H & Q Unit 8 Greek to English
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
- Location: Jakarta
H & Q Unit 8 Greek to English
I’m having trouble with this sentence from H & Q Unit 8, I.13:
ἀρετή τοι τὸ πᾶσαν χώραν σῷζον, ὦ γέρον.
ἀρετή nominative feminine singular = virtue
τὸ σῷζον neuter singular article and present participle (presumably accusative since we already have a nominative feminine) = saving
πᾶσαν χώραν accusative feminine singular and adjective, presumably object of σῷζον = the whole country
ὦ γέρον vocative masculine singular.
I just can’t put it all together as a sentence.
ἀρετή τοι τὸ πᾶσαν χώραν σῷζον, ὦ γέρον.
ἀρετή nominative feminine singular = virtue
τὸ σῷζον neuter singular article and present participle (presumably accusative since we already have a nominative feminine) = saving
πᾶσαν χώραν accusative feminine singular and adjective, presumably object of σῷζον = the whole country
ὦ γέρον vocative masculine singular.
I just can’t put it all together as a sentence.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
- Location: Seoul
- Contact:
Re: H & Q Unit 8 Greek to English
Yes. But it can also be a nominative. Two nominatives(one as the subject, and the other a complement) can make a sentence. With "to be" abbreviated.bingley wrote: τὸ σῷζον neuter singular article and present participle (presumably accusative since we already have a nominative feminine) = saving
My guess is:
O old man, as you know, it is a virtue to save the whole country.
(anyway, beware, I'm a novice in Greek myself )
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
- Location: Seoul
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: Belgium
It could be "Virtue is what saves the country" (or something in real English). Yes, a complement should not have an article, and a subject could, but here article with the participle is the only way to say "the thing that saves the country", and when the complement is the very same thing as the subject, the article is possible before the complement.
χαίρετε
χαίρετε
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
- Location: Jakarta
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
- Location: London
the article + infinitive is translated as '(the) saving (of something)'. It doesn't work that well in English, but what you're doing is substantivating the verb, for example 'Reading is good'.
and article + participle can always be translated with a relative clause, so 'something, which saves' or 'he, who saves', depending on the case of the participle (and its article). In this case it's not the act itself.
and article + participle can always be translated with a relative clause, so 'something, which saves' or 'he, who saves', depending on the case of the participle (and its article). In this case it's not the act itself.
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
- Location: London
the translations would be:bingley wrote:Ok, if it means something like: old man, saving the whole (of one's) country is a virtuous act, you know, what would be the difference between:
ἀρετή τοι τὸ πᾶσαν χώραν σῷζον, ὦ γέρον
and
ἀρετή τοι τὸ σῴζειν πᾶσαν χώραν, ὦ γέρον
old man, verily that, which saves the whole country, is virtue.
and the second sentence needs to be changed a little to make sense (whole country in genitive case for example)
old man, verily the saving of the whole country is virtue.
That's bad English, I know, but I hope you know what I mean.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
- Location: Seoul
- Contact:
Ah, that's very enlightening! Thanks!Emma_85 wrote:the article + infinitive is translated as '(the) saving (of something)'. It doesn't work that well in English, but what you're doing is substantivating the verb, for example 'Reading is good'.
and article + participle can always be translated with a relative clause, so 'something, which saves' or 'he, who saves', depending on the case of the participle (and its article). In this case it's not the act itself.
In english it was not very clear. Both infinitive and participle(was it gerund?) could be used to denote the act itself. And there's gerund to add confusion. hehehe.
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
- Location: London
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
- Location: Seoul
- Contact:
Korean is confusing, too, when it comes to translating the participles and gerunds and infinitives, and moreover, relative pronouns, etc. You have to break up the sentences connected with those grammatical elements to make it sound like a natural Korean.
The grammatical structure is quite different. That must be another reason I feel the difficulty about them. I can say I wouldn't be able to translate more than half of my own posts into Korean. I think in English when I write in English, and when writing in Korean, in Korean. (I'm gonna develop a new mode of thinking; in Greek).
The modern Korean lacks many features that would make the use of it more flexible. The long tradition of scholars using Classical Chinese in academic works left their mother tongue almost a vulgar language. It's a great shame, indeed. I vaguely hope we could change the future, though.
The grammatical structure is quite different. That must be another reason I feel the difficulty about them. I can say I wouldn't be able to translate more than half of my own posts into Korean. I think in English when I write in English, and when writing in Korean, in Korean. (I'm gonna develop a new mode of thinking; in Greek).
The modern Korean lacks many features that would make the use of it more flexible. The long tradition of scholars using Classical Chinese in academic works left their mother tongue almost a vulgar language. It's a great shame, indeed. I vaguely hope we could change the future, though.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
- Location: Jakarta
The Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek, which I've just bought, gives in its explanation of the articular infinitive (pg 124):Emma_85 wrote:the translations would be:bingley wrote:Ok, if it means something like: old man, saving the whole (of one's) country is a virtuous act, you know, what would be the difference between:
ἀρετή τοι τὸ πᾶσαν χώραν σῷζον, ὦ γέρον
and
ἀρετή τοι τὸ σῴζειν πᾶσαν χώραν, ὦ γέρον
old man, verily that, which saves the whole country, is virtue.
and the second sentence needs to be changed a little to make sense (whole country in genitive case for example)
old man, verily the saving of the whole country is virtue.
That's bad English, I know, but I hope you know what I mean.
to| tou=to pra/ttein
glossed as 'accomplishing this', which would seem to indicate that an articular infinitive can take an object in the accusative. Is this wrong?
However, I think I see the difference you're making. With the article + participle whatever saves the country is a virtue, while with the article + infiniteve it is the actual saving of the country which is a virtue. Is that right?
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
- Location: London
No, it's not wrong, but anything belonging to the substantivated infinitive should be between the article and the infinitive. If you 'do something', then 'something' is in the accusative, so it would be correct if the 'whole country' were between the article and the infinitive, but in your example it is outside, so there you would need a genitive, as the infinitive no longer acts as a verb then, but as a noun.to| tou=to pra/ttein
glossed as 'accomplishing this', which would seem to indicate that an articular infinitive can take an object in the accusative. Is this wrong?
At least I hope this is correct, my grammar says nothing on the subject...
yep!However, I think I see the difference you're making. With the article + participle whatever saves the country is a virtue, while with the article + infiniteve it is the actual saving of the country which is a virtue. Is that right?