jeidsath wrote:@mwh I will fix a couple of the errors that I see in light of your revision:
ὄναρ εἶδον· ἔδοξέν μοι ἐν χώρᾳ ἐνοικοῦντα τὰ τέσσαρα παιδία μου κριθήσεσθαι μᾶλλον τῇ ψυχᾷ ἑαυτοῦ ἤ τὸ γένος.
And to take your suggestion for a couple of nouns as well, and add "ᾗ":
ὄναρ εἶδον· ἔδοξέν μοι ἐν τῇ πατρίδι ἐνοικοῦντα τὰ τέσσαρα παιδία μου ᾗ κριθήσεσθαι μᾶλλον τῇ ἤθει ἑαυτοῦ ἤ τῷ γένει.
EDIT, also word order plus a καὶ. I don't really have a justification for this change:
ὄναρ εἶδον· ἔδοξέν μοι τὰ τέσσαρα παιδία μου ἐν τῇ ἐνοικοῦντα πατρίδι καὶ ᾗ κριθήσεσθαι μᾶλλον τῇ ἤθει ἑαυτοῦ ἤ τῷ γένει.
Getting there. And your μαλλον … η and the datives work just fine. But you don’t really have a construction here. εδοξεν needs an infinitive, which you no longer have once you add ᾗ, since that introduces a relative clause, which needs a finite verb.
And I'm afraid your edit is for the worse:
ἐν τῇ ἐνοικοῦντα πατρίδι is impossible word order: the participle has to stand outside of εν τη πατριδι.
And dump that καί! which is meant to be doing what?
Make ενοικουντα an infinitive (ενοικεῖν) and κριθησεσθαι an indicative (κριθήσονται) and you have a sentence.
But ἑαυτοῦ “his own” shd be plural, and better just αὐτῶν (“their”: no need for reflexive form) or absent.
That will then mean “It seemed to me that my four children were living in their country where they would be judged rather by their character than by their race.”
Which is not quite right but fairly close.
Markos wrote:
If you wanted to get Homeric
Iliad 2:80-81: εἰ μέν τις τὸν ὄνειρον Ἀχαιῶν ἄλλος ἔνισπε
ψεῦδός κεν φαῖμεν καὶ νοσφιζοίμεθα μᾶλλον:
you could go with τὸν ὄνειρον ἐννέπω· King not only had the dream but is relating it.
But (1) he doesn’t say he’s relating it, only that he has it, and (2) τὸν ὄνειρον ἐννέπω is neither prose nor verse.
Markos wrote:
I strongly believe that, more often than not, choices like these are driven by euphony, even in prose. But I'm not sure to what extent you can spell out these euphonic rules.
Belief is worthless without evidence. And our own subjective aesthetic criteria do not coincide with theirs.
We have various means of access to euphonic principles operative in ancient Greek (and Latin) prose: the texts themselves (esp. oratory); ancient treatises on the subject (incl. Herculaneum texts); and modern study of ancient prose rhythm and stylistics (esp. Blass’s Der antike Prosarhythmus). This is the evidence that can and should inform our sense of what sounds good and what doesn’t.
I strongly believe that you routinely and unwarrantably privilege “euphony” over “semantics” (a somewhat unreal opposition in any case). Of course there are euphonic factors in artistic prose (Kunstprosa). These largely concern rhythm and prosodic continuity, as I indicated. But they never trump semantics.