translating into Greek. These allow the student to guess the intended translation and still appreciate the Greek concision, so I again think this is just bad pedagogy.
3) Related to 2), and going in the other direction, it is great that he gives us real quotes, but I don't like the English translations. Just because the Greek participle is ubiquitous doesn't mean that the English participle is not serviceable. I use the English participle all the time and my uses are much like the Greek, sometimes temporal, sometimes causal, sometimes concessive, sometimes this sometimes that, sometimes a mixture
. Why when faced with Greek, do grammarians think that they need to put participles in some category and then translate without using participles at all!?!? Seems to me about half the time we can just translate with a participle without loss of (rich) meaning.
4) I don't know what kind of punishment the king had in mind, but it seems to me an aorist kind of thing. But Sidgwick chooses the present at the end of the first sentence. Again, given that this is really an issue of pedagogy, why go that way? And how is the student supposed to know? This gripe generalizes. There is so much aspect propaganda, but whenever it is close I see contemporary grammarians make sloppy or dubious or at least unexplained choices.
P.S. I am trying to work through all the comments. I think we have a nice size group actually so that everybody will get lots of attention and there will be no need for strict procedure.