Apology 20e + 21c

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.
Post Reply
vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Apology 20e + 21c

Post by vir litterarum »

ο? γὰ? ?μὸν ??ῶ τὸν λόγον ὃν ἂν λέγω, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἀξιόχ?εων ὑμῖν τὸν λέγοντα ἀνοίσ
P.A. 20e

I cannot figure out why in the relative clause "ὃν ἂν λέγω" Plato uses "an" with the subjunctive. Smyth says that the subjunctive with "an" in ordinary relative clauses "expresses a possible or supposed fact in future time or a generality in present time." None of these seem to fit, and all of the translations I have seen translate the clause as "...which I am about to say." What is the signification of "an" with the subjunctive here?

διασκοπῶν οὖν τοῦτον—ὀνόματι γὰ? ο?δὲν δέομαι λέγειν, ἦν δέ τις τῶν πολιτικῶν π?ὸς ὃν ?γὼ σκοπῶν τοιοῦτόν τι ἔπαθον, ὦ ἄνδ?ες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ διαλεγόμενος α?τῷ
P.A. 21c

Just a quick question. Is "onomati" considered a dative of respect,i.e. "...to say nothing with respect to his name"?

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Apology 20e + 21c

Post by modus.irrealis »

I think this an example of how relative clauses match up nicely with conditional clauses, and here it's the relative clause version of a future more vivid construction, so, formally at least, this ἄν + subjunctive is "a possible or supposed fact in future time." I don't think it's possible to make a literal translation into English for the whole sentence (at least I couldn't after trying), but for the relative clause, I think it's something like "The word which I (may) say will not be mine." But it does seem strange to use this construction in this context since he's not really talking about a hypothetical event.

I don't know about your second question.

vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Post by vir litterarum »

exactly what I was thinking. One commentary I read called it a "hypothetical conditional clause with an indefinite antecedent," but Plato is not speaking hypothetically here because he is saying that he is actually about to speak. Kuhner's grammar says "av" with the subjunctive in a relative clause should be resolvable into a conditional clause, but I do not see how this is feasible. I cannot find any conditional force in the statement at all. It seems to me this should just be a relative clause with the future indicative.

As appertains to my second question, I could find no reference to the passage. Every translation I read took "onomati" as the direct object of "legein" which clearly is not correct. Sometimes I absolutely despise commentaries: They give long notes on the most obvious constructions while concurrently passing over case usages which demand attention.

aso
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:11 am

Post by aso »

i think the answer (which i don't know for sure) is to be found in the fact that the speech is going to be given in the future: in other words, though there's little of the "hypothetical" element there, the future time is enough to give the clause an "irrealis" flavor.

as for the second point, i think a dative of respect is perfectly respectable, but "i have no need of mentioning him by name" (where ὀνόματι is instrumental) is also a possibility, and makes sense in the context.

vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Post by vir litterarum »

why not use the future indicative then?

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis »

Perhaps it's an influence from the previous sentence (μηδὲ ἂν δόξω τι ὑμῖν μέγα λέγειν), which establishes a more hypothetical situation.
vir litterarum wrote:Kuhner's grammar says "av" with the subjunctive in a relative clause should be resolvable into a conditional clause, but I do not see how this is feasible. I cannot find any conditional force in the statement at all. It seems to me this should just be a relative clause with the future indicative.
What about (loosely) "For if I say a word, I will not say my own word, but I will..."?

vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Post by vir litterarum »

It is a nice resolution, but I don't think Plato is being conditional here. He is stating that he is going to speak regardless of any condition.

Post Reply