Textkit Logo

Translating the “4th class conditional”

Here's where you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Re: Translating the “4th class conditional”

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Sun Sep 09, 2012 8:45 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:I am tempted to read the second part of the second line below as a conditional statement even though the syntax isn't what you would probably find in a grammar under conditional statements.

Aesch. Agamemnon 542-543
{Χο.} τερπνῆς ἄρ' ἦστε τῆσδ' ἐπήβολοι νόσου,
{Κη.} πῶς δή; διδαχθεὶς τοῦδε δεσπόσω λόγου.

"How so? If it is explained to me, then I will understand this statement."



Nate,
I brought home Christopher Collard's translation from the library last night. He translates 543b as a conditional. "How so then? If I have it explained, I shall master your meaning."

C. Stirling Bartholomew
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Translating the “4th class conditional”

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:07 pm

The four part classification system for conditional clauses breaks down a lot. What would you do with a verbless conditional with εἰ in the protasis and no ἂν in the apodosis?

Example:

Gal. 3:18 εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας· τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός.

The protasis εἰ ... ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία is assumed to be false and is only stated so it can be shot down. The apodosis οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας leads right into a contrary statement τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός.

The unstated verb in the protasis is probably a secondary tense. But what mood is it in?

C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Translating the “4th class conditional”

Postby NateD26 » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:00 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:
NateD26 wrote: εἰ διαφευξοίμην ἤδη [ἂν] ὑμῶν οἱ ὑεῖς
ἐπιτηδεύοντες ἃ Σωκράτης διδάσκει πάντες παντάπασι διαφθαρήσονται,
...

if I survived now, all your
children would be utterly corrupted in pursuing Socrates' teaching,
...

... future optative in protasis (ἂν is
in parenthesis and is ignored by most translations) ...


Nate,

What difference would ἂν make in the translation?

CSB

What I mean is that ἂν with optative usually goes in the apodosis and even then, never a future optative.
Here we have a threat or warning and for that, εἰ + fut. ind. » fut. ind. was the preferred construction,
Dependent upon secondary tense saying/thinking verb we may find both protasis and apodosis
in fut. opt. standing for the ind. Here only the protasis had undergone such change.

That's how I read it. I'm probably mistaken in it and in my grossly inaccurate statement that ἂν is
ignored by most translations, since square brackets are read by most editors and the round ones
are often ignored.

However, I'm not sure I see a place for it in this sentence. It might go with the participle ἐπιτηδεύοντες
but as standing for what? We have two remote possibilities: unreal indicative which does not
fit with the factual nature of the apodosis; or potential optative which I'm struggling to find any
sense in it.

A third possibility is the iterative past (impf. + ἂν) which might make the most sense here
and in this reading, I take ἤδη with the meaning already:

...telling you that if I survived (i.e if I'm acquitted), all your children would be
utterly corrupted as they were already wont to pursue Socrates' teaching.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Translating the “4th class conditional”

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:26 pm

NateD26 wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:
NateD26 wrote: εἰ διαφευξοίμην ἤδη [ἂν] ὑμῶν οἱ ὑεῖς
ἐπιτηδεύοντες ἃ Σωκράτης διδάσκει πάντες παντάπασι διαφθαρήσονται,
...

if I survived now, all your
children would be utterly corrupted in pursuing Socrates' teaching,
...

... future optative in protasis (ἂν is
in parenthesis and is ignored by most translations) ...


Nate,

What difference would ἂν make in the translation?

CSB

What I mean is that ἂν with optative usually goes in the apodosis and even then, never a future optative.
Here we have a threat or warning and for that, εἰ + fut. ind. » fut. ind. was the preferred construction,
Dependent upon secondary tense saying/thinking verb we may find both protasis and apodosis
in fut. opt. standing for the ind. Here only the protasis had undergone such change.

That's how I read it. I'm probably mistaken in it and in my grossly inaccurate statement that ἂν is
ignored by most translations, since square brackets are read by most editors and the round ones
are often ignored.

However, I'm not sure I see a place for it in this sentence. It might go with the participle ἐπιτηδεύοντες
but as standing for what? We have two remote possibilities: unreal indicative which does not
fit with the factual nature of the apodosis; or potential optative which I'm struggling to find any
sense in it.

A third possibility is the iterative past (impf. + ἂν) which might make the most sense here
and in this reading, I take ἤδη with the meaning already:

...telling you that if I survived (i.e if I'm acquitted), all your children would be
utterly corrupted as they were already wont to pursue Socrates' teaching.


Nate,

Goodwin appears to take it with the future (did you already cite this?)

197
The use of ἄν with the future indicative in Attic Greek is absolutely denied by many critics, and the more careful revision of the texts has greatly diminished the number of examples cited in support of it. Still, in several passages, even of the best prose, we must either emend the text against the Mss., or admit the construction as a rare exception. E.g. Αἰγυπτίους δὲ οὐχ ὁρῶ ποίᾳ δυνάμει συμμάχῳ χρησάμενοι μᾶλλον ἂν κολάσεσθε τῆς νῦν σὺν ἐμοὶ οὔσης. XEN. An. ii. 5. 13 Ἔφη οὖν τὸν ἐρωτώμενον εἰπεῖν, οὐχ ἥκει, φάναι, οὐδ’ ἂν ἥξει δεῦρο, he said that the one who was asked replied, He hasn’t come, and he won’t come this way. PLAT. Rep. 615D. (The only other reading is ἥξοι. The colloquial style here makes ἄν less objectionable; see SOPH. Ant. 390, quoted crossin 208.) Ἔφη λέγων πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὡς, εἰ διαφευξοίμην, ἤδη ἂν ὑμῶν οἱ υἱεῖς πάντες παντάπασι διαφθαρήσονται. Id. Ap. 29C. Κἂν ἔτ’ ἔτι φόνιον ὄψομαι αἷμα (so the Mss.). EUR. El. 484.


For me, Plato is terra incognita and also the optative which is almost dead in Koine. I am just stumbling along in Attic, not getting too upset if something doesn't seem to make sense. I used to get obsessed with finding it explained in a grammar but having discovered that Grammarians are often more difficult to understand than the text itself, I have taken a kind of relaxed attitude toward syntax. I just observe what the author appears to be doing and don't sweat too much if it breaks some rule, most of the rules I have forgotten if I ever knew them.


C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Translating the “4th class conditional”

Postby NateD26 » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:49 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate,

Goodwin appears to take it with the future (did you already cite this?)
197
The use of ἄν with the future indicative in Attic Greek is absolutely denied by many critics, and the more careful revision of the texts has greatly diminished the number of examples cited in support of it. Still, in several passages, even of the best prose, we must either emend the text against the Mss., or admit the construction as a rare exception. E.g. Αἰγυπτίους δὲ οὐχ ὁρῶ ποίᾳ δυνάμει συμμάχῳ χρησάμενοι μᾶλλον ἂν κολάσεσθε τῆς νῦν σὺν ἐμοὶ οὔσης. XEN. An. ii. 5. 13 Ἔφη οὖν τὸν ἐρωτώμενον εἰπεῖν, οὐχ ἥκει, φάναι, οὐδ’ ἂν ἥξει δεῦρο, he said that the one who was asked replied, He hasn’t come, and he won’t come this way. PLAT. Rep. 615D. (The only other reading is ἥξοι. The colloquial style here makes ἄν less objectionable; see SOPH. Ant. 390, quoted crossin 208.) Ἔφη λέγων πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὡς, εἰ διαφευξοίμην, ἤδη ἂν ὑμῶν οἱ υἱεῖς πάντες παντάπασι διαφθαρήσονται. Id. Ap. 29C. Κἂν ἔτ’ ἔτι φόνιον ὄψομαι αἷμα (so the Mss.). EUR. El. 484.



For me, Plato is terra incognita and also the optative which is almost dead in Koine. I am just stumbling along in Attic, not getting too upset if something doesn't seem to make sense. I used to get obsessed with finding it explained in a grammar but having discovered that Grammarians are often more difficult to understand than the text itself, I have taken a kind of relaxed attitude toward syntax. I just observe what the author appears to be doing and don't sweat too much if it breaks some rule, most of the rules I have forgotten if I ever knew them.


C. Stirling Bartholomew

I haven't cited this option because I was not familiar with it, and unfortunately, I do not have
Goodwin's Syntax. Thanks for typing the relevant section in here. I'm sure it's a tedious job.
W.S. Tyler (1887) agrees with Goodwin' reading of ἄν with fut. ind. here (section 29, C 11).

I agree with you that being sticklers for Grammar would not get us very far.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Translating the “4th class conditional”

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:00 pm

I haven't cited this option because I was not familiar with it, and unfortunately, I do not have
Goodwin's Syntax. Thanks for typing the relevant section in here. I'm sure it's a tedious job.
W.S. Tyler (1887) agrees with Goodwin' reading of ἄν with fut. ind. here (section 29, C 11).


Nate,
I didn't type it. Cut and pasted it from Perseus. I found it by doing search on the text.

CSB
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Translating the “4th class conditional”

Postby NateD26 » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:18 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:
Nate wrote:I haven't cited this option because I was not familiar with it, and unfortunately, I do not have
Goodwin's Syntax. Thanks for typing the relevant section in here. I'm sure it's a tedious job.
W.S. Tyler (1887) agrees with Goodwin' reading of ἄν with fut. ind. here (section 29, C 11).


Nate,
I didn't type it. Cut and pasted it from Perseus. I found it by doing search on the text.

CSB

Cool! I had no idea this was on Perseus. :!:

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The four part classification system for conditional clauses breaks down a lot. What would you do with a verbless conditional with εἰ in the protasis and no ἂν in the apodosis?

Example:

Gal. 3:18 εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας· τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός.

The protasis εἰ ... ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία is assumed to be false and is only stated so it can be shot down. The apodosis οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας leads right into a contrary statement τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός.

The unstated verb in the protasis is probably a secondary tense. But what mood is it in?

C. Stirling Bartholomew

So many various translations here. Not sure in what mood the unstated verb could be,
but it is probably a copula or similarly functioning verb like γίγνομαι.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Translating the “4th class conditional”

Postby NateD26 » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:49 pm

NateD26 wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The four part classification system for conditional clauses breaks down a lot. What would you do with a verbless conditional with εἰ in the protasis and no ἂν in the apodosis?

Example:

Gal. 3:18 εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας· τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός.

The protasis εἰ ... ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία is assumed to be false and is only stated so it can be shot down. The apodosis οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας leads right into a contrary statement τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός.

The unstated verb in the protasis is probably a secondary tense. But what mood is it in?

C. Stirling Bartholomew

So many various translations here. Not sure in what mood the unstated verb could be,
but it is probably a copula or similarly functioning verb like γίγνομαι.

Have you decided on a mood for this unstated verb (most likely a copula) yet?
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Translating the “4th class conditional”

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:25 am

NateD26 wrote:
NateD26 wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:

Gal. 3:18 εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας· τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός.

The protasis εἰ ... ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία is assumed to be false and is only stated so it can be shot down. The apodosis οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας leads right into a contrary statement τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός.

The unstated verb in the protasis is probably a secondary tense. But what mood is it in?

C. Stirling Bartholomew

So many various translations here. Not sure in what mood the unstated verb could be,
but it is probably a copula or similarly functioning verb like γίγνομαι.

Have you decided on a mood for this unstated verb (most likely a copula) yet?


Nate,

I ran it by the b-greek forum in the NT department. The prototypical contrary to fact conditional (Smyth #2292) has εἰ + Indicative in the protasis and ἂν + Indicative in the apodosis which is followed by a contrary statement with ἀλλά or δὲ. So this one isn't a perfect example.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Translating the “4th class conditional”

Postby NateD26 » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:14 am

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:
NateD26 wrote:Have you decided on a mood for this unstated verb (most likely a copula) yet?


Nate,

I ran it by the b-greek forum in the NT department. The prototypical contrary to fact conditional (Smyth #2292) has εἰ + Indicative in the protasis and ἂν + Indicative in the apodosis which is followed by a contrary statement with ἀλλά or δὲ. So this one isn't a perfect example.

That's how I thought of it too. A contra-factual supposition in the protasis and a conclusion in the
apodosis without ἂν. Usually though, such conditions have two events that one (apodosis) is a consequence (unattained, impossible, etc.) of the other (protasis). Here we seem to have one event in both, but disagreeing on its origin:
if it were x, than it can no longer be y. and yet we have an example of it being y.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Previous

Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jeidsath, MSNbot Media and 37 guests

cron