JWW exercises, paragraphs 616, 617, 618

[Koala]

answer suggestions for ex's in lesson LXVI

616
1. He led twenty horsemen, and coming forward asked where he might see the generals
2. On the fourth day I/they fled into the stronghold
3. And a reward (of) more than three minas was owed to the soldiers
4. For if we (at) once withdrew/distanced-ourselves two or three days’ journey, the enemy will not follow us
5. Indeed in such a manner did five generals, having been beheaded, end their lives
6. And he drives on three days journey, twenty two parasangs to the river Meander, the width of which (this) was two plethra
7. And Clearchus the Lacedaemonian exile came with (having) a thousand hoplites, (and) eight hundred Thracian peltasts and two hundred Cretan bowmen.
8. They remained in this place ten days, and an inspection and count (number) was made, and there were eight thousand six hundred (men)
9. There the soldiers first ate the crown (cabbage) of the palm tree
10. Therefore I shall choose you, and never shall anybody say that I preferred the friendship of the Persians

617
[face=SPIonic]a. to\ stra/teuma a0ph/|thse to\n Ku=ron tetta/rwn mhnw~n misqo/n.
b. h]san au0tw~| e0n tw|~ stra/teumati i9ppei=j plei/ouj h2 tettara/konta
g. parh=n de\ kai\ strathgo\j a1lloj e0pi\ tw~n new~n kai\ o9pli=tai e9ptako/sioi.
e. tw|~ basilei= e0le/geto ei]nai i9ppei=j e9cakisxi/lioi
d. e0nteu=qen e0ch/lase staqmou\j trei=j parasa/ggaj pentekai/deka e0pi\ to\n Eu0fra/thn potamo/n, ou[ h]n to\ eu]roj te/ttara sta/dia[/face]

618
Then indeed a count of those under arms was found to be: in the Greek army (there were) ten thousand four hundred shield (bearers), peltasts – two thousand five hundred, of the barbarians (native troops) with Cyrus – a hundred thousand, and about a hundred scythed chariots. Of the enemy there was said to be one million, two hundred thousand men and two hundred scythed chariots. There were besides, six thousand horse, which Artagerses led/commanded – these moreover were drawn up in defence of the King himself. There were four rulers of the King’s army, both generals and leaders, each with three hundred thousand men.

[face=SPIonic]peri\ Ku/rou e0pe/gnwj a2n to/de[/face]
bon capitaine, bons soldats

[Skylax]

616

4. Once more, I am not sure that I understand the English correctly. First, it is « if once » ; [face=SPIonic]a)pe/xw[/face] intransitive here means « be away » ; [face=SPIonic]h)/n[/face] with a subjunctive here implies a future situation, thus basically « if once we will be away a journey of two or three days ». How do you say that in English ?

8. add « under arms »

617
b. [face=SPIonic]strateu/mati[/face] accent on the antepenult
g . « with 7000 hoplits » : translate better as « having… » (see 616, 7)
e. You are in the middle between two constructions : if [face=SPIonic]i(ppei=j[/face] is in the nominative, then the verb must be in the plural [face=SPIonic]e)le/gonto[/face] ; if in turn you wish to retain [face=SPIonic]e)le/geto[/face], then it will be followed by an infinitive clause [face=SPIonic]ei)=nai i(ppe/aj e(cakisxili/ouj[/face]


618 – ok (note : in Greek, the construction of the sentence with [face=SPIonic]a)riqmo\s e)ge/neto[/face]… is still unclear to me)

This month's quotation :
[face=SPIonic]polla\ piw\n kai\ polla\ fagw\n kai\ polla\ ka/k' ei)pw\n
a)nqrw/pouj kei=mai Timokre/wn (Ro/dioj[/face]

[Koala]

Thank you again Skylax!

but, I'm not sure if I follow the reasoning on 617.4

what I was trying to say was:

it is said (that) to the king there was 6000 cavalrymen
i.e. - the king was said to have 6000 c...

was this not correct?

or perhaps its just my addled brain

With many thanks

[Skylax]

it is said (that) to the king there was 6000 cavalrymen
i.e. - the king was said to have 6000 c...

Yes, in Greek there are two ways to say that :
- the more frequent way : [face=SPIonic]ippei=j[/face] will be in the nominative as the subject of [face=SPIonic]e)le/gonto[/face] that will thus be in the plural (You did it but you left the verb in the singular),

- another possible way : [face=SPIonic]e)le/geto[/face] is impersonal and remains in the singular, as you wrote, but then you have to construct a substantive clause that will be object of [face=SPIonic]e)le/geto[/face]. Then you have to put "cavalrymen" in the accusative [face=SPIonic]i(ppe/aj[/face], this time as a subject of the sole [face=SPIonic]ei)=nai[/face]

Did I miss something ?
XAIPE

[Koala]

Ahh .. the light dawns ever so dimly..

I baulked at putting 'hippeis' in the accusative since it was in opposition to 'einai', BUT I now see that the infin + accus contruction requires it

Merci beaucoup

[Skylax]

You are welcome (or "Mais de rien, voyons !")

I seems to me that the grammars by Germanic authors don't give a clear idea of this construction as they tend to consider separately the accusative and the infinitive. If we could call it "infinitive clause" and consider it as a real subordinate clause, it could maybe help.

Are they reluctant to speak of "subject in the accusative" ?

[Koala]

Ah oui - I'm not sure about nos amis les Allemands, but nous, nous avons une horreur de mettre the subject in the accusative

Merci bien