Textkit Logo

Anabasis book 2

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.

Anabasis book 2

Postby swtwentyman » Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:10 am

2.2.1. Ariaeus' men come to the Greek camp to negotiate.

Φαλῖνος μὲν δὴ ᾤχετο καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ. οἱ δὲ παρὰ Ἀριαίου ἧκον Προκλῆς καὶ Χειρίσοφος: Μένων δὲ αὐτοῦ ἔμενε παρὰ Ἀριαίῳ: οὗτοι δὲ ἔλεγον ὅτι πολλοὺς φαίη Ἀριαῖος εἶναι Πέρσας ἑαυτοῦ βελτίους, οὓς οὐκ ἂν ἀνασχέσθαι αὐτοῦ βασιλεύοντος: ἀλλ᾽ εἰ βούλεσθε συναπιέναι, ἥκειν ἤδη κελεύει τῆς νυκτός. εἰ δὲ μή, αὔριον πρῲ ἀπιέναι φησίν. [2] ὁ δὲ Κλέαρχος εἶπεν: ἀλλ᾽ οὕτω χρὴ ποιεῖν: ἐὰν μὲν ἥκωμεν, ὥσπερ λέγετε: εἰ δὲ μή, πράττετε ὁποῖον ἄν τι ὑμῖν οἴησθε μάλιστα συμφέρειν. ὅ τι δὲ ποιήσοι οὐδὲ τούτοις εἶπε.

Mather & Hewitt use quotation marks in their text (which neither Goodwin & White nor the Loeb text do); in their book everything after "ὁ δὲ Κλέαρχος εἶπεν" is in quotes but it seems to me that they're missing a pair that would go around the bolded part, even if there's no verb of saying. (a) As I understand it the second-person is at least less-usual in indirect discourse (*); (b) the third-person verbs (κελεύει, φησίν) are indicative present and (c) the passage reads more smoothly as direct address. "φησίν" introduces indirect discourse separately from the rest of the quote ("ἀπιέναι"). (Does the present, not future, infinitive here come from "eimi" having future sense?).

(*) by this I meant unusual in a third-person historical narrative where there is no obvious "you" -- I didn't make that clear originally but there's such thing as "he says you're brave", of course

The more I look at it the less sure I am. There is indeed no verb of saying and it follows a semicolon, which would seem to connect it with the rest of the "ὅτι" clause; furthermore, in that type of clause tense is retained; the two reference works (the Oxford grammar and Mastronarde) are noncommittal on the person (and indicative is okay to use, though the mood is optative earlier). But I'm thinking myself in circles: clarification would be greatly appreciated!
Last edited by swtwentyman on Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
swtwentyman
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:28 am

Re: Anabasis book 2

Postby Hylander » Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:25 pm

You're right. X. has shifted here to direct speech without an additional verb of saying--the words of the messengers in direct speech reporting in indirect speech the message of Ariaeus.

"But if you want to leave together [with him], he says [you] should get there already during the night. If not, he says [present tense] he's going to leave early tomorrow morning."

No additional verb of saying is necessary; ἔλεγον is sufficient. The 2d person plural present indicative βούλεσθε signals the shift to direct speech right at the beginning of the sentence (after two particles). An additional verb of saying to mark the shift would weigh the sentence down and detract from the vividness, and it would be placed parenthetically after βούλεσθε, anyway--after the shift has already been signaled.

This shifting between indirect and direct speech happens all the time in English, but in English we can signal the shift with quotation marks, which Xenophon couldn't.

Yes, ἀπιέναι is from εἶμι and is present in form but future in meaning.

As an exercise, can you put this sentence into indirect speech (a) using ὅτι, and (b) using the accusative + infinitive construction? Don't bother with accents; just the verbs need to be changed, and not all of them.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Anabasis book 2

Postby swtwentyman » Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:41 pm

Hylander wrote:As an exercise, can you put this sentence into indirect speech (a) using ὅτι, and (b) using the accusative + infinitive construction? Don't bother with accents; just the verbs need to be changed, and not all of them.


I can try:

"ἀλλ᾽ εἰ βούλεσθε συναπιέναι, ἥκειν ἤδη κελεύει τῆς νυκτός. εἰ δὲ μή, αὔριον πρῲ ἀπιέναι φησίν."

οτι

...ελεγον οτι ει εβουλοντο συναπιεναι, Αριαιος ηκειν ηδη κελευοι της νυκρος. ει δε μη, αυριον πρω απεισιν.

(or "ει βουλοιντο ... κελευοι αν"?)

Infinitives

...εφασαν ει βουλοιντο συναπιεναι, Αριαιον ηκειν ηδη κελευσαι της νυκτος. ει δε μη, αυριον πρω (αυτον?) απιεναι.

I'm not very good at composition.
User avatar
swtwentyman
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:28 am

Re: Anabasis book 2

Postby Hylander » Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:44 pm

In the οτι version, if the indicative is retained in the protasis, it would be present tense βουλονται, but βουλοιντο would also be possible, as would κελευοι. It would probably be better to keep both verbs in the same mood, though maybe that's not necessary.

In the acc. + inf. version, indicative βουλονται would be possible, but the infinitive should be present κελεύειν, since in direct speech the verb κελεύει is in present tense. κελευσαι (properispomenon) would reflect κελευσαι (paroxytone) in direct speech, i.e., a past tense verb.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Anabasis book 2

Postby swtwentyman » Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:04 pm

Thanks.
User avatar
swtwentyman
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:28 am

Re: Anabasis book 2

Postby jeidsath » Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:08 pm

It would probably be better to keep both verbs in the same mood, though maybe that's not necessary.


There is an example of mixed vivid/strict sequence in reported speech in Anabasis 2.1.3:

οὗτοι ἔλεγον ὅτι Κῦρος μὲν τέθνηκεν, Ἀριαῖος δὲ πεφευγὼς ἐν τῷ σταθμῷ εἴη μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων βαρβάρων ὅθεν τῇ προτεραίᾳ ὡρμῶντο.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Anabasis book 2

Postby Hylander » Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:58 pm

I think having one construction in the subordinate clause/protasis and another in the main clause/apodosis is confusing, but examples of that can probably be found, too.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Anabasis book 2

Postby swtwentyman » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:11 pm

2.5.34. The Greek generals have been captured and the news is brought back to their camp; they run to arms.

εκ τουτου δη οι Ελληνες εθεον επι τα οπλα παντες εκπεπληγμενοι και νομιζοντες αυτικα ηξειν αυτους επι το στρατοπεδον.

Is the passive perfect (in the Greek/English sense) participle equivalent to the Latin passive perfect participle rather than the aorist passive? That is, would this be equivalent to "perterriti"?

εκπεπληγμενοι - scared out of their wits, with reference to a present situation;
εκπλαγεντες (if I have the word right) -- having been scared; i.e. in the past with reference to the past.
User avatar
swtwentyman
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:28 am

Re: Anabasis book 2

Postby mwh » Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:34 am

Yes that’s it, more or less. Since Latin doesn’t have an aorist form distinct from the perfect, the perfect form has to do double duty as both perfect and aorist, according to context. It’s the same with the indicative, in the active as well as in the passive. As you know, Latin doesn’t even have active past participles, except with deponent verbs, so has to make much use of passive ablative absolutes. Greek is both more flexible and more precise.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2367
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Anabasis book 2

Postby swtwentyman » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:10 am

Thanks.

I've noticed your last point: the absolute seems fairly rare in Xenophon while Caesar opens just about every chapter with one. I'll keep everything you've said in mind.
User avatar
swtwentyman
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:28 am


Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 91 guests