Hi Chad & Skylax, and all (of course) !
First of all thanks for your help on this lovely text
. It's with texts like this that i think that we "classics folks" are really weirdoes, aren't we?
Anyway, i've been reading and re-reading your posts for the last three hours and at least, i reached some conclusions which i state here (before going further and try to understand what the d... philosopher meant
So, two categories : the things i'm now pretty sure of (actually there's only one
) and two more problems your posts rose. Let's start with the at-the-time-certainty :
* [face=spionic]mh/[/face] cannot be a negation. First because i think that if it would, in such a context it would have been [face=spionic]ou)k[/face] because of [face=spionic]e)sti/[/face]. I assume that to have a negative [face=spionic]mh/[/face], we'd have excpected something like [face=spionic]h)=|[/face] or [face=spionic]ei)/h[/face], wouldn't we? Then "because of" what can be found in Sigdwick (thanks Chad) which i also found in J. Bertrand's "Nouvelle Grammaire Grecque", p.199, §191 where she quotes the combination [face=spionic]a)/ra mh/... ;[/face], translating it by "peut-on croire que... ?" [who can believe that... ?
] (although this translation doesn't fit as such in [face=spionic]P.X.[/face]. Then, grammaticaly i agree with Chad telling that [face=spionic]mh/[/face] is not negative, but by doing so the sentence becomes absolutely meaningless (which actually is not very surprising in [face=spionic]P.X.[/face]) because the translation would be
"Donc, si l'on peut penser que la couleur du feu n'est pas la lumière, et cependant la lumière n'est pas la couleur du feu seul, il est toutefois ([face=spionic]a)ll'[/face]) possible que cette couleur n'appartienne pas au seul feu [et] cependant que la lumière soit sa couleur" (= so if one can think that the colour of fire is not light, and yet light is not the colour of fire alone, it is still possible that this colour does not belong to the fire alone [and] yet that light is its colour).
From this translation my two "new" problems :
1) Least of both : i can't understand the purpose of the two [face=spionic]me/n[/face] since they remain alone, unless they announce the two [face=spionic]me/ntoi[/face] (?) But if this second solution is to be considered, then it would mean that the protasis doesn't end after [face=spionic]e)sti/n[/face] but after [face=spionic]mo/nou[/face] (considering [face=spionic]kai/[/face] as copulative and not slightly adversative joined to [face=spionic]me/ntoi[/face]) and there i will quote the Monthy Pythons : AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGHHHH!!!! (the purists will forgive me
2) The way we construct [face=spionic]mh/[/face], and if i consider, along with you, Skylax, that the protasis ends up with [face=spionic]e)sti/v[/face], the rest of the sentence can't be considered as an apodosis (I doubt one could begin with an adversative particle like [face=spionic]a)lla/[/face] which is used to link two ideas together although in a negative way), neither can i consider the bit of the sentence starting with [face=spionic]ou) me/ntoi ktl.[/face] untill the end as anything else but a concessive clause. Hence, this sentence has one protasis but no apodosis
. En soi
, it doesn't really bother me for the explanation is quite clear, and if we consider this work as just notes put aside as a guidelline in a course or notes taken during a class, this kind of anacolutha is not very surprising, but i would have prefered something more "academic" (i should then have chosen Plato i guess
Let me know what you think of all this or if you have other so helpful hints as those you already gave me. Thanks again (I may later on submit another problem on this very treatise but it will be a vocabulary puzzle this time...)