Textkit Logo

Xen. Horse. 1.2

Here's where you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Xen. Horse. 1.2

Postby pster » Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:39 am

ὥσπερ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐδὲν ὄφελος ἂν εἴη, εἰ τὰ ἄνω πάνυ καλὰ ἔχοι μὴ ὑποκειμένων οἵων δεῖ θεμελίων, οὕτω καὶ ἵππου πολεμιστηρίου οὐδὲν ἂν ὄφελος εἴη, οὐδ᾽ εἰ τἆλλα πάντα ἀγαθὰ ἔχοι, κακόπους δ᾽ εἴη: οὐδενὶ γὰρ ἂν δύναιτο τῶν ἀγαθῶν χρῆσθαι.

I am having much difficulty with the beginning of this sentence from Xenophon.

οἰκίας: is this accusative of respect?

τὰ ἄνω: is this an adverb used to make a substantive? "the upward parts"?

ὑποκειμένων: is this an absolute genitive?

θεμελίων: what part of speech is this?

I am really not interested in the rest of the sentence, but if someone can give me a complete gloss for the bold I would be much obliged. I am especially interested in whether various neuter words are subjects or objects, adjectives or substantives. And I am especially interested in an words that are implicit, but not explicit.

Thanks in advance.
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Xen. Horse. 1.2

Postby cb » Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:43 pm

hi pster,

- οἰκίας after ὄφελος ἂν εἴη in the ὥσπερ clause is in the same case as ἵππου πολεμιστηρίου after ὄφελος ἂν εἴη in the οὕτω clause. see LSJ on ὄφελος, s2: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-b ... lter=CUTF8

- τὰ ἄνω: yep you're right

- ὑποκειμένων: yep you're right

- θεμελίων is in the same case as ὑποκειμένων (ie the plural subject of the gen abs, which you could re-write more simply as τῶν θεμελίων μὴ ὑποκειμένων οἵων δεῖ [i.e. ...δεῖ (τοὺς τῆς οἰκίας θεμελίους ὑποκεῖσθαι)]

cheers, chad :)
cb
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Xen. Horse. 1.2

Postby pster » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:13 am

Thanks Chad. Smyth actually discusses this passage in a section on attraction and writes:

μὴ ὑποκειμένων οἵων δεῖ θεμελίων (for τοιούτων οἷα δεῖ ὑποκεῖσθαι) if the foundations were not as they ought to be

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... thp%3D2522

I guess that squares with your reading, but my head hurts now. I guess my question is why Smyth puts a ὑποκεῖσθαι in the relative clause. I understand why you do it I think. But Smyth's seems gratuitous as unpacking the attraction doesn't seem to demand it. Shouldn't Smyth have just written: μὴ ὑποκειμένων οἵων (for τοιούτων οἷα) δεῖ θεμελίων? On this reading, δεῖ is all there is inside the relative clause. If look at the Xenophon, isn't that all there is to the relative clause? δεῖ? And if we unpack the attraction, isn't that all there is? δεῖ? And to approach the question from another direction, in Xenophon, post attraction, where is ὑποκειμένων? Outside or inside the relative clause? And pre-attraction(=sans attraction=unpacked), where was it? Outside or inside the relative clause? And if it has moved, how is that possible?! "Using" attraction never requires changing more than the demonstrative and the rel. pronoun does it?!
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Xen. Horse. 1.2

Postby cb » Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:20 pm

hi pster, you are right that the ὑποκεῖσθαι that smyth and i both put in as implied after δεῖ has nothing to do with the attraction - e.g smyth wasn't saying that you need the infinitive expressed if the attraction doesn't happen but that you can leave it as implied if you have the attraction.

when i was re-wording the clause for you i decided to spell out the implied words after δεῖ, so that you could see more clearly how the οἵων δεῖ fitted into the larger sentence, and i'm guessing that smyth decided to do the same, spelling out the implied infinitive although his explanation was strictly about the attraction.

ὑποκειμένων doesn't move.

hope that's clearer, cheers, chad :)
cb
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Xen. Horse. 1.2

Postby pster » Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:48 pm

It was just so weird of Smyth to do that because I was reading that whole section on relative pronouns and he seemed to be always very fastidious and strict in giving his parenthetical glosses, but here he seemed to deviate and that little deviation probably caused me as much confusion as anything. Hyper consistency is a pedagogic virtue of which Smyth possesses quite a bit. Only here I'm afraid he fell a little short. With a Smyth style pre-contracted version it seems that one needs ὑποκειμένων and ὑποκεῖσθαι both as you indicated in your version. But Smyth's way of putting it makes it seem like the ὑποκειμένων is not needed and maybe not even present. But surely one needs a participle for an absolute genitive. But yeah, I am clear on all points now. Thanks again.
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am


Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests