Textkit Logo

Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

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: Plb. 6.3

Postby daivid » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:27 am

pster wrote:
I've tried to explain things in terms of what he says directly after this sentence. He's interested in Rome. The narration for the Greek republics is easy because their constitutional histories are clear and the effects of those constitutions, the now infamous rises and falls, are clear. For Rome, the constitution is more complex and historical record is far murkier. Collective fate? Far from it. Perhaps in some of my earlier rejected interpretations, I was saddled with that. But not with my latest proposal. What they share is they provide clear data, more a historiographical matter than a historical one. How many does Aristotle survey? About 150 city-states. And remember Polybius is writing for the folks back home who know quite about the rises and falls of those 150 having had 200 years more than Aristotle to observe and ponder.

And he's going to drop the term politeuma and take up the division into democracy, oligarchy and kingship and even expand it. So he certainly doesn't think they have collective fates. I'm still somewhat confused as to how he can talk about them having any independent futures at all given that I think it is post 146. But that is a topic for another thread.


Having taking time to ponder (time I should have taken before making the last couple of posts
-sorry), your adverbial interpretation does now seem to be correct even to me.
The one thing that bothered me about your translation was that ηὔξηται is singular which
didn't seem to fit your interpretation but actually it fits rather well.

Making the rising and falling singular in your translation gives

Of the Greek republics, so far as on the one hand (a city) has often risen to greatness and on the other hand often fallen into insignificance, it happens that the narration concerning what has come to pass and the prediction concerning what will come to pass is easy.

With often being there it implies that most of the cities have at one time or another gone through
rising and falling but there is no implication they did it on the same trajectory.

Does that sound like it is on the right track?
λονδον
User avatar
daivid
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:51 pm
Location: ὁ τοῦ βασιλέως λίθος, London, Europe

Re: Plb. 6.3

Postby pster » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:17 pm

John W. wrote:I think that the use of the definite article in τῶν μὲν γὰρ Ἑλληνικῶν πολιτευμάτων simply means 'Of all the Greek cities ...', of which he then goes on to describe a subset (όσα): it doesn't in my view indicate that the subset itself necessarily comprises all Greek cities. This is certainly the case with another Thucydidean example which I've remembered and which starts with a genitive (1.7): τῶν δὲ πόλεων ὅσαι μὲν νεώτατα ᾠκίσθησαν ... .


Marchant approvingly references Forbes; and Forbes takes up this sentence twice in Vol. II of his commentary on Book I, on p. 14 and p. 149. The whole ὅσαι clause is subordinate to the αἱ δὲ παλαιαί clause that begins four lines later.

----------------------------

AGENDA:

-Understand Forbes on Th. 1.7.

-Understand Smyth 2532 on Th. 2.96. I cannot work out the uncontracted version, nor can I explain how the preceding osa item on Th. 2.96 differs or fails to differ.
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Plb. 6.3

Postby NateD26 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:11 pm

daivid wrote:Having taking time to ponder (time I should have taken before making the last couple of posts
-sorry), your adverbial interpretation does now seem to be correct even to me.
The one thing that bothered me about your translation was that ηὔξηται is singular which
didn't seem to fit your interpretation but actually it fits rather well.

Making the rising and falling singular in your translation gives

Of the Greek republics, so far as on the one hand (a city) has often risen to greatness and on the other hand often fallen into insignificance, it happens that the narration concerning what has come to pass and the prediction concerning what will come to pass is easy.

With often being there it implies that most of the cities have at one time or another gone through
rising and falling but there is no implication they did it on the same trajectory.

Does that sound like it is on the right track?

I believe that the reason for a singular verb is the neuter plural which regularly takes a sg. verb.
But I like your explanation. :)
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby pster » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:47 pm

Looks like I'm going to be claiming that Forbes and Marchant have got Th. 1.7 wrong. Forbes just thinks he can take ὅσαι to mean "only" and get away with it?! Not while I'm around he can't! Hobbes is on the right track with his "inasmuch". More to come. ;)
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Plb. 6.3

Postby daivid » Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:34 pm

NateD26 wrote:I believe that the reason for a singular verb is the neuter plural which regularly takes a sg. verb.
But I like your explanation. :)


I do recall talk of neuter plurals but it has yet to really sink in. Thanks for putting me right.
λονδον
User avatar
daivid
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:51 pm
Location: ὁ τοῦ βασιλέως λίθος, London, Europe

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby pster » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:50 pm

First consider the English sentence:

Of his vehicles,
as many as were sportscars,
have ended up in accidents.

In Greek things are easier because there is a pronoun implicit in the verb.

OK, keep that in mind as you ponder the first half of Th. 1.7:

τῶν δὲ πόλεων
Of the cities,

ὅσαι μὲν νεώτατα ᾠκίσθησαν καὶ ἤδη πλωιμωτέρων ὄντων,
on the one hand, as many (cities) as were founded most recently {by this time there being better navigation},

περιουσίας μᾶλλον ἔχουσαι χρημάτων ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς τοῖς αἰγιαλοῖς τείχεσιν ἐκτίζοντο
(so many) {having more surplus of money} were founded with walls upon these shores themselves

καὶ τοὺς ἰσθμοὺς ἀπελάμβανον ἐμπορίας τε ἕνεκα καὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς προσοίκους ἕκαστοι ἰσχύος:
and everyone [ἕκαστοι] took up the peninsulas for the sake of commerce and strength against the neighbors:

αἱ δὲ παλαιαὶ διὰ τὴν λῃστείαν ἐπὶ πολὺ ἀντίσχουσαν ἀπὸ θαλάσσης μᾶλλον ᾠκίσθησαν,
on the other hand the oldest (cities), on account of piracy's being widespread, were founded more up from the sea,

αἵ τε ἐν ταῖς νήσοις καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἠπείροις
which were on the islands and on the mainland

(ἔφερον γὰρ ἀλλήλους τε καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσοι ὄντες οὐ θαλάσσιοι κάτω ᾤκουν),
(for they [the pirates] plundered each other and (so many) of the others, as many as not being seaman lived toward the shore)

καὶ μέχρι τοῦδε ἔτι ἀνῳκισμένοι εἰσίν.
and up till this time they remain there.

:lol:
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby pster » Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:34 am

I can't for the life of me figure out Smyth 2535:

ὅσος preceded by an Adjective.—Here the subject of the relative clause is identical with that of the main clause, and is omitted together with the copula: χρήματα ἔλαβε θαυμαστὰ ὅσα (for θαυμαστόν ἐστιν ὅσα) he received a wonderful amount of money P. Hipp. M. 282c, μετὰ ἱδρῶτος θαυμαστοῦ ὅσου (for θαυμαστόν ἐστιν μεθ' ὅσου) with an astonishing amount of sweat P. R. 350d. So θαυμασίως ὡς (for θαυμαστόν ἐστιν ὡς) P. Ph. 92a.

What does he mean by subject here? He can't really be talking about the grammatical subject of the main clause can he? I'm not sure he's even talking about nouns.

What the full form for the first? I don't understand his shorthand here. Is this what he means:

χρήματα ἔλαβε θαυμαστὰ for χρήματα ἔλαβε θαυμαστὰ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν ὅσα?

That seems odd.

I'm completely confused. Can somebody give me the full forms for these two examples?

Thanks.
Last edited by pster on Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby pster » Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:35 am

duplicate
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby NateD26 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:40 am

pster wrote:I can't for the life of me figure out Smyth 2535:

ὅσος preceded by an Adjective.—Here the subject of the relative clause is identical with that of the main clause, and is omitted together with the copula: χρήματα ἔλαβε θαυμαστὰ ὅσα (for θαυμαστόν ἐστιν ὅσα) he received a wonderful amount of money P. Hipp. M. 282c, μετὰ ἱδρῶτος θαυμαστοῦ ὅσου (for θαυμαστόν ἐστιν μεθ' ὅσου) with an astonishing amount of sweat P. R. 350d. So θαυμασίως ὡς (for θαυμαστόν ἐστιν ὡς) P. Ph. 92a.

What does he mean by subject here? He can't really be talking about the grammatical subject of the main clause can he? I'm not sure he's even talking about nouns.

What the full form for the first? I don't understand his shorthand here. Is this what he means:

χρήματα ἔλαβε θαυμαστὰ for χρήματα ἔλαβε θαυμαστὰ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν ὅσα?

That seems odd.

I'm completely confused. Can somebody give me the full forms for these two examples?

Thanks.

Strange and confusing phrasing on Smyth's part. He seems to take χρήματα as the subject
of ἔλαβε which would suggests the verb has an intransitive passive meaning, but his English translation
reads it as perfectly active.

A sum of money was received which was of wonderful amount (of money).

He inserted this section under Inverse Attraction (oblique to nom.) of 2533 but how come the sum of
money was suddenly turned to a sg. adjective in the pre-attraction sentence?
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby pster » Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:28 pm

If you check the index, he doesn't list it under Inverse Attraction there. My sense was that it was an independent section. Now that I think about it, I guess that commits me to the view that it is neither attraction nor attraction?
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby pster » Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:49 pm

It really is quite the mind bender.

-I don't think by "subject" he means grammatical subject. I think he just means substantive/noun. The second example doesn't even have a main clause subject.

-If you could figure out how you could have a singular adjective with plural noun, I could probably cook something up for the rest of it.

-I would like to read it something along the lines of "He had so much money, as much money as is wonderous." But the singular stuff blocks that.

-The fact that both examples use thaumasta is really annoying. I wonder if impersonal expressions are in play?
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby pster » Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:00 pm

Unless you can explain the arrival of singular adjectives, I am probably going to claim that Smyth is wrong here. He is wrong because his expanded versions are strange and he is wrong because his explanation is defective.

The second one expanded would be in English: with so much sweat, as much sweat as is astonishing.

Smyth's μεθ' ὅσου seems like the most bizarre moment of the entire thing.

Is there a better grammar than Smyth? Something in German maybe?
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby NateD26 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:44 pm

pster wrote:Unless you can explain the arrival of singular adjectives, I am probably going to claim that Smyth is wrong here. He is wrong because his expanded versions are strange and he is wrong because his explanation is defective.

The second one expanded would be in English: with so much sweat, as much sweat as is astonishing.

Smyth's μεθ' ὅσου seems like the most bizarre moment of the entire thing.

Is there a better grammar than Smyth? Something in German maybe?

Well, I can't go so far as to say that a defective explanation would then label it as wrong,
but your English rendering inserts an implied τοσοῦτον. Is it common to omit it?
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby pster » Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:19 pm

If you look at all my recent posts, the absence of τοσοῦτον is central to my understanding of what is going on. τοσοῦτον=so many. But it is often absent in Greek just as in English.

We can say: I gave him so many reasons not to do it, as many as I could think of.

But we can also say: I gave him reasons not to do it, as many as I could think of.

Both are perfectly good English. My controlling assumption with all of these osos expressions is that the best way to grasp what is being said is to insert a demonstrative τοσοῦτον by hand. I think Hobbes recognizes this when he employs "insofar as" in his translation of Th. 1.7. τοσοῦτον is not there in the Greek. But this is more of a method than just inserting an implied copula. Whether the τοσοῦτον is implied or not is much more complicated an issue. It's not implied as much as the copula because you can put other things there.

So: I gave him a dozen reasons, as many as I could think of.

Frankly, I just simply don't think that Forbes or Marchant fully understand the nature of osos. I don't usually think scholars have made big mistakes, but I have studied enough things to know that every year or two you actually catch them tripping up. Hobbes seems to understand it. I think LSJ probably do.

So what about Smyth? Well, I'm not sure exactly yet what to say. I was trying to build some drama by saying I think he is quite possibly wrong. I have no idea how he gets the singular involved. You and I both have studied this singular prediate with neuter plural subject. Just above you point it out to Daivid. But what Smyth is doing here seems unprecidented and rather bizarre. On the other hand, what he is doing is so bizarre that it does seem that he maybe he knows something we don't. Looking into the mist I think maybe he gets driven to some weird singular formulations because he doesn't actually understand osos. But where is he getting the singular from??

I'm really getting annoyed with this because I have already put Smyth's 2532 aside because of difficulties. There he doesn't even want to give his uncontracted version for the Thucydides quote. Maybe I'll have to open it up to a forum wide brainstorm.
Last edited by pster on Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby NateD26 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:31 pm

pster wrote:If you look at all my recent posts, the absence of τοσοῦτον is central to my understanding of what is going on. τοσοῦτον=so many. But it is often absent in Greek just as in English.

We can say: I gave him so many reasons not to do it, as many as I could think of.

But we can also say: I gave him reasons not to do it, as many as I could think of.

Both are perfectly good English. My controlling assumption with all of these osos expressions is that the best way to grasp what is being said is to insert a demonstrative τοσοῦτον by hand. I think Hobbes recognizes this when he employs "insofar" in his translation of Th. 1.7. τοσοῦτον is not there in the Greek. But this is more of a method than just inserting and implied copula. Whether the τοσοῦτον is implied or not is much more complicated an issue. It's not implied as much as the copula because you can put other things there.

So: I gave him a dozen reasons, as many as I could think of.

Interesting approach. I'll have to look at it in detail later.

pster wrote:So what about Smyth? Well, I'm not sure exactly yet what to say. I was trying to build some drama by saying I think he is quite possibly wrong. I have no idea how he gets the singular involved. You and I both have studied this singular prediate with neuter plural subject. Just above you point it out to Daivid. But what Smyth is doing here seems unprecidented and rather bizarre. On the other hand, what he is doing is so bizarre that it does seem that he maybe he knows something we don't. Looking into the mist I think maybe he gets driven to some weird singular formulations because he doesn't actually understand osos. But where is he getting the singular from??

Oh, no. I said the verb is singular but the predicate is plural just as the subject. At least that's
how I recall the rule. I may be in the wrong here. I remember asking my teacher once, "well,
how come a participle going with a neuter plural subject is plural? After all, it may be part
adjectival but it is also part verbal?" I don't think he's ever given me an answer for it. :?
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby pster » Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:37 pm

No, we are on the same page. I edited my comments. You can have plural neuter subject with a singular verb or you can have neuter plural subject with a singular copula with a plural predicate adjective/noun. But not what Smyth has in his first example.
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby pster » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:57 pm

I am going to take more time with the loose ends than I anticipated. So it may be a week before I put post my view of what is going on. In the meantime, here are some other places where one or the other of the expressions occurs, some places where commentators have seemed to assert that the expressions are interchangeable, a view I do not hold, and Dion. Hal. who uses/mentions it.

Th. 6.89, 7.71, 8.27:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.01.0199

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 3,001:7:71

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.01.0199

Smith on Th. 7.87:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... chapter=87

Marchant on Th. 7.87:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... CHAPTER=87

Dion. Hal. (use find function to locate):

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D26
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Plb. 6.3: viva ὅσα!

Postby pster » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:58 pm

Oops. Wrong thread.
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Previous

Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ariphron, Google Feedfetcher, Sofronios, Yahoo [Bot] and 42 guests