I'm also confused as to where the neuter τοῦτο comes from. From the context, it seems we have a masculine subject. ὁ λόγος really seems to be our original subject. Then we switch to a part of it, it is true. But does that then allow us to just switch to neuter?
I don't like this partitive very much.
Qimmick wrote:ὅσον doesn't have the same gender as αὐτοῦ; it's not the same as αὐτοῦ, it's a part of αὐτοῦ. ὅσον is neuter and correlative with neuter τοῦτο because it refers to an abstract quantity or amount or partial extent of the λόγος, not to the λόγος itself.
In the second example, oson is being used idiomatically to strengthen the superlative. When that happens, a form of dunamai has to be added. See Smyth 1086-1091, especially 1087. Moreover, this actually looks like an adverbial usage of oson, in which case a partitive is out of the question.
In the first example, oson is not a part of the lifetime/age/years. The genitive here is a rather bland genitive of quality. We are arriving at a point. Yes, it is a point in a lifetime, but that point is abstract and not a part of the whole. Socrates is talking about the youth's being at a certain point in his lifetime. He is not talking about some measureable part of the youth's lifetime/age/years. This I would argue frees up and indeed probably requires oson to be neuter since the point is indeed abstract (not having been explicitly stated other than through the pronoun oson).
This I would argue frees up and indeed probably requires oson to be neuter since the point is indeed abstract (not having been explicitly stated other than through the pronoun oson).
Qimmik wrote:In the second example, oson is being used idiomatically to strengthen the superlative. When that happens, a form of dunamai has to be added. See Smyth 1086-1091, especially 1087. Moreover, this actually looks like an adverbial usage of oson, in which case a partitive is out of the question.
This seems to refer to the first example. There's no superlative; there's no form of the verb dunamai: δυνάμεως is the genitive of the noun dunamis, and depends on ὅσον. ὅσον is the subject of ἐστιν. "as much ability as I have".
Qimmik wrote:In the first example, oson is not a part of the lifetime/age/years. The genitive here is a rather bland genitive of quality. We are arriving at a point. Yes, it is a point in a lifetime, but that point is abstract and not a part of the whole. Socrates is talking about the youth's being at a certain point in his lifetime. He is not talking about some measureable part of the youth's lifetime/age/years. This I would argue frees up and indeed probably requires oson to be neuter since the point is indeed abstract (not having been explicitly stated other than through the pronoun oson).
Call it what you will, but ἡλικίας is a genitive depending on neuter ὅσον. He didn't write εἰς ὅσην ἡλικίαν, but he could have.
Qimmik wrote:This I would argue frees up and indeed probably requires oson to be neuter since the point is indeed abstract (not having been explicitly stated other than through the pronoun oson).
Not sure I see the distinction you're drawing here, but why isn't this true of ὅσον ... αὐτοῦ in the passage from Polybius?
Qimmik wrote:
I don't mean to be argumentative, either--I'm trying to be helpful--but I think you're needlessly torturing yourself to find an abstruse explanation for a construction that seems perfectly transparent.
Users browsing this forum: danbek and 85 guests