I came across some tricky passages of a work by Dion Chrysostomos. The text is part of a school book I use and there it says that it is taken from D. Chr. IX 14-16 and the authors may have changed some passages...
[face=SPIonic]Dioge/nhj de\ ble/pwn a)/ndra tina\ e)k tou= stadi/ou badi/zonta meta\ mollw=n e(tai/rwn kai\ mhde\ e)pibai/nonta th=j gh=j, a)lla\ fero/menon u(po\ tou= o)/xlou, tou\j de\ a)kolouqou=ntaj kai\ bow=ntaj, a)/llouj de/ tinaj phdw=ntaj u(po\ xara=j kai\ ta\j xei=raj ai)/rontaj pro\j to\\n ou)rano/n, tou\j de\ e)piba/llontaj tw=| a)ndri\ stefa/nouj, h)rw/thse, ti/j e)stin o( qo/ruboj kai\ ti/ e)ge/neto.
(O de\ e)/fh: Nikw=men, Dio/genej, tw=n a)ndrw=n to\ sta/dion.
I've problems with the bold parts:
1. I'm not too sure what to do with "...ti/ e)ge/neto." Does it mean something like "how did the noise arise"? But I've always thought "ti/" just meant "what"...
2. I'm a bit confused about the genitive plural "tw=n a)ndrw=n". Is it an objective of the verb nikaw? But in this case I would have expected an accusative case...
I hope someone can help me
Thanks in advance