January is Greek Prose Composition Month!

[NateD26]

Well, sorry for the delay. Here's my attempt of Exercise 5. Like spiphany said, this kind of pronoun
shifts makes for a difficult rendition to Greek. So I went with a loose translation of the passage
to get around this problem. I hope I somewhat succeeded, other than my excessive use of negatives.

ὁ Καυφάτης, βασιλεύς τις τῶν Περσῶν, τοσούτῳ βιαίῳ ἐτυράννει τῶν πολλῶν ὥστε οὗτοι συνεβουλεύοντο καὶ ἑλόντες καθεῖρξαν αὐτόν. τότε δ᾿ οὐδεῖς φίλος αὐτῷ πλὴν ἡ πιστὴ γυνή ἣ ἰδεῖν βουλομένη τὸν ἄνδρα ᾔτησεν τὸν φύλακτα πότερον αὐτῇ ἔξεστι τοῦτο ποιεῖν. ὁ δὲ πρῶτον μὲν οὔκ ἐφη ἐπειδὴ τοιοῦτος τύραννος οὐκ ἠξιώθη οὐδενὸς ἑλέου, ἔπειτα δὲ μίαν ἡμέραν εἴασεν αὐτὴν μένειν καλήν τε καὶ δυστυχῆ οὖσαν πρὶν νὺξ ἐγένετο. ὑπὸ νύκτα* οὖν ὁ φύλαξ ἀνοίξας τὰς πύλας ἐθαύμασεν ὅτι ταχέως ἀπῆλθεν οὐκ εἰποῦσα οὐδὲν. τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ οὐκ ἤγειρεν Καυφάτης καὶ πέπλοις ἐκαλύφθη ἡ κεφαλὴ ὡς νοσῶν. τοσαύτας δὲ ἡμέρας οὐκ ἐγείρων, ὁ φύλαξ τὸν ἰατρὸν ἐνεκάλεσεν, ὁ δὲ λύων τοὺς πέπλους ᾔσθετο τοῦτον τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ὄντα Καυφάτη ἀλλὰ τὴν γυναῖκα** ἣ ἔσωσεν αὐτὸν τῇ πίστει τε καὶ ἀρετῇ.

* By nightfall (LSJ).
** previously had article in acc. but noun in nom. edited to acc.

[spiphany]

Comments for pster
ἔσχε: I'm not absolutely certain, but for some reason I have the impression that εἶχον is way more usual than ἔσχον as the past tense of "to have".

εἶδειν: should be ἰδειν

αὐτὸς ... ὠμὸς ἦν ὥστε ... : good
(but check ὅυτος -- should be οὕτως (adv))

ἄξιος is normally followed by a genitive

πῶς καλή ἐστι καὶ κακοδαίμων: I don't think πῶς is correct here -- the English is misleading, the "how" is exclamatory, not part of an indirect question.

τατέως -> ταχέως

εἴλθε -> ἦλθε

ὥστε ἐθαύμασε - if you express the clause this way, you might want to add a pronoun here so the reader doesn't get confused (the main sentence talks about the wife, not the guard)

ἡύρεσε - εὑρίσκω has a second aorist εὗρον

ποσάσδε: not quite sure what you mean here...

And a couple of general observations:
- Generally Greek prose requires some kind of connecting word (particle, conjunction) between sentences that are part of continuous discourse. So the sentence beginning τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ probably needs a connector. (Obviously, if you're starting another paragraph/idea, this rule doesn't apply.)

- I believe it's normal to add a nu-movable to the 3rd sing. aorist when the next word begins with a vowel. I'm not sure whether contraction is an acceptable alternative here.

- By convention, accents and breathing are always placed on the second vowel of a diphthong. There were a number of places where you put them on the first vowel, which would imply that it's to be pronounced as two syllables.

[spiphany]

Comments for Nate
πλὴν would normally be followed by a genitive
πότερον is used when asking which of two; as a conjunction it occurs with ἤ ("whether...or..."). I think you want to use εἰ here.

πρῶτον μὲν οὔκ ἐφη...ἔπειτα δὲ: I like your use of μὲν/δὲ here to highlight how the guard changes his mind

...τύραννος οὐκ ἠξιώθη ἑλέου: it occurs to me you might actually be able to change this around a bit and use an active verb instead, making it "he [the guard] did not think such a tyrant worthy of pity"; this would emphasize the guard's opinion rather than it being some timeless truth.

πρὶν νὺξ ἐγένετο: I think you forgot something here? This bit felt like it came out of the blue and didn't necessarily follow from the rest of the sentence -- the connection that he would allow her to stay if she left by nightfall somehow got lost for me. You could probably mostly fix it by changing the word order around a bit and putting the part about her being beautiful and unhappy first, instead of between εἴασεν μένειν and nightfall coming.

ὅτι ταχέως ἀπῆλθεν οὐκ εἰποῦσα οὐδὲν: I think you may need a αὐτη or something here, even ἡ εἰποῦσα might do it. It seems odd not having any explicit subject.

...πέπλοις ἐκαλύφθη ἡ κεφαλὴ ὡς νοσῶν: my only quibble with this is that you switch subjects; ὡς νοσῶν obviously refers to Kauphates, not to his head, which is the noun preceding it (and because καὶ is a coordinating conjunction, it feels like a bit of a stretch to look back to the first half of the sentence to get your subject)

τοῦτον τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ὄντα: I like the use of ἄνθρωπον here; somehow it emphasizes the surprise about the identity of the person there.

[pster]

Thanks so much spiphany. I'll look over your comments in detail shortly. I'll also try to give some comments on yours.

Next I am going to do XX, then X, then XV, then XXV, in that order. Hopefully by the 16th!

I am also going to put some questions up about Sidgwick's Notes.

[NateD26]

Comments for Nate
πλὴν would normally be followed by a genitive
πότερον is used when asking which of two; as a conjunction it occurs with ἤ ("whether...or..."). I think you want to use εἰ here.

Thanks, spiphany. I think the ἣ οὔ is implied but I agree εἰ would fit better.

...τύραννος οὐκ ἠξιώθη ἑλέου: it occurs to me you might actually be able to change this around a bit and use an active verb instead, making it "he [the guard] did not think such a tyrant worthy of pity"; this would emphasize the guard's opinion rather than it being some timeless truth.

Thanks. I should remember this note for later exercises as well.

πρὶν νὺξ ἐγένετο: I think you forgot something here? This bit felt like it came out of the blue and didn't necessarily follow from the rest of the sentence -- the connection that he would allow her to stay if she left by nightfall somehow got lost for me. You could probably mostly fix it by changing the word order around a bit and putting the part about her being beautiful and unhappy first, instead of between εἴασεν μένειν and nightfall coming.

Yeah, I wasn't too sure about that sentence. Changing the word order as you suggested would
make the connection a bit clearer.

ὅτι ταχέως ἀπῆλθεν οὐκ εἰποῦσα οὐδὲν: I think you may need a αὐτη or something here, even ἡ εἰποῦσα might do it. It seems odd not having any explicit subject.

Would placing the participle after ὅτι make the subject change more natural or would I still
need a pronoun?

...πέπλοις ἐκαλύφθη ἡ κεφαλὴ ὡς νοσῶν: my only quibble with this is that you switch subjects; ὡς νοσῶν obviously refers to Kauphates, not to his head, which is the noun preceding it (and because καὶ is a coordinating conjunction, it feels like a bit of a stretch to look back to the first half of the sentence to get your subject)

I think even if I choose to add a demonstrative ---ὡς ἐκεῖνος νοσῶν -- it'd still sound awkward.
What would you suggest doing? Do I really need "his head" being covered? Can't it just be himself implying
that his head was covered as well?
Edit: making the verb active with direct object, as you did, Kauphates remains the subject and
the sentence flows naturally.

Thanks again. I really appreciate your detailed notes, spiphany.

P.S. I declined Kauphates like Socrates so the accusative in mine is Καυφάτη (-εα), but I have
no idea if I should have declined it like the -της masc. 1st declension. I'm not obsessing over
proper names though.

[pster]

Some questions from Sidgwick's Notes:

Sec. 59: τί in the last Thuc. quote is accusative?

Sec. 68: Why is ξυνελέγη spelled with a ξ? Shouldn't it be a σ? I'm sure I'm missing something basic here, but I couldn't find it in my Mastronarde.

Also, I don't understand his comment at the end of the section where he writes, "If however emphasis is to be laid on 'after that,' ἐπειδὴ is preferred." I don't understand it because if you move from 'after' to 'after that', it seems that you are moving from a conjunction to an adverb, so it is a lot more than a change in emphasis.

Sec. 73: Why is τὰ ξενικὰ neuter? What is so neuter about these mercenaries? This makes the verb 3rd person singular which I guess would be correct, but where did the neuter come from?

Sec. 80: He translates [παρανῖσχον] ὅπως μὴ βοηθοῖεν as "That they might not come to the rescue", but I don't follow. Can someone give me a gloss especially for the ὅπως but also the παρανῖσχον

Sec. 81-82: Why is γίγνεται in the present? And the converse question: why is λανθάνουσι in the present? Shouldn't these both be aorist?

Sec. 83: Why is προφυλάξασθαι an infinitive? The English he gives is "We are negligent". Where does this infinitive come from? (Probably a stupid question, but can somebody spoon feed this to me?)

Thanks in advance, and if you have any questions about the Notes, let me know, because I am working through them very slowly and thoroughly. I think I will be using this book for a while.

[spiphany]

Sec. 59: τί in the last Thuc. quote is accusative?

Yes

Sec. 68: Why is ξυνελέγη spelled with a ξ? Shouldn't it be a σ? I'm sure I'm missing something basic here, but I couldn't find it in my Mastronarde.

It's a dialect thing. Some authors use ξυν instead of συν in compounds. I couldn't tell you exactly which authors, or when, but I know I've encountered it now and again. Beginning textbooks may not discuss something like this, since they generally present a somewhat "idealized" (i.e., standardized) form of the language.

Sec. 73: Why is τὰ ξενικὰ neuter? What is so neuter about these mercenaries? This makes the verb 3rd person singular which I guess would be correct, but where did the neuter come from?

Perseus (LSJ) notes: τὸ ξενικόν, = οἱ ξένοι, a body of mercenaries. I don't know how common this kind of formation is (most of my reading has been poetry & drama...)

Sec. 80: He translates [παρανῖσχον] ὅπως μὴ βοηθοῖεν as "That they might not come to the rescue", but I don't follow. Can someone give me a gloss especially for the ὅπως but also the παρανῖσχον

βοηθέω = aid, assist
ὅπως = so that (purpose clause in secondary sequence, followed by an optative)
(he doesn't translate παρανῖσχον here as far as I can tell; I think he's just giving it to indicate the tense sequence)

Sec. 81-82: Why is γίγνεται in the present? And the converse question: why is λανθάνουσι in the present? Shouldn't these both be aorist?

γίγνεται is a historical present. (If you go to the LSJ entry for πρίν, you'll see the sentence is quoted with a note in B.II.a). I assume λανθάνουσι is similar

Sec. 83: Why is προφυλάξασθαι an infinitive? The English he gives is "We are negligent". Where does this infinitive come from? (Probably a stupid question, but can somebody spoon feed this to me?)

I suspect the infinitive is because the sentence is taken from a longer passage using indirect discourse. (This is a problem with SIdgwick using examples excerpted without additional context...)

[pster]

Thanks soo much spiphany!

I read up a bit on the historical present and in Thucydides it appears a third as often as the aorist, but twice as often as the imperfect. Most interestingly, it is hyper punctual, i.e. more so than the aorist it would seem. And for that reason it never gets used with the accusative of duration. A committee has actually studied it and written a book about it: "They share one important assumption, viz. that the primary function of the HP is to mark events that were, according to Thucydides, of decisive importance for the development of the Peloponnesian War." http://www.brill.nl/historical-present- ... e-function

[NateD26]

Exercise 20. Funny punchline.

ὁ Διοκλὴς φιλόσοφος ἦν καὶ οὕτω πένης ὥστε οὐκ ἐφοβεῖτο μὴ ἀφέλοιτο. εἴωθεν οὖν νυκτὸς ἀφύλακτόν τε καὶ ἀνεῳγμένην λιπεῖν τὴν οἰκίαν· ᾔδη γὰρ τοὺς κλέπτας ἀεὶ ἐξευρόντας πρὶν οἰκίαν τινὰ εἰσῆλθον ὅπου ἀγείροιεν οἱ ἄνθρωποι τὸν χρυσὸν αὐτῶν· οὐδεὶς δ᾿ ὅστις κινδυνεύει ἀποθανὼν ἐὰν μὴ δύνηται τιμιώτατα ἐξευρεῖν. πότε δὲ νυκτὸς ἐγρηγόρη Διοκλὴς ἐπὶ τὸ λέχος ὅτε εἶδεν κλέπτην τινὰ εἰσιόντα καὶ πάντα ζητοῦντα ὡς τίμιόν τι εὑρήσοντα. ὁ δ᾿ οὐκ ᾔσθετο ὅτι Διοκλὴς ἐγρηγορὼς εἴη ἐπειδὴ ἀκινήτως μὲν ἔχοι, σαφῶς δὲ λάθοι ἰδὼν ἐκεῖνον διὰ τὸν σκότον. τέλος ὁ κλέπτης πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκίαν μάτην ζητήσας δεινὰ ἐπηρᾶτο Διοκλεῖ ἡσύχως λέγων ὅπως μὴ ἐγείροι αὐτόν. ὁ δὲ τοῦτο ἀκούσας, "σίγα, ὦ φίλε," ἔφη, "καὶ μηδὲν ὀργίζου μοι· μεταμέλομαί μοι ὅτι οὐ δύναται οὐδένα χρυσὸν ἐξευρεῖν. ἐγὼ μὲν μεθ᾿ ἡμέραν οὐ δύναμαι ἐξευρεῖν οὐδὲν ἐν τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ οἰκίᾳ, σὺ δὲ νυκτὸς πῶς ἄν τι ἐξεύροις ξένως ἔχων;"

[edit: corrected some minor mistakes.]

[pster]

It's a dialect thing. Some authors use ξυν instead of συν in compounds. I couldn't tell you exactly which authors, or when, but I know I've encountered it now and again. Beginning textbooks may not discuss something like this, since they generally present a somewhat "idealized" (i.e., standardized) form of the language.

If you look at Sidgwick sec. 88, the quote and then the strict sequence version of the quote, you will see him change the sigma to xi when it is preceded by a vowel, so it seems to be for reasons of euphony.

[jaihare]

Subscribing.

[Interaxus]

Excuse my gate-crashing!

Have you guys checked out Sidgwick’s Lectures on Greek Prose Composition? It’s available at the Internet Archive:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=sidgwick%20lectures%20on%20greek%20prose%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts

Here Sidgwick translates 20 English texts into Greek himself, walking you through his thought processes paragraph by paragraph, sprinkling words of wisdom and advice around him as he does so. Next best thing to a live teacher. A Victorian professor’s answer to YouTube.

As you’d expect, his choice of texts is maddeningly ’Victorian’ but he offers a wide range of them within the given parameters.

I’m afraid it’s a bit too advanced for me but I wonder what you gurus think of it.

Cheers,
Int

[pster]

Subscribing.

Too late. Registration is closed.

Sorry guys I've been slacking a bit. Actually I was obsessing over conditionals in indirect speech trying to hammer out some inconsistencies between Sidgwick and Mastronarde. I'm feeling better now.

[pster]

Excuse my gate-crashing!

Have you guys checked out Sidgwick’s Lectures on Greek Prose Composition? It’s available at the Internet Archive:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=sidgwick%20lectures%20on%20greek%20prose%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts

Here Sidgwick translates 20 English texts into Greek himself, walking you through his thought processes paragraph by paragraph, sprinkling words of wisdom and advice around him as he does so. Next best thing to a live teacher. A Victorian professor’s answer to YouTube.

As you’d expect, his choice of texts is maddeningly ’Victorian’ but he offers a wide range of them within the given parameters.

I’m afraid it’s a bit too advanced for me but I wonder what you gurus think of it.

Cheers,
Int

Thanks. That looks quite interesting.

I was looking around for more contemporary grammars (like Smyth) and more contemporary prose books like (like Sidgwick) and there is nothing out there. In light of that fact that there is so little competition, Sidgwick's lectures are great!

[NateD26]

Subscribing.

Welcome aboard. Other than exercise 20, however, which was funny and entertaining, everything
to me seems so boring, making the Greek composition part rather tedious.

[jaihare]

Subscribing.

Welcome aboard. Other than exercise 20, however, which was funny and entertaining, everything
to me seems so boring, making the Greek composition part rather tedious.

Well, don't get me wrong. Subscribing just means that I want this thread to show when I click on "View your posts". I don't intend to do any of the translations. That would take me hours!

[pster]

Well, don't get me wrong. Subscribing just means that I want this thread to show when I click on "View your posts". I don't intend to do any of the translations. That would take me hours!

Boo! Come on, we need more troops here at the front!

I wish it were just hours. Days in my case. But it is so hard for me I'm sure it is worthwhile.

[NateD26]

So quiet in here. Demotivation kicks in.

Exercise 35. I know it's too literal but I've tried my best.

τῶν ἐν Θρᾴκῃ μέταλλα τέμνων πολλοὶ φιλοτιμοῦνται πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ φθονοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ζητοῦσιν ἄργυρον, οἱ δὲ χρυσόν. διττοὶ οὖν,* ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, γεγόνασιν, ἕτεροι μὲν ἀργυροῖ ὀνόματι, ἕτεροι δὲ χρυσοῖ. πότε δὲ χρυσοῦς τις ἦλθεν ὁρᾶν ἀργυροῦν τινα ᾧ πάλαι φίλος ἦν βουλόμενος τὸ ἀργύρου μέταλλον ἰδεῖν εἰ ἐξείη αὐτῷ. οἱ δ᾿ ἀργυροῖ ῥᾳδίως αὐτὸν** εἴασαν μεγάλην φλέβαν ἄρτι ζητήσαντες ἣν μάλιστα καλὴν ἐδόκουν. τοῦ ἀργυροῦ πάντα δὴ ἐνδείκνυντος ὡς τοιοῦτόν τε καὶ τοσοῦτον τὸ εὑρόντον, ὁ χρυσοῦς ἐγένετο μάλα σκυθρωπός. ἐκεῖνος δ᾿, εὐδαιμονέστερος ὢν ἐπειδὴ πάντ᾿ ἐνεδείκνυ τούτῳ, ᾔτησεν ὅπως ἔχοιεν οἱ χρυσοῖ. ὁ δὲ σεμνῶς ἔφη τοὺς φίλους ἀθυμεῖν. "τί δέ;" ἔφη ὁ ἀργυροῦς λάθρα ἐλπίζων διὰ τὸ μηδὲν χρυσὸν εὑρεῖν δύνασθαι. ὁ μέντοι χρυσοῦς "νεωστὶ ἐξεῦρον ὅτ᾿ ἔστιν ἄργυρος ἐπὶ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ χρυσῷ" ἔφη, "τρεῖς πόδες ὢν ἐκ βαθοῦς ὃν δεῖ ἡμᾶς πονοῦνατς τέμνειν."

* See Pl. Ap. 18d: ἀξιώσατε οὖν … διττούς μου τοὺς κατηγόρους γεγονέναι, ἑτέρους μὲν..., ἑτέρους δὲ...

** corrected to acc. from dat.

[pster]

Just keep going Nate. I'm going to do all the assigned ones. I just should have left more time for studying the Notes. I want to do a better job, so I'm working through the notes carefully. I spent two hours today on translating XX. I want to be able to defend my choices rather than just spit out something. I've actually been spending over four hours a day on Greek. It will get noisy soon. Just giving you a head start.

[spiphany]

Sorry, I had some personal stuff come up so I haven't checked in the last few days or had a chance to look at the passages that have been posted, but I'll get to it in the next day or two.

I think going slower is better, giving everyone more time to reflect on and discuss the passages rather than simply churning out as much as possible without any idea of whether it makes sense.

I'd also like to encourage people to join in the discussion even if you don't feel that you have time to produce your own translations. The feedback (and of course motivation) is what makes this different than working through Sidgwick on one's own.

[NateD26]

I'd appreciate if someone could explain the differences Sidgwick noted between the
various constructions of πρίν. Perhaps easier examples from actual writers would clarify them.

[pster]

I'd appreciate if someone could explain the differences Sidgwick noted between the
various constructions of πρίν. Perhaps easier examples from actual writers would clarify them.

I worked through both his and Mastronarde's treatment thoroughly. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions. [sorry greek keyboard not working right now]

Mastronarde presents it as follows:

A: πρίν with finite verbs (main clause normally negative and temporal adverb meaning "before"(proteron/prosthen) often present)
-definite action:indicative
-present general: subjunctive with an
-future more vivid: subjunctive with an
-depending on clause containing optative: optative without an
-anticipated action in past time: optative without an

B: πρίν with infinitive (main verb normally affirmative but infinitive sometimes found with a negative main verb; temporal adverb meaning "before" often accompanies main verb ; infinitive construction must be used where "before" cannot be replaced by "until").

I just finished my first book in one of the other languages that I am studying so that made me very very happy and now I will have more time for Greek. I fully intend to do all the exercises modulo 5 in Sidgwick by mid August.

[NateD26]

Thanks, pster. I'll add my summary of Smyth's explanations and examples later this week.

I hope spiphany and you would examine my last few translations.

[pster]

Update: I slowed down with Sidgwick because I found that even devoting four hours a day I wasn't able to produce quality translations. It would have been better if I had put aside more time for reading the Notes before the first assignment, but I am not even sure how much of a difference that would have made. If I had been able to produce quality results with four hours a day I would have done so and lived with the deleterious impact on my other studies, but given the poor quality of my Sidgwick translations I decided it wasn't worth the impact on my other studies. So now, I have cut down to a little over an hour a day. It takes me a long time to read Sidgwick because I feel I have to look up the vocabulary in each of his quotes. This takes forever. (Am I alone in this??) Anyway, I have carefully gone through everything up to the Notes on Idiom. I am hoping that by carefully reading all the idiom stuff I will be able to come up with better translations. My assumption is that his pedagogy has to be better than it seems at first glance and that if one absorbs all his examples one will have ample clues as to how he wants one to proceed in working his exercises. I am still going to do every fifth exercise this summer! OK, now what is your excuse?

Anyway, to keep the thread going, I will post all the marked questions I have. Here is a batch:


Sec. 4

What kind of construction is that in the second half of the second example?

... ᾖ ἐκείνοις .εφορμίσασθαι

Sec. 5

He speaks of "final particles", but in his own appedicies ὅπως is not a particle!

Sec. 6

Why is δουλωσόμενοι in passive? (And is it passive rather than middle? This is really confusing especially considering there is one verb for enslaving and another for being a slave.)

Why is ποιησόμενοι middle or passive? And which is it?

Sec. 7

His final note says see Sec. 4, but I don't see what point he is trying to make.

[NateD26]

I am still going to do every fifth exercise this summer! OK, now what is your excuse?

Spiphany told me not to . But I'm too lazy. Just ask Jason.

Sec. 4

What kind of construction is that in the second half of the second example?

... ᾖ ἐκείνοις ἐφορμίσασθαι

Any form of ἐστί(ν) with the infinitive denotes ability. ᾖ is 3rd sg. subj. in this vivid sequence
instead of the opt. εἴη in the strict sequence. ὅπως μὴ... is the purpose; they were thinking of doing x
so that y wouldn't happen. He just rendered it active for cleaner translation [lit. "so that it (the port)
couldn't be blocked by them (the enemy)"].

Sec. 5

He speaks of "final particles", but in his own appedicies ὅπως is not a particle!

I don't know why it is a particle (maybe it is a combination of ὡς and something else?), but
Smyth does list it as part of the final particles here.

Sec. 6

Why is δουλωσόμενοι in passive? (And is it passive rather than middle? This is really confusing especially considering there is one verb for enslaving and another for being a slave.)

Why is ποιησόμενοι middle or passive? And which is it?

It is middle. (see LSJ)

Now, Noun + ποιέομαι is a very nice and frequent phrase in Greek. (LSJ A. II. 5)

Sec. 7

His final note says see Sec. 4, but I don't see what point he is trying to make.

(Did you mean sec. 8?)
I think it's back to that vivid vs. strict sequence.

[jaihare]

But I'm too lazy. Just ask Jason.

Want to compare lazinesses? I think mine's bigger! Lazy lazy lazy. At least you're consistent in your attempts. I just wander off. Wicked laziness.

[pster]

Thanks Nate, but I have some follow up questions:

Sec. 4

Mastronarde says that the dative of agent is restricted to passives of the perfect stem and the passive verbal adjective. I have never seen him miss a major usage. And I can't find this ability infinitive denoting usage anywhere. I'm sure you are right, but do you have a reference for it? Kinda unprecedented for you to not have a Smyth number handy!

Sec. 6

Regarding δουλωσόμενοι, how is it that the Greeks could get away with so many confusing cases where the passive and the middle coexist and mean the opposite of each other? Is it because of the existence of the aorist passive removing much of the ambiguity?

Sec. 7

No, I meant Sec. 7. I checked and he changed the example from my edition.

*****************************
OK, and now some new questions:

Sec. 21

In the (b) example, how can Dem. say this without a demonstrative pronoun?

We would say:

That against which we are sailing is lost.

Not:

Against which we are sailing is lost.

I know Nate this revives our past discussion. Have you made any progress figuring out what is going on in Greek (and English!) in these cases?

Sec.30

I don't understand the quote from Xenophon:

They said that his advice was excellent.

How does S get that? I'm being really dense here. Sorry.


Thanks.

[NateD26]

Sec. 7

No, I meant Sec. 7. I checked and he changed the example from my edition.

I don't have the version that is downloadable from Textkit but I do have the 1889 edition (6th)
and the 1908 (13th) and the examples in some sections are different. I'll have to check
each section in your questions for comparison before I can reply. I'll be back later.

[NateD26]

[I'll edit this post with subsequent answers]

Sec. 4

Mastronarde says that the dative of agent is restricted to passives of the perfect stem and the passive verbal adjective. I have never seen him miss a major usage. And I can't find this ability infinitive denoting usage anywhere. I'm sure you are right, but do you have a reference for it? Kinda unprecedented for you to not have a Smyth number handy!

I think I should correct ability to possibility, as the impersonal it is possible
and then the dative is for a person/group of people to do a thing.
I should have looked up the reference so my terminology would have been accurate.
My initial translation is wrong.
Here it is in LSJ A. VI. and in Smyth 1985.

They were thinking of doing x so that it wouldn't be possible for y to do z. (Sorry for putting it like that; it helps me remember constructions, at any rate.)

The verb is middle in Thuc. in the sense of to come to anchor, drop anchor, and so,
when the enemy comes with scores of ships, to block the port.

Sec. 6

Regarding δουλωσόμενοι, how is it that the Greeks could get away with so many confusing cases where the passive and the middle coexist and mean the opposite of each other? Is it because of the existence of the aorist passive removing much of the ambiguity?

I wish I knew, pster. I've always had trouble with the middle and its various meaning. For them
it was obvious and natural; for us, it's a matter of long and hard practice till it's hardwired in our brains.

Sec. 7

His final note says see Sec. 4, but I don't see what point he is trying to make.

The sentence from Thuc. reads:
οὐκέτι ἔσεσθαι ἔφασαν ὅτῳ τις διαλλαγήσεται.

Here, with a primary verb of secondary tense, he refers you to note 4 which talks about
the principal of vividness where we might expect the strict/regular sequence with optative
(future optative in this case, διαλλαγήσοιτο). The way the indefinite rel. clause is
being used here as a final clause is unclear to me. Perhaps he changed the example in the 13th ed.
due to some ambiguity in it.

Sec. 21

In the (b) example, how can Dem. say this without a demonstrative pronoun?

We would say:

That against which we are sailing is lost.

Not:

Against which we are sailing is lost.

I know Nate this revives our past discussion. Have you made any progress figuring out what is going on in Greek (and English!) in these cases?

I think the second sentence needs to be indefinite, as he did with ἐφ᾿ ὃ ἄν ἐκπλέωμεν:

Whatever we are sailing for is lost.

(Unless this is not considered proper English? )

Sec.30

I don't understand the quote from Xenophon:

They said that his advice was excellent.

How does S get that?

ἔλεγον ὅτι παντὸς ἄξια λέγοι. - Xen. (An. 7.3.13; the verb is actually indicative, but i guess he had different edition)
They said that he gave excellent suggestions/advices (lit. ...said things worthy of everything).

[spiphany]

It takes me a long time to read Sidgwick because I feel I have to look up the vocabulary in each of his quotes. This takes forever. (Am I alone in this??)

It's normal for it to take a long time at first, I think. I'm not spending nearly the amount of time that you report, but I think I've been doing Greek a little bit longer. The first time I tried tackling Sidgwick it was pretty much like you describe -- look up every word, then go through the grammar and check a bunch of forms and tediously stitch the sentence together.

I'll take a look at your translations but I was hoping to come up with my own versions first, so I'd be coming to them fresh. Unfortunately I've been preoccupied lately (or lazy...), but I do have a couple of them started, it's just a matter of sitting down to work again.

Spiphany told me not to

Sure, sure, blame it all on me.

I don't know why [ὅπως] is a particle (maybe it is a combination of ὡς and something else?)

.
Well...since you ask...basically it's an indirect interrogative or relative adverb.
ὡς = so
πώς = how
ὅπως = in such a way
(This pattern is fairly common for correlatives -- see Smyth 340 & 346 for more examples)

And coming back to an older question:

I'd appreciate if someone could explain the differences Sidgwick noted between the
various constructions of πρίν. Perhaps easier examples from actual writers would clarify them.

I think what's confusing is understanding when to use infinitive vs. indicative vs. subjunctive + ἄν because we don't really make a distinction here in English.
I read through Sidgwick's notes on this, and checked Kaegi (it's easier to get an overview sometimes than with Smyth, because he's less compendious), and my notes on final clauses and I *think* I have a theory about what's going on.
(Please note that I'm speculating a bit here, because none of the grammars provide much of an explanation about *why* we see this. My examples are made up, too, for the sake of simplicity, and I make no claim that they represent authentic Greek.)

In Greek it's important to know whether an event actually happened or not, because this makes a difference in how dependent clauses are constructed.
i.e., in result clauses (with ὥστε) you see the indicative with an actual result, and an infinitive if the result is merely expected (sentence does not say anything about whether it in fact happened or not)
Now, it seems to me that we can see something similar in the usage of πρίν, although here it's a bit different because we have three options.

πρίν is followed by an indicative if the event in the clause actually happened. Generally this is connected with a negative in the main clause, because in that situation B (the event in the πρίν clause) is a requirement for A (the event in the main clause) occur.
However, if the main clause is affirmative, there's no requirement that B actually happen, so Greek uses an infinitive, which is less concrete.

οὐκ ἐπῆλθε πρὶν ἐβοήθησαμεν
"He did not come before [until] we called" -- i.e., we called, then he came. The sentence presupposes that we called.

ἐπῆλθε πρὶν βοηθησαι
"He came before we called" -- i.e., we probably didn't actually call, because he was already there.
Note that the event in the dependent clause could happen anyway; it's simply irrelevant as far as the particular sentence is concerned.

The third use is if the likelihood of a particular sequence of events is being projected as possible in the future:
οὐκ ἐπεῖσι πρὶν ἄν βοηθωμεν
"He will not come until we call" (this usage is the most familiar, I think, similar to that used in conditional sentences)

[NateD26]

Sure, sure, blame it all on me.

hehe you must know i was only joking.

Well...since you ask...basically it's an indirect interrogative or relative adverb.
ὡς = so
πώς = how
ὅπως = in such a way
(This pattern is fairly common for correlatives -- see Smyth 340 & 346 for more examples)

Thanks. The references to Smyth are very helpful.

Your explanation about the constructions with πρίν is quite clear and easier to follow
than Smyth's.

ἐπῆλθε πρὶν βοηθῆσαι
"He came before we called" -- i.e., we probably didn't actually call, because he was already there.
Note that the event in the dependent clause could happen anyway; it's simply irrelevant as far as the particular sentence is concerned.

Should there be a ἡμᾶς in the dependent clause?

[spiphany]

Yeah, I knew you were teasing. Should have put a smily in *my* post to make that clear.

Should there be a ἡμᾶς in the dependent clause?

Yeah, probably. The thing is, although I wrote and intended "we" in my translation, for some reason I used "they" throughout in the Greek (just went back and changed the first example accordingly, in fact -- obviously I wasn't very alert last night.)

[spiphany]

Ok here is exercise number, ah, 10, which I started several weeks ago (groan). I'll work on 20 and 35 next so we can compare notes.

I had the most trouble with the so large / how large and the modal constructions here. I'm sure I have notes on some of this somewhere, but I'll have to dig them out and do some searching.
I was also lazy and didn't look up accents which I wasn't sure of.

ἐβασίλευε ποτὲ Φερεδυκης τις τῶν Κασπιων. ποθως γὲ νικησαι τοῖς γειτοσι καὶ ἁρπασαι τὴν χῶραν ὥστε γιγνέσθαι ἡ στρατία ὡς κρατερατη. ἐκελευσε οῦν τοὺς λοχαγους ἐλθοντας εἰς τὰς πολεῖς αἱρεῖν τοὺς μεγιστους τῶν ἐκεῖ ἀνδρῶν καὶ βιάζεσθαι αὐτους στρατεύεσθαι. λοχαγός νῦν τις εἶδε τέκτονα θαυμάσιος μέγεθος. ἐρχόμενος δὲ αὐτῳ οἴκοι ᾔτησε θήκη ποιεῖν μεγάλη καὶ ξυλινα. ἀνηρ μὲν ἐρωτως ἀκριβωτερως λέγειν ὁπόσην, ὁ δὲ ἐφη τηλικα ὥστε ἐν ταυτῃ κατακλινεσθαι. ἐλθοντος οὖν αὖθις ὀλιγας ἠμερας ἡ θήκη ἠδη ποιησαμενα. ἠγανακτησε μέντοι τὴν θήκην μικρότερα εἶναι τοῦ κελευσαμενου. «οὐδαμῶς» ἀπεκρίνετο δὲ ὁ τέκτων «καὶ ἐπιδείξομαι ὅτι οὕτως μεγάλη ἐστι. ἰδού · κατακλίνομαι.» καὶ ταῦτα λεγὼς ἔστη χαλεπῶς εἰς τὴν θήκην. ὁ γε λοχαγὸς αὐτίκα κλείσας τὴν θήκην μοχλῷ ἐπηξε. ἐπείδη ἐπικαλεσάμενος τοὺς ἐταίρους ἐκομισε τὸν μεγαν ἀνδρα πρὸς τὴν στρατίαν. ἀλλὰ ἀφικνούντες γὰρ τούτοι ἐν τῇ ἀνοιξασῃ θήκη ηὖρον ἀποθανοντα τὸν ἀνδρα.

[NateD26]

I'm reviewing my previous translations, exercise 5 in particular.
Smyth notes that even though it's rare in prose, and even rarer in poetry,
a construction like impf. in principal clause (positive) and aor. in dependent is possible
and means that x is continuous up to the point of y.

By that sense, ὁ δὲ πρῶτον μὲν οὔκ ἐφη...ἔπειτα δὲ μίαν ἡμέραν εἴασεν αὐτὴν μένειν πρὶν νὺξ ἐγένετο
is acceptable in that μένειν represents an impf. ind. and she was allowed to stay with her husband
up to the point that night fell.

Right?

Indeed, καὶ ἀπελθεῖν πρὸ νυκτός would have been easier to get away with.

[spiphany]

By that sense, ὁ δὲ πρῶτον μὲν οὔκ ἐφη...ἔπειτα δὲ μίαν ἡμέραν εἴασεν αὐτὴν μένειν πρὶν νὺξ ἐγένετο is acceptable in that μένειν represents an impf. ind. and she was allowed to stay with her husband up to the point that night fell.

Right?

Uh...no idea. I still don't have a very good sense of aspectual distinctions in Greek. The πρὶν gets the "before" bit in any case, though, no? It was the conditional sense that I missed in the sentence before.
Am wondering whether it should be πρὶν ἄν, though, by the logic above.

[spiphany]

And here is my attempt at XX
Square brackets indicate an alternative version of a phrase

Διοκλης ὁ φιλόσοφος πένης ἦν ὥστε οὐκ ἐφοβουντο φωρας [οὐκ ἐφοβουντο μὴ κλέποι τις αὐτον]. εἴθωε οὖν νυκτὸς ἀνεῳγμένον καὶ ἀφύλακτον ἐᾶν τὸν οἶκον · ἐπίστατο γὰρ τὸν φωρας ἀεὶ γνόντας ὅπου ὁ χρυσὸς συλλεγόμενος πρὶν ἄν ἐρχωνται εἰς οἶκον. καὶ οὐτις τοσοῦτος μωρὸς ἄν εἴη κινδυνεύως ἀποθάνειν εἰ μὴ ἕνεκα μεγίστου κερδεος. νυκτος μὲντοι ποτὲ ὁ Διοκλης ἐκαθήμενος ἐπὶ κλίνῃ φῶρα εἶδε ὡς εἰσηλθε καὶ ἐζήτησε πάντα ἐλπίζως εὗρειν χρυσόν τινα ἢ τίμιον κτῆμα. καἰ οὐκ ᾔσθετο ὁ φωρ Διοκλέα ἐγρηγορότα · ἐσιώπασε γὰρ οὗτος καὶ ἤσυχος καθῆτο. ὁ δὲ φιλόσοφος σαφῶς εἶδε ἐκεῖνον ὃς δὶα σκοτεος οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἰδεῖν εἰ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτου ἀνεῳγμένοι [σκοτεος τόσος ὄντος ὥστε...]. ὕστατον δἐ πάντῃ μάτην ζητησας ἐπηρατο δεινότατα Διοκλεῖ ἡσύχως δὲ μὴ ἐγείροι αὐτον. ἀλλὰ Διοκλης ἀκουσας εἶπε · σῖγε ὦ φιλε καὶ μὴ χολωσῃ. ἐμοί γε μαλιστα λυπηρός εἶ οὐχ εὑρισκως χρυσοῦ. ἀλλ’ ἐγω μὴν ἐνθάδα οἰκοδομως οὐχ οἱος τ’ εὑρίσκειν χρυσὸν, δια τι δοκεις τινος τύγχανειν νυκτος ξενος ὤν;

[spiphany]

Comments for Nate (exercise 20)

ἀφύλακτόν τε καὶ ἀνεῳγμένην λιπεῖν τὴν οἰκίαν: I debated about this, too. I don't know whether λείπω can be used in the sense of "leave something in a particular state", or what Greek verb would be appropriate otherwise. It's funny because the meaning is not that different than the middle voice, but I couldn't figure out how to work in a middle construction. SIdgwick uses ἐάω here.

οὐδεὶς δ᾿ ὅστις κινδυνεύει ἀποθανὼν: I think the ὅστις is redundant? Or am I not seeing how you're constructing this grammatically?
LSJ suggests that κινδυνεύω should have an infinitive complement

σαφῶς δὲ λάθοι ἰδὼν ἐκεῖνον διὰ τὸν σκότον: I like the idea of using λανθάνω here. However, if you're going to express the idea this way, the sentence works better without σαφῶς, I think. Otherwise "he escaped notice..." gets mixed up with "not seeing clearly"
I need to look at the usage of λανθάνω again, but I think there may also be a problem with the reversal of subject and object. Diokles is the one who escapes notice, not the thief...

I like the ἐγὼ μὲν...σὺ δὲ in the final sentence to emphasize the comparison. Not sure whether you might want to use parallel constructions for "during the day" and "at night" to continue the contrast.

ξένως ἔχων: this seems a bit odd to me...

[NateD26]

By that sense, ὁ δὲ πρῶτον μὲν οὔκ ἐφη...ἔπειτα δὲ μίαν ἡμέραν εἴασεν αὐτὴν μένειν πρὶν νὺξ ἐγένετο is acceptable in that μένειν represents an impf. ind. and she was allowed to stay with her husband up to the point that night fell.

Right?

Uh...no idea. I still don't have a very good sense of aspectual distinctions in Greek. The πρὶν gets the "before" bit in any case, though, no? It was the conditional sense that I missed in the sentence before.
Am wondering whether it should be πρὶν ἄν, though, by the logic above.

Smyth translated this construction with until. if it can only mean before, it has to be acc. w. inf.
My intended meaning was that she was allowed to stay until night fell, at which point she had to depart.
I guess it's not really working in this case.

[NateD26]

ἀφύλακτόν τε καὶ ἀνεῳγμένην λιπεῖν τὴν οἰκίαν: I debated about this, too. I don't know whether λείπω can be used in the sense of "leave something in a particular state", or what Greek verb would be appropriate otherwise. It's funny because the meaning is not that different than the middle voice, but I couldn't figure out how to work in a middle construction. SIdgwick uses ἐάω here.

I racked my brain trying to find some verb to relay that meaning with no luck. ἐάω does fit best.

οὐδεὶς δ᾿ ὅστις κινδυνεύει ἀποθανὼν: I think the ὅστις is redundant? Or am I not seeing how you're constructing this grammatically?
LSJ suggests that κινδυνεύω should have an infinitive complement

ὅστις is indeed redundant. It should be deleted.
Thanks. For some reason, I thought I saw κινδυνεύω with a participle at one point or another.

σαφῶς δὲ λάθοι ἰδὼν ἐκεῖνον διὰ τὸν σκότον: I like the idea of using λανθάνω here. However, if you're going to express the idea this way, the sentence works better without σαφῶς, I think. Otherwise "he escaped notice..." gets mixed up with "not seeing clearly"
I need to look at the usage of λανθάνω again, but I think there may also be a problem with the reversal of subject and object. Diokles is the one who escapes notice, not the thief...

This entire sentence was too difficult for me precisely because of the subject change.
I couldn't find a way to make it clearer in that respect.

I like the ἐγὼ μὲν...σὺ δὲ in the final sentence to emphasize the comparison. Not sure whether you might want to use parallel constructions for "during the day" and "at night" to continue the contrast.

Haven't I? Or do you mean that it wasn't necessary to use parallelism for those phrases as well?

ξένως ἔχων: this seems a bit odd to me...

An adverb with ἔχω is essentially the same as an adj. with the copula. (LSJ B. II. 2).

[spiphany]

This entire sentence was too difficult for me precisely because of the subject change.
I couldn't find a way to make it clearer in that respect.

This is typically where I try to start breaking up Sidgwick's convoluted constructions into more bite-sized pieces (not necessarily always successfully, I might add). While it's true that the Greeks liked their periodic style, for someone learning composition it's a fairly substantial challenge. I'd go for clarity over strictly mimicking the structure of Sidgwick's English.

I like the ἐγὼ μὲν...σὺ δὲ in the final sentence to emphasize the comparison. Not sure whether you might want to use parallel constructions for "during the day" and "at night" to continue the contrast.

Haven't I? Or do you mean that it wasn't necessary to use parallelism for those phrases as well?

You had μεθ᾿ ἡμέραν and νυκτὸς. I was thinking you might want to consider using the same construction for both temporal expressions. Not necessary by any means, just thought it might sound nice that way.

ξένως ἔχων: this seems a bit odd to me...

An adverb with ἔχω is essentially the same as an adj. with the copula. (LSJ B. II. 2).

Yeah, I got that. It still seems strange to me for some reason.
I *think* maybe it's because I associate this construction with temporary states/characteristics. Being a stranger is more of an inherent quality.
I guess it works if you're focusing on the "unfamiliar (with the house etc.)" meaning, although in that case using a genitive complement might make it more clear.
(This is my gut feeling speaking here, so as always -- suggestions should be taken with a grain of salt, as I'm by no means an expert at this either!)