Paul Derouda wrote:I have nothing to back this up. Just "a feeling".
I suppose οὗτος γὰρ ἐμὸς φίλος ἐκ νέου ἦν is possible, and would mean "he was a friend of mine since youth", but Socrates (I guess this is from the Apology) wants to be more definite, "he was my friend since youth", i.e. I think the article emphasises the idea that there was a special relationship between S. and Kh., that it wasn't just a random vague acquintance. (or something like that, I didn't look it up).
As for the second part of the question, certainly οὗτος ὁ ἐμὸς φίλος can be used as a noun phrase of its own, but why would you expect that here?
jaihare wrote:Question: Why is the PN definite? Shouldn't we expect it to be indefinite.
daivid wrote:jaihare wrote:Question: Why is the PN definite? Shouldn't we expect it to be indefinite.
This probably just shows my lack of experience with Greek but I would be very surprised to not to see a definite construction here. οὗτος here refers back to Χαιρεφῶν so why would it be the specific already mentioned this. Of course English only allows one determiner so you never have this+the but this is not a rule Ancient Greek respects.
jaihare wrote:Oh, of course οὗτος is accompanied by the article ("in the predicate position"), but the issue is that οὗτος is functioning as the subject and ὁ ἐμὸς φίλος is the predicate nominative. When it comes to definiteness, I would have expected the subject to be definite (as οὗτος is by nature), and if the PN is definite, it would be unmarked for definiteness when placed before the verb. Maybe I'm just wrong about that.
When used as an adjective, it has the article as well (not translated) but is not sandwiched:
οὗτος ὁ δοῦλος
On the top of page 8 Taylor writes
οὗτος ὁ δοῦλος
Now Taylor avoids using the terms attributive and predicate and as I have learnt using Taylor I am a little unclear how correctly to use those terms but isn't Taylor saying that even though it looks like it is being used as a predicate (not sandwiched) it is nevertheless being used as an attributive?
That in the following text Taylor seems to follow that is not very surprising.
(The stress in the quote simply follows what Taylor wrote)
mwh wrote:The sentence is evidently meant to mean "You all heard about Chairephon (typo in Greek, shd be Χαιρεφῶντος). This man was my friend from youth."
i.e.. ουτος is the subject, ο εμος φιλος predicate.
(In different context ουτος ο εμος φιλος could be taken together as subject, "this my friend", "this friend of mine," but that wouldn't make much sense here.)
Predicates normally do not have the definite article.
But occasionally they do.
Why? Because ἐμὸς φίλος (without article) would scarcely be Greek. To say "a friend of mine" you'd say φίλος μου (or φίλος ἐμοῦ, a friend of mine), i.e. you wouldn't use the possessive adj. ἐμός but the personal pronoun (genitive of ἐγώ). ὁ ἐμός is strongly possessive, mine (maybe no-one else's, but mine). Whether the book actually intends this I don't know (I haven't seen the book); I suspect not.
You could say either
ουτος γαρ ο εμος φιλος εκ νεου ην ("For he was my friend …")
ουτος γαρ φιλος μου εκ νεου ην ("For he was a friend of mine …", or "he was my friend").
I hope this helps more than it confuses!
jaihare wrote:In exercise 7.40, the final sentence reads:
10. ὁ δεσπότης νῦν ἄπεστιν. ὥστε οἱ δοῦλοι πάντα τὸν οἶνον πίνουσιν.
In such a case, what is the difference between saying ὥστε... and just using οὖν?
οἱ οὖν δοῦλοι πάντα τὸν οἶνον πίνουσιν.
ὁ δεσπότης νῦν ἄπεστιν. διὰ τοῦτο, οἱ δοῦλοι πάντα τὸν οἶνον πίνουσιν.
τοῦ δεσπότου νῦν ἀπόντος, οἱ δοῦλοι πάντα τὸν οἶνον πίνουσιν.
οἱ δοῦλοι πάντα τὸν οἶνον πίνουσιν. ὁ γὰρ δεσπότης νῦν ἄπεστιν.
οἱ δοῦλοι πάντα τὸν οἶνον πίνουσιν διότι ὁ δεσπότης νῦν ἄπεστιν.
διὰ τὸ ἀπεῖναι τὸν δεσπότην, οἱ δοῦλοι πάντα τὸν οἶνον πίνουσιν.
ὁ δεσπότης νῦν ἄπεστιν. ὥστε οἱ δοῦλοι πάντα τὸν οἶνον πίνουσιν.
ὁ δεσπότης νῦν ἄπεστιν. οἱ οὖν δοῦλοι πάντα τὸν οἶνον πίνουσιν.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests