I have a question about a passage in a Latin-Greek edition of the Janua Linguarum by Comenius. (See this thread if you'd like it in proofreading-in-progress transcribed form. Many thanks to bedwere for his ongoing proofreading of the Greek.)
918. Φιλιωθείς τινι ἀκάκως, ἀπλάστως, ἀδόλως αὐτῷ συμβίου· τίς γὰρ δόξα φίλον καὶ εὔνουν ἄνδρα κατασοφιστεῖν;
In the original Latin:
918. Cum quo necessitudo (familiaritas) tibi est, erga illum apertus sis sine fraude (techna) doloque (fallacia). Amicum enim fautoremque fraudare et fallere, quae gloria?
An English translation of the Latin:
918. Towards whom you are familiar with, be open, without fraud or guile. For what glory is there in beguiling (deceiving, betraying, dealing fraudulently with) a friend?
κατασοφιστέω seems not to be a real verb. We found two possiblities: either κατασοφιστεύειν or κατασοφίζεσθαι. The LSJ entry for κατασοφιστεύω says merely "=κατασοφίζομαι". Is there really no difference between these, or should one be used over the other in this context? Thanks.
Victor wrote:An answer to the first question is, I'm sure, obtainable; a categorical answer to the second is probably not.
Qimmik wrote:So it would probably be preferable to use κατασοφίζεσθαι, which has some genuine ancient attestations (including the Septuagint and Lucian), and apparently isn't different in meaning.=
bedwere wrote:I have the impression that for (not only) ancient Greeks it was a national sport to invent words. If your public can understand a new word, and it doesn't violate any grammatical rule, you should go for it. The more the better!
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], jeidsath and 43 guests