Qimmik wrote:"έχοντες is grammatically subordinate to λαθόντες"
Isn't it the other way around? ". . . they held the hill, having eluded our scouts . . . "
Qimmik wrote:men/de sets up a contrast between two things going on the same time. Daos men was setting out at dawn; on the very same day de that he was setting sail, the barbarians were [staying] on the hill-top which they had seized (aorist particple). As Smyth notes, the imperfect puts the listener in the midst of the events as they were taking place. It's a more vivid, breathless way of telling the story.
Qimmik wrote:I don't think you should twist yourself in knots trying to make real Greek conform to the black-and-white grammar book rule that the aorist denotes completed actions while the imperfect denotes actions that are in process. Verbal aspects is a very subtle feature of all languages--at least all that I've studied. Ancient Greek sees things somewhat differently from English; the Greek aorist doesn't always map perfectly onto the simple English preterite and the imperfect doesn't always map perfectly onto the English progressive past. The meaning here is clear--I would suggest that you just notice how the Greek expresses it and note the difference from English.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], markscala and 42 guests