pster wrote:Thanks spiphany and Nate. So where do you guys come down?
1) Are these both ὅτι? Or is either of them ὅ τι?
2) Why does the first one have a demonstrative, but not the second one?
3) Nate, I don't follow. What do you mean by "first"? You mean independent?
4) How different are they?
I see them both as ὅτι and the first one as an example of Smyth 2577.
Regarding the neut. for fem., there is a Smyth section about this but I don't remember the number.
The gist of it was that it is common to use the neut. in explanatory statements like this.
By first copula I meant the one in the dependent clause [that x is
y] is [z].
You can say ἐκ τούτων συμφανές (ἐστι) τὸ λεγόμενον ἀληθές εἶναι*. Perhaps you'll find examples
where both copulas are implicit.