The Little Prince...in Ancient Greek

[Paul Derouda]

p.s. As I said, I do not see plain και in such a position as emphatic at all. Its only function is to make a connection between two parts of a phrase smoother.

I think that's precisely the point. In Greek prose, using και as a connective in this sort of context is only expected "by default", whereas in French (or in English) a conjunction like this in the beginning of a sentence carries some emphasis. You could easily drop out "et" from the French original, while the Greek sentence without any connective at all would be odd.

[Tugodum]

Greek sentence without any connective at all would be odd

I might be having a mental glitch yet, I have to admit, I have a full impression that I saw quite a few of such sentences in classical texts.

[Tugodum]

p.s. Just as in English or French, it all depends, in my view, on how closely the author intends to connect the particular parts of his narrative. Modern languages have more means than Greek for indicating the break: comma, semicolon, period, paragraph. Without those, the connection appears as smooth enough, whereas "and" adds even more smoothness. But in the time of Plato there were no punctuation marks at all; the default smoothness of a transition between two sentences in any classical text thus seems to be higher than in any modern one. If this reasoning is correct, an explicit connective at the beginning of a French text need be not strengthened but, rather, reduced in a translation.

[Paul Derouda]

Greek sentence without any connective at all would be odd

I might be having a mental glitch yet, I have to admit, I have a full impression that I saw quite a few of such sentences in classical texts.

I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen, I'm saying that having a connective in Greek is more usual than not having one, while in French not having a connective is more usual than having one. For that reason, και isn't the exact equivalent of "et". Also, you dropped out the definite article from my quote "the Greek sentence" – I was referring to this particular instance.

p.s. Just as in English or French, it all depends, in my view, on how closely the author intends to connect the particular parts of his narrative. Modern languages have more means than Greek for indicating the break: comma, semicolon, period, paragraph.

This is true, but be it as it may, we are used to prose texts with less connectives than in Greek prose texts. Probably we use connectives a lot more in speech than in writing.

You asked for some parallels for the use δε earlier. I found some from The Greek Particles by Denniston, p. 163. (A good book with a lot of examples, but not easy!)

Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1405 οὗτός ἐστιν Ἀγαμέμνων, ἐμὸς πόσις, νεκρὸς δέ "This is Agamemnon, my husband, dead"
Herodotus 7.10a.2 ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ πατρὶ τῷ σῷ, ἀδελφεῷ δὲ ἐμῷ Δαρείῳ ἠγόρευον μὴ στρατεύεσθαι ἐπὶ Σκύθας "I told Dareius, your father and my brother, not to attack the Scythians."
Herodotus 1.114.5 ὑπὸ τοῦ σοῦ δούλου, βουκόλου δὲ παιδὸς ὧδε περιυβρίσμεθα "from your slave, the son of the herdsman, we have suffered such outraging treatment."

[Tugodum]

I'm saying that having a connective in Greek is more usual than not having one, while in French not having a connective is more usual than having one.

Sure. So, in the original we have a case that is less usual in French. We should, then, expect a translator to render it by what is less usual in Greek. And this could be either no connective at all or "και δη και" or something else. I am interested in the logic of his choice between these options.

For that reason, και isn't the exact equivalent of "et".

This is a good point.

I was referring to this particular instance.

My apologies. Yet my question remains: would this Greek sentence without a connective be more "odd" than a French sentence starting with "Et"?
Thanks for the δε examples. Yet in all of them there seem to be some contrast in meaning between the δε part and its parallel in the main clause ("here is my husband, but he is dead" etc.), whereas in our case it is a pure afterthought: (je te donnerai aussi une corde pour l’attacher pendant le jour. Et un piquet.")

[daivid]

David--Please forgive my being somewhat slow, as I am a novice: when you say "harder"--do you mean "harder to read"? Or you mean adding emphatic aspect to meaning? If the latter, then what precisely is emphasized in this particular context?

Sorry, yes, "harder to read. I see now I didn't make that clear.

EDIT
Having read Paul Derouda's posts it does seem that the case for "και δη και" is rather stronger than I first assumed.

[Tugodum]

Thanks, David. But making it harder to read needs some justification, right? Making it harder to read for no reason is just a bad style, it seems to me.

[mwh]

Tugodum, I’m a bit late to the party, but let me offer what I can to the questions you raised.

The function of και δη και is to add something in such a way as to draw attention to what’s being added. Here και by itself would “do the job,” as you put it, but maybe not quite so well. It would lack the punch of και δη και.

No connective (“asyndeton” ασυνδετον), on the other hand, would be quite inappropriate. The best way to understand the use of asyndeton is to observe the occasions on which it’s used in your reading. There won’t be very many, and you should be sure to register them when you encounter them. It’s often used where English might use a colon. A good example of typical usage is Xenophon’s … ειδεν οναρ· εδειξεν αυτῳ … σκηπτος πεσειν, “… he had a dream. A lightning bolt seemed to fall …”, where the asyndeton gives the content of the dream. Smyth 2165-7, esp. 2167b.

As for that σκολοπα δε, adding a second item to an extended first one, I too find it odd, and hard to defend. That’s why it’s best to stick to real ancient Greek texts.

EDIT. Here, exceptionally, are three asyndeta in a row, from a passage in Herodotus discussed in a recent thread: ἐόντων δὲ αὐτονόμων πάντων ἀνὰ τὴν ἤπειρον, ὧδε αὖτις ἐς τυραννίδα περιῆλθον. ἀνὴρ ἐν τοῖσι Μήδοισι ἐγένετο σοφὸς τῷ οὔνομα ἦν Δηιόκης, παῖς δ᾽ ἦν Φραόρτεω. οὗτος ὁ Δηιόκης ἐρασθεὶς τυραννίδος ἐποίεε τοιάδε. κατοικημένων τῶν Μήδων κατὰ κώμας, …. You can see how the first one (ανηρ …) picks up the ωδε in the preceding sentence; the second (ουτος …) continues that explanation; and the third (κατοικημενων …) picks up the preceding τοιαδε.
A statement such as “It happened like this:” will routinely be followed by asyndeton.

[Tugodum]

mwh--Thanks a lot, this is very helpful!

to draw attention to what’s being added

Now I clearly see the translator's intention (whether he is faithful to the original is another matter, for a French language forum perhaps ) Also, I've been struggling with the concept of "asyndeton," as I've been encountering the term lately in running commentaries and could not get why it is such a big deal; your illuminating examples are right on time. But in this context, "connectives" include particles like μεν, δε, ουν, δη etc., right?

[jeidsath]

Walking across the NB Quad in quiet discussion with another scholar, John Dewar Denniston was once heard to say: "And καί can also mean 'and'."

[Tugodum]

Am wondering now, as I'm coming to grips with the concept of asyndeton, whether or not this sentence on p.29 counts as one: "... ' τουτο το εργον λυπηροτατον μεν εστιν, ραστον δε."

[Hylander]

μεν . . . δε isn't asyndeton. Two elements are linked by contrasting particles.

[Tugodum]

I meant this sentence as a whole in its relation to what precedes it.

[Hylander]

It may be formally asyndeton, but τουτο links it back to the preceding sentence, whatever that is.

[Tugodum]

And this kind of asyndeton, which is merely formal, is not anything non-typical or inappropriate, right?

[mwh]

Yes that sentence is in asyndeton. Whether it’s appropriate or not depends on its relation to what precedes it. It’s not a very typical example. This translation is probably not the best text to give you a sense of how asyndeton is used. For that it’s best to read authentic Greek, as I said.

As to your question about connectives: δε and ουν are sentence-connective particles, also γαρ. και too of course, but also connects lesser units than sentences (as can δε). δη not properly a connective, though can serve as one. μεν not a connective at all.

[Tugodum]

mwh--That's awesome! Thank you so much. (I am reading this text on the par with "real" ones, of course; it has the advantage of allowing me to read without looking into the dictionaries too often, let alone that I love the story)

[Hylander]

The problem with using a modern text as a basis for questions about the subtle points of ancient Greek is that it's difficult to know how well the person who composed the text knows Greek or how carefully he or she checked to make sure the text is correct.

In the text you're reading we've seen several examples of questionable expressions: ουδενος μεν ποιησονται without περι, σκολοπα δε. Maybe they're right, maybe not, but it's hard to tell without having the entirety of ancient Attic Greek literature at your fingertips. I find it difficult to answer questions like these, and perhaps I shouldn't try.

Debating whether he should have written και instead of και δη και is unhelpful. After a certain elementary point in our study of ancient Greek, we want to base our knowledge of ancient Greek and our feeling for the language on actual ancient Greek texts, written by ancient Greeks, not on modern attempts to replicate ancient Greek, which may or may not be fully idiomatic.

I'm sure that the translator knows ancient Greek much better than I do, but he can't possibly know it as well as the ancient Greeks themselves.

[Tugodum]

Hylander--I understand your point but, as a saying goes, it is a bad soldier who does not want to become a general; so, although I am far from ready to emulate this or any other translator into Ancient Greek, I am willing to be able to do this in some future and, accordingly, to learn as much as I can their devices and--no less importantly--mistakes.

[Tugodum]

(Let alone that I've already filled quite a lot of lacunae in my knowledge of Greek thanks to this discussion)

[daivid]

Thanks, David. But making it harder to read needs some justification, right? Making it harder to read for no reason is just a bad style, it seems to me.

I've forked my reply here http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... =2&t=67273 as I'm possibly taking things off on a tangent.

[Paul Derouda]

(Let alone that I've already filled quite a lot of lacunae in my knowledge of Greek thanks to this discussion)

I have no doubt that you have, and I think everyone here agrees that you learn a lot by asking intelligent questions about the Greek or would-be-Greek expressions you encounter in this book. But constantly not knowing whether a given form in the book is correct also seems to make you uneasy (as it rightly should) – or that's the picture that I've gotten from your posts. Wouldn't it be easier to have this same discussion on a "real" text? Even then, some incertitudes remain due to problems in the transmission of the text, but in comparison they are minimal.

But the most important reason is that people here tend to get a lot more enthusiastic about questions related to "real" texts, and you get more answers and better ones. If the text in question is even remotely interesting, a simple grammar-related question quickly escalates to a much broader discussion. The totally out subject debates are often the best!

[Tugodum]

Ideally, I was expecting people to suggest alternative translations (as quite a few English speakers know some French); this would facilitate for me making a leap from reading Greek to thinking in Greek.

[Tugodum]

p.s. I believe that thinking in a language implies the ability to express the "same" thought in more than one way. It's hard to develop this from mere reading.

[Paul Derouda]

p.s. I believe the ability to think in a language implies the ability to express the "same" thought in more than one way. It's hard to develop this from mere reading.

Although I sympathize with you, I don't quite concur, or agree, or be of the same mind and opinion with you... I have largely learnt English by reading, although joining Textkit several years ago has certainly given my English writing a boost. I'm still a lousy speaker though...

You're pretty new around here, but these learning strategy discussions have been going on around here for ever. Some of us might feel that all that can be said has already been said many times, although you wouldn't of course know about it, being a newcomer. I'm only saying this so that you might know why sometimes learning strategy questions might seem to be dismissed offhand around here But if you were reading a passage of, say, Plato, Xenophon or Homer, you would certainly attract responses by posting about it.

If you're interested about prose composition ("Ideally, I was expecting people to suggest alternative translations" seems to suggest this), a book that might be helpful is Eleanor Dickey's Introduction to the Composition and Analysis of Greek Prose, which we've discussed here some time ago. It does require a certain Greek level though, I for one found the exercises quite difficult (I didn't get very far, got distracted by something else... Will start again some of these days.)

[Hylander]

I worked through Dickey and found it of inestimable value.

[Markos]

Ideally, I was expecting people to suggest alternative translations (as quite a few English speakers know some French); this would facilitate for me making a leap from reading Greek to thinking in Greek...I believe that thinking in a language implies the ability to express the "same" thought in more than one way. It's hard to develop this from mere reading.

σελ. 16: τοῦ μυστηρίου ἄγαν θαυμαστοῦ ὄντος, τὸ ἀπειθεῖν ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν.

τὴν παράφρασίν μου παρέχω:

τῷ παραλόγῳ δεῖ πειθαρχῆσαι.

[Tugodum]

Thanks for recommending the Dickeys book. I tried Sidgwick's book with exactly the same title but, like yourselfd

didn't get very far, got distracted by something else... )

... Not so much because it was difficult, though, but perhaps boring would be a better word.

[Tugodum]

Thanks for recommending the Dickey book. I tried Sidgwick's book with exactly the same title but, like you said, "didn't get very far, got distracted by something else..." Not so much because it was difficult, though, but perhaps boring would be a better word.

[Paul Derouda]

I didn't get bored, just distracted. I have a full time job and a family and only a limited number of hours per day, and my primary interest is reading Greek literature. But even for someone who isn't interested about composition per se, the book is quiet useful - it answers the "why do Greeks choose this expression X to say Y" sort of question. I'm told it's much less boring than Sidgwick. Someone called Markos has written an Amazon review about it which I fully endorse.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/0521184258/ref=mw_dp_cr

[Tugodum]

Thanks! Will check it out.

[Tugodum]

σελ. 16: τοῦ μυστηρίου ἄγαν θαυμαστοῦ ὄντος, τὸ ἀπειθεῖν ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν.

τὴν παράφρασίν μου παρέχω: τῷ παραλόγῳ δεῖ πειθαρχῆσαι.

χάριν ἔχω σοι, ὦ Μάρκε, ὡς τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆμα μοι ἐξηγησαμένῳ. ἐγὼ γὰρ τὴν τοῦ κυβερνήτου πειθαρχίας αἰτίαν οὐ σαφῶς ὑπολαβεῖν ἐδυνάμην, αὐτὸς δὴ τῷ παραλόγῳ μᾶλλον ἀπειθῶν.

[Markos]

σελ. 16: τοῦ μυστηρίου ἄγαν θαυμαστοῦ ὄντος, τὸ ἀπειθεῖν ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν.

τὴν παράφρασίν μου παρέχω: τῷ παραλόγῳ δεῖ πειθαρχῆσαι.

χάριν ἔχω σοι, ὦ Μάρκε, ὡς τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆμα μοι ἐξηγησαμένῳ. ἐγὼ γὰρ τὴν τοῦ κυβερνήτου πειθαρχίας αἰτίαν οὐ σαφῶς ὑπολαβεῖν ἐδυνάμην, αὐτὸς δὴ τῷ παραλόγῳ μᾶλλον ἀπειθῶν.

καλῶς λέγεις, φίλτατε. ἴσως γὰρ γεγηράκαμεν ἡμεῖς.

σελ. 26: ἴσως γεγήρακα.

[Tugodum]

ἴσως γὰρ γεγηράκαμεν ἡμεῖς.

τί μήν;

[Markos]

σελ. 35: ἡ τῶν δακρύων χώρα οὕτω κρυφαῖόν ἐστιν.

μυστήριόν τι ἡ γῆ ἡ κλαίουσα.

σελ. 43: δόξαν σοι ἀπελθεῖν, ἀπελθέ.

φεύγειν ἔχεις ἐν νῷ . νῦν οὖν δεῖ σε φυγεῖν.

σελ. 47: ἡ ἀρχή πρῶτον ἐν τῷ φρονείν κεῖται.

ἐν τῇ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχῇ ὁ λόγος ἐστίν.

σελ 63: ὁ γεωγράφος πλείονος ἄξιός ἐστιν ἢ περιπατεῖν.

οὕτως σεμνὸς ὤν, ὁ γεωγράφος τὴν γῆν οὐκ ἂν ἴδοι.

[Markos]

My amazon review, which partly addresses the comments of Daivid and Tugodum on Coderch's style:

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Prince-An ... ient+greek

σελ. 69: καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ῥᾴδιόν ἐστι μόνον ὄντα αἰσθάνεσθαι.

δυνατόν ἐστιν καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐρημαῖον εἶναι.

σελ. 78: ἡ γὰρ γλῶττα αἴτιά ἐστιν ἀγνωμοσυνῶν.

πολλάκις γὰρ οἱ λόγοι ἁμαρτάνουσι.

σελ. 80: τὸ γὰρ κυριώτατον ἀφανὲς τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἐστιν.

τὰ διάφορα οὐ δύναται βλέπεσθαι.

σελ. 81: ὑπεύθυνος εἶ εἰσαεὶ οἷς ἐτιθάσευσας.

γέγονας ὁ κύριος τῶν ὑπό σου δαμασαμένων.

[Markos]

σελ. 82: οὐδέποτε ἥδει ὅπου εἶ.

μόνον τοῦτο ζητοῦμεν--ἄλλο τι.

σελ. 84: εἰ ἔχοιμι πεντήκοντα τρία λεπτὰ ἀναλύσκειν, βαίνοιμι ἂν ἥσυχος πρὸς κρήνην τινά.

δός μοι ὥραν καὶ πρὸς πηγὴν βραδέως περιπατήσω.

σελ. 86: ὃν τὴν ἠρεμίαν καλλύνει -εἶπε τὸ βασιλείδιον- τόδε ἐστίν, ὅτι που φρέαρ καλύπτει.

εἶπεν ὁ μικρὸς ἄρχων φρέαρ κρυπτόν τι ποιεῖν καλὴν τὴν ἔρημον.

[bedwere]

τὰ διάφορα οὐ δύναται βλέπεται.

βλέπεσθαι

[Markos]

τὰ διάφορα οὐ δύναται βλέπεται.

βλέπεσθαι

ναί. εὐχαριστῶ οὖν σοι.

[Tugodum]

σελ. 35: ἡ τῶν δακρύων χώρα οὕτω κρυφαῖόν ἐστιν.

μυστήριόν τι ἡ γῆ ἡ κλαίουσα.

ἴσως οὖν τὸ χώρα ἐνθάδε τὰς φρένας σημαίνει ὡς οὐ φανερὰς, ἀλλὰ κεκρυμμένας, ἅτε οὐσῶν αὐτῶν ἀνακινήσεων γεννητικῶν;