infinitive, Sophocles Ajax 1264

[richard ross]

εἴθ᾽ ὑμὶν ἀμφοῖν νοῦς γένοιτο σωφρονεῖν:
Why the infinitive?

Richard Ross

[bedwere]

Purpose, I'd say: νοῦς σωφρονεῖν

[Scribo]

εἴθ᾽ ὑμὶν ἀμφοῖν νοῦς γένοιτο σωφρονεῖν:

Just follow what the words naturally tell you: if (only) you both had the mind to be wise.

[mwh]

The infin is tacked on to an utterance that is already potentially complete. “If only the two of you had (i.e. might acquire) sense, so as to be sensible.” It doesn't depend directly on νοῦς. This kind of infin can be called epexegetic, but I prefer to think of it as consecutive. You could have ωστε with it. It conveniently fills out the trimeter. Very Sophoclean.

[jeidsath]

Neophytos Doukas:

Text:
Εἴθ’ ὑμῖν ἀμφοῖν νοῦς γένοιτο σωφρονεῖν.
Τούτου γὰρ οὐδεν σφῷν ἔχω λῷον φράσαι.

Paraphrase:
Δῴη ὑμῖν ἀμφοῖν νοῦν ὁ θεός· ἄμεινον γὰρ τούτου ἕτερον εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἔχω.

[mwh]

So he injects God, and takes σωφρονεῖν as redundant. Which it pretty well is.

(And if he wrote ὑμῖν in the text he couldn't scan.)

[richard ross]

Does the dual take a 3rd person singular?

[Qimmik]

I'm not sure about your question. Are you thinking that ὑμὶν ἀμφοῖν is the subject and puzzled that γένοιτο doesn't agree in number and person with it? In the Greek, the subject of γένοιτο is νοῦς, which determines the number and person of the verb. ὑμὶν ἀμφοῖν are dative "of possession". In translation, the syntax has to be rearranged: "both of you" is the subject, the verb is "have" (or something like that) and "sense" is the direct object. Does that answer your question?

[mwh]

υμιν παραδεισος εστιν To you there is a garden = You have a garden.
ειθ’ υμιν παραδεισος ειη Would that to you there were a garden = If only you had a garden!
ειθ’ υμιν παραδεισος γενοιτο If only you’d get a garden!
ειθ’ υμιν αμφοιν παραδεισος γενοιτο If only you’d both get a garden!