ἄλλοισιν δὴ ταῦτ' ?πιτέλλεο, μὴ γὰ? ἔμοιγε
[σήμαιν': ο? γὰ? ἔγωγ' ἔτι σοὶ πείσεσθαι ὀ?ω. ]
ἄλλο δέ τοι ??έω,8 σὺ δ' ?νὶ φ?εσὶ βάλλεο σῇσι:
Il.1.295-297
How would μὴ γὰ? ἔμοιγε be translated if line 296 is athetized?
translation without an athetized line
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
- Location: Toronto
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
That makes sense; I'm just having trouble with the "gar." It seems like it would make sense If one said "give these commands to others, for you will not give them to me," but, with the imperative it seems awkward: "give these commands to others, for don't give them to me"? Why did you translate "gar" as an adversative?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
- Location: Toronto
I was trying to ignore the γά? since it would be there anyway, and I based my translations on the translations I looked up. I find the γά? here puzzling too, but I think your "for you will not give them to me" is on the right track (and even if σήμαινε were there as well). If you have "for you shall not" or "for you may not", these might be better because those modal verbs cover some of the range of the imperative. Either way, I think it's saying "go command others" because "you are not allowed to command me" (μή + imperative being a prohibition). Now I'm thinking that having γά? be adversative is inaccurate.
- IreneY
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
- Location: U.S.A (not American though)
- Contact: