Textkit Logo

possessives with gen.

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.

possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:06 pm

Per Dickey, "τῶν (τῶν) νεανίων δούλων" is an impossible construction. But what would be a legit way to render the meaning of "of the young men's slaves"? Dickey does not explain it here.Thanks in advance.
Last edited by Tugodum on Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Markos » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:44 pm

τῶν δούλων τῶν νεανιῶν
οὐ μανθάνω γράφειν, ἀλλὰ γράφω τοῦ μαθεῖν.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:00 pm

Markos wrote:τῶν δούλων τῶν νεανιῶν
If I got Dickey right, this won't do either. At the very least, it is ambiguous: who possesses whom?
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Markos » Sat Aug 05, 2017 10:29 pm

ἡ δούλη ἐστὶν ἡ μήτηρ τῶν δούλῶν τῶν νεανιῶν. καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μάμμη τῶν νεανιῶν τῶν δούλων. καλὴ δὲ μάμμη ἐστὶ τῶν τῶν τῶν νεανιῶν δούλων νεανιῶν.
οὐ μανθάνω γράφειν, ἀλλὰ γράφω τοῦ μαθεῖν.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Sat Aug 05, 2017 10:52 pm

Markos wrote:τῶν τῶν τῶν νεανιῶν δούλων νεανιῶν
"One genitive can nest within another but not if they have articles of identical form." (Dickey, 17) The respective constructions of your first two sentences, if I got them right, are not possessives.
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Markos » Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:03 pm

Tugodum wrote:
Markos wrote:τῶν τῶν τῶν νεανιῶν δούλων νεανιῶν
"One genitive can nest within another but not if they have articles of identical form." (Dickey, 17)

"ALMOST EVERY RULE PRESENTED IN THIS BOOK HAS EXCEPTIONS, MOST OF WHICH ARE NOT MENTIONED. (Dickey, 1) :)
Tugodum wrote:The respective constructions of your first two sentences, if I got them right, are not possessives.

Try telling that to my mother. :lol:
οὐ μανθάνω γράφειν, ἀλλὰ γράφω τοῦ μαθεῖν.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:22 pm

Markos wrote:ALMOST EVERY RULE PRESENTED IN THIS BOOK HAS EXCEPTIONS, MOST OF WHICH ARE NOT MENTIONED
1. I am asking about the rule (i.e., regular ways to express such meaning), not about exceptions.
2. As for exceptions, I'd prefer them to come from native speakers; otherwise I cannot tell exceptions from mistakes.
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Markos » Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:03 am

Tugodum wrote:1. I am asking about the rule (i.e., regular ways to express such meaning)...

As I said, I think this would be τῶν δούλων τῶν νεανιῶν. Context would eliminate the ambiguity except when it would not.
οὐ μανθάνω γράφειν, ἀλλὰ γράφω τοῦ μαθεῖν.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:41 am

Markos wrote:ἡ δούλη ἐστὶν ἡ μήτηρ τῶν δούλῶν τῶν νεανιῶν.
In my view, this translates as: The slave [woman] is the mother of the slaves, [namely,] of the young ones.
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Markos » Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:59 am

Tugodum wrote:
Markos wrote:ἡ δούλη ἐστὶν ἡ μήτηρ τῶν δούλῶν τῶν νεανιῶν.
In my view, this translates as: The slave [woman] is the mother of the slaves, [namely,] of the young ones.

Sure, depending on the context, it could mean this.
οὐ μανθάνω γράφειν, ἀλλὰ γράφω τοῦ μαθεῖν.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Paul Derouda » Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:12 am

Tugodum wrote:
Markos wrote:ἡ δούλη ἐστὶν ἡ μήτηρ τῶν δούλῶν τῶν νεανιῶν.
In my view, this translates as: The slave [woman] is the mother of the slaves, [namely,] of the young ones.

I think you're right: in the nominative, "the young men's slaves" would be οι δουλοι οι των νεανιων (or, οι των νεανιων δουλοι, but that's not relevant here). If we change that into genitive, we can't just drop the second οι.
User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Paul Derouda » Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:17 am

Tugodum wrote:Per Dickey, "τῶν (τῶν) νεανίων τῶν δούλων" is an impossible construction. But what would be a legit way to render the meaning of "of the young men's slaves"? Dickey does not explain it here.Thanks in advance.

Where did the last τῶν come from? :)
User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby jeidsath » Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:19 am

I don't have the book in front of me just now, but I believe that in the exercise key, she gives examples of the alternate form.
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: 1947
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:16 am

Paul Derouda wrote:Where did the last τῶν come from?
From my carelessness :( Thanks, will correct in the posting.
jeidsath wrote: I believe that in the exercise key, she gives examples of the alternate form
No, for the "the young men's slaves (gen.)" (p. 18), she just says in the Answer Key (p. 217): "not translatable this way because it would require two identical articles in succession." She does not say which way it is translatable. Hence my question. (She might be saying it further in the book but am more curious than I am patient.)
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:36 am

Markos wrote:Sure, depending on the context, it could mean this.
I would then rephrase my question thus: Is there a way in Greek (like it is in English) to phrase it so that it would mean "of the young men's slaves" in every (=regardless of the) context?
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Markos » Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:57 am

Tugodum wrote:I would then rephrase my question thus: Is there a way in Greek (like it is in English) to phrase it so that it would mean "of the young men's slaves" in every (=regardless of the) context?

ἔκλεψα τὰ ποτήρια τῶν δούλων οἳ δουλεύουσι τοῖς νεανίαις.
οὐ μανθάνω γράφειν, ἀλλὰ γράφω τοῦ μαθεῖν.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby jeidsath » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:02 am

St. Paul uses a number of successive genitive constructions in the opening of his letter to the Romans, and they never look ambiguous to me. So I think that Markos is correct.

If you are looking for other ways to say it, I suppose that you could say τῶν δούλων οὓς ἔχουσι οἱ νεανίαι. Or τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων. Or τῶν παρὰ τοῖς νεανίαις δουλευόντων.

EDIT: Or the example that Markos posted above while I was typing this.
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: 1947
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:20 am

jeidsath wrote:St. Paul uses a number of successive genitive constructions in the opening of his letter to the Romans
How is this relevant? I cited exactly what Dickey says (on p. 17): "One genitive can nest within another but not if they have articles of identical form." (Dickey, 17) I do not see this in the opening of the letter to the Romans. But thanks for suggesting alternative constructions. They remind me of the current tendency in German to avoid the genitive: "Der Dativ is dem Genitiv sein Tod." :)
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby mwh » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:27 am

It will be more profitable not to pursue this (and not to pay much heed to the posted suggestions, some of which are bad) but just to continue with the book. If you must have an answer, take Markos’ first one (but ignore his follow-ups). No-one would take that as meaning “of the slaves’ young men.”
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2367
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:35 am

mwh wrote:No-one would take that as meaning “of the slaves’ young men.”
Sure. But if we had "sons" instead of "young men" it would be different. What about
jeidsath wrote: τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων
? It looks like a universal solution, applicable to all cases. Isn't it?
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby mwh » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:50 am

των υιων των δουλων. If you reply that that's ambiguous, I shall scream.

In Greek it’s not the case that "Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod."
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2367
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:59 am

mwh wrote:των υιων των δουλων. If you reply that that's ambiguous, I shall scream.
To allow you no excuse for screaming I will rather ask whether it should be translated as "(of) the slaves' sons" or as "(of) the sons' slaves" and why. Is the word order determinative?
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Paul Derouda » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:04 am

mwh wrote:If you reply that that's ambiguous, I shall scream.

Since you are on the other side of the planet, I'm ready to take the risk that you might scream.

If you use τῶν δούλων τῶν νεανιῶν for "of the young men's slaves", haven't you basically dropped the article of νεανιων, and made it indefinite? Basically, the construction is analogous to των δουλων των Κροισου, right?
User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Hylander » Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:18 pm

Dickey, Chapter II, Preliminary Exercise 1(f) (p. 18): Translate into Greek "the young men's slaves (gen.)" Her answer (p. 217): "not translatable this way because it would require two identical articles in succession".

In other words, if you should ever encounter this situation in your Greek composition efforts, she's telling you that you need to find another way to express the idea in context. Simple as that. This particular exercise is just a warning to avoid two identical articles in succession.

No doubt you can find exceptions somewhere in the corpus of ancient Greek literature.

Is there a way in Greek (like it is in English) to phrase it so that it would mean "of the young men's slaves" in every (=regardless of the) context?


No.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:19 pm

Hylander wrote: Is there a way in Greek (like it is in English) to phrase it so that it would mean "of the young men's slaves" in every (=regardless of the) context?
No.
Thanks! In the case of this particular phrase, "τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων" falsifies your answer. But I take you to mean that using dative might not automatically eliminate ambiguity in all cases.
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Hylander » Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:52 pm

In the case of this particular phrase, "τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων" falsifies your answer.


What makes you think that's Greek?
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:41 pm

Hylander wrote: τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων" falsifies your answer.
What makes you think that's Greek?
My ignorance of any rules that it violates.
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby jeidsath » Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:51 pm

Lack of a rule doesn't make a usage idiomatic, and I don't claim to be able to recognize idiomatic Greek as well as Hylander or mwh. I don't even claim that I get the rules right very often.

But, as all of us know, there is a Greek dative of the possessor. Did I use it correctly? Here is the sort of usage that I was trying to parallel:

Thuc. 2.1:

ἄρχεται δὲ ὁ πόλεμος ἐνθένδε ἤδη Ἀθηναίων καὶ Πελοποννησίων καὶ τῶν ἑκατέροις ξυμμάχων, ἐν ᾧ οὔτε ἐπεμείγνυντο ἔτι ἀκηρυκτεὶ παρ᾽ ἀλλήλους καταστάντες τε ξυνεχῶς ἐπολέμουν...

However, looking at Smyth 1480:

The dative of the possessor denotes that something is at the disposal of a person or has fallen to his share temporarily. The genitive of possession lays stress on the person who owns something. The dative answers the question what is it that he has?, the genitive answers the question who is it that has something? The uses of the two cases are often parallel, but not interchangeable. Thus, in Κῦρος, οὗ σὺ ἔσει τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦδε Cyrus, to whom you will henceforth belong X. C. 5.1.6, ᾧ would be inappropriate.


I think that this says that the dative of the possessor would be appropriate in cases where the emphasis is on the slaves, but not if it's on the sons.
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: 1947
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Hylander » Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:47 am

τῶν ἑκατέροις ξυμμάχων -- not really a dative of "possession". Usually the dative of possession is with ειναι/εστι, in a construction that means "have". The dative with συμμαχος is parallel to the dative with συμμαχομαι. Just as συμμαχομαι naturally takes the dative, συμμαχος regularly takes the dative, giving effect to the implicit verbal idea implicit of "fighting together with". In any case, allies do not literally "possess" one another; they don't own one another. It's a different kind of relationship, and it usually takes the dative.

LSJ:

σύμμαχος , ον, A.fighting along with, leagued or allied with, τινι A.Ch.2,19, Hdt.1.22, etc.: freq. abs. as Subst., ally, Sapph. 1.28 (fem.), etc.; and in pl. allies, Hdt.1.102, al., IG12.76.14, etc.; “ς. ἐπί τινα” X.An.5.5.22. 2. as a real Adj., of things, places, circumstances, “συμμάχῳ δορί” A.Eu.773; “αὐτὴ γὰρ ἡ γῆ ξ. κείνοις πέλει” Id.Pers.792; συντυχίη ἐπεγένετό τινι ς. Hdt.5.65; “νόμον ς. τῷ θέλοντι” Id.3.31; “τὸ εἰκὸς ς. μοί ἐστιν” Antipho 5.43; “τοῦ χωρίου τὸ δυσέμβατον ξύμμαχον γίγνεται” Th.4.10, cf. Hdt.4.129; “πολλά ἐστι τὰ σύμμαχα” X.An.2.4.7; “ς. ἔχειν τὸ δίκαιον” Lys.2.10; ὅρκοι καὶ ξυνθῆκαι ib. 62; “τάχος ς. εἰς τὸ πραχθῆναι” X.Cyr.3.2.4: c. gen. rei, “ἀρετὴ τῶν ἐν πολέμῳ ς. ἔργων” Id.Mem.2.1.32.
3. assistant (esp. messenger), POxy.1223.10 (iv A.D.), 904.4 (pl., v A.D.), etc.

συμμαχ-ομαι , fut. A.“-οῦμαι” X.An.5.4.10: aor. “συνεμαχεσάμην” Aeschin.2.169:—fight along with others, to be an ally, auxiliary, Th.4.44, 8.26, Pl.Lg.699a, X.HG 3.2.13: c. dat., Id.An.5.4.10, 6.1.13; τὸ οἰκὸς ἐμοὶ συμμάχεται probability is on my side, Hdt.7.239; ς. πρὸς τὸν δῆμον against . ., Arist. Pol.1300a18; “ς. τὴν μάχην” Aeschin. l.c.—Prose word, συμμαχέω being used by Poets.

συμμαχέω , aor. A.“συνεμάχησα” IG22.10A7 (v B.C.): pf. “συμμεμάχηκα” SIG588.61 (Milet., ii B.C.):—to be an ally, to be in alliance, A.Pers. 793, Th.1.35, 7.50, etc.: c. acc. cogn., ς. τὴν μάχην IG l.c.: c. dat., SIG366.8 (Delph., iii B.C.), etc.; οὐ ξ., ἀλλὰ ξυναδικεῖν join not in war but in doing wrong, Th.1.39: generally, help, succour, “ς. τινί” S.Ant.740, Ph.1368, Pl.R.440c, Phlb.14b, etc.; “τοῖσιν εὖ φρονοῦσι συμμαχεῖ τύχη” Critias 21; ς. ὥστε . . assist towards . ., Hdt.1.98:— Med., pf. part. συμμεμαχημένος in act. sense, Luc. Tyr.7:—Pass., “συμμαχοῦμαι ὑπό τινος” Id.Cal.22. Cf.συμμάχομαι.


I think Smyth's explanation of the dative of possession is confused, except to the extent he recognizes that the dative of possession and the genitive are not interchangeable. I think that usually what passes for the dative of possession (other than with ειναι can be explained by an implicit verbal idea that takes the dative as indirect object or in some other way. But it can never be used as a substitute for the genitive to indicate possession. The genitive is the case that indicates the relationship of possession with nouns.

τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων isn't Greek.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby jeidsath » Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:09 am

I think that the following is a proper dative of the possessor involving ξύμμαχοι, using εἶναι. Thuc. 1.86.3: ἄλλοις μὲν γὰρ χρήματά ἐστι πολλὰ καὶ νῆες καὶ ἵπποι, ἡμῖν δὲ ξύμμαχοι ἀγαθοί

And Smyth puts forward two examples where the dative of the possessor and the genitive of possession are interchanged. Thuc. 2.1, which I quoted above, τῶν ἑκατέροις ξυμμάχων, and Thuc. 1. 18 τοῖς ἑαυτῶν ξυμμάχοις.

However, I feel that I am missing something here. I don't doubt that you and mwh are right about my suggestion not being Greek. I searched Kühner's section on the dative for something about the dative of the possessor, but didn't find it (I'm sure that it's in there somewhere).
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: 1947
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:22 am

jeidsath wrote: I searched Kühner's section on the dative for something about the dative of the possessor, but didn't find it (I'm sure that it's in there somewhere).
It is in Bd 1 of the two-volume edition section 423, Anmerk. 18 (S. 416). I am reading it right now.
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:36 am

Hylander wrote:τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων isn't Greek.
Thanks, I got your point (I think). Is, then, "τῶν δούλων οἱ (εἰσιν) τοῖς νεανίαις" Greek? And if so, could εἰσιν be omitted?
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Hylander » Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:02 am

Is, then, "τῶν δούλων οἱ (εἰσιν) τοῖς νεανίαις" Greek? And if so, could εἰσιν be omitted?


Possibly, but it would emphatically stress the ownership of the slaves in question by the young men, as opposed to someone else's slaves or some other slaves. It wouldn't be neutral, unlike Dickey's context-less exercise (["of] the slaves of the young men").

As I read K-G, they're skeptical of the dependence of a dative on a noun, where there is no verbal idea implicit in the noun that would ordinarily require the dative (as in the case of συμμαχος. They don't discuss the so-called "dative of possession" at all as a separate category of dative, other than in an ειναι construction, which is an idiom.

Thuc. 1.86.3: ἄλλοις μὲν γὰρ χρήματά ἐστι πολλὰ καὶ νῆες καὶ ἵπποι, ἡμῖν δὲ ξύμμαχοι ἀγαθοί -- The εἶναι + dative idiom, not a dative modifying a noun.

τοῖς ἑαυτῶν ξυμμάχοις -- he has used the genitive instead of the dative avoid confusion, but the normal case with συμμαχος is dative, as LSJ shows. But that doesn't mean you can do the reverse -- substitute the dative for the genitive -- to avoid the same sort of confusion arising from a genitive modifying a genitive with the same article. The genitive is the default case for a noun that modifies another noun, so it can be used instead of the dative in τοῖς ἑαυτῶν ξυμμάχοις to avoid τοῖς ἑαυτοῖς ξυμμάχοις. But again, here the relationship is not one of literal possession or ownership. The relationship between allies is one that LSJ shows is normally expressed by the dative.

Honestly, can anyone show me a parallel to τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων, where simple possession/ownership is meant?

Dickey discusses the dative of possession on p. 39.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Hylander » Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:10 pm

Looking at Dickey and Smyth again, I think Dickey's "rule" only applies where two articles of the same form are immediately juxtaposed, not necessarily where two genitives follow one another. Here is what Smyth says (1162):

1162. The order bringing together the same forms of the article (περὶ τοῦ τ<*> πατρὸς βιβλίου) is avoided, but two or three articles of different form may stand together: ““τὸ τῆς τοῦ ξαίνοντος τέχνης ἔργον” the work of the art of the wool-carder” P. Pol. 281a.


Dickey's formulation of the rule (Ch. II, B) 3) b)) applies where one genitive nests within another.

Smyth lists the following positions for attributive genitives (1161):

1161. The genitive of a substantive limiting the meaning of another substantive may take any one of four positions:—

a. τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς βιβλίον the father's book (very common). Thus, ἡ <*> τεθνεώτων ἀρετή the valour of the dead L. 12.36.

b. τὸ βιβλίον τὸ τοῦ πατρός (less common). Thus, ““ἡ οἰκία_ ἡ Σίμωνος” the house of Simon” L. 3.32.

c. τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ βιβλίον (to emphasize the genitive or when a genitive has just preceded). Thus, ““τῆς ϝί_κης τὸ μέγεθος” the greatness of the victory” X. H. 6.4.19.

d. τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ πατρός (very common). Thus, ““ἡ τόλμα τῶν λεγόντων” the effrontery of the speakers” L. 12.41. The genitive of the divided whole (1306) is so placed or as in c.

N. 1.—A substantive with no article is sometimes followed by the article and the attributive genitive: ἐπὶ σκηνὴν ἰόντες τὴν Ξενοφῶντος going to the ten<*> (namely, that) of Xenophon X. A. 6.4.19. Cp. 1159.


Dickey doesn't seem to mention Smyth's position d in her discussion, and her answer to "the young men's slaves (gen.)" suggests it isn't possible to translate using the nested construction (Smyth's a), but apparently doesn't address Smyth's d. So των δουλων των νεανιων is a possibility, as Markos and mwh wrote above, though perhaps somewhat confusing.

τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων is not a possibility.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: possessives with gen.

Postby Tugodum » Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:44 pm

Hylander wrote:I think Dickey's "rule" only applies where two articles of the same form are immediately juxtaposed
Yes, she explicitly indicates this.
Hylander wrote:Dickey doesn't seem to mention Smyth's position d in her discussion
Yes, she doesn't, and I find it a bit strange, as this is as simple and, per Smyth, common as the options she introduces. My question was motivated by the issue of ambiguity (which I do not see Smyth dealing with). It was a surprise for me to learn that it is not resolvable as uniformly in Greek as is in modern European languages.
Tugodum
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am


Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 66 guests