Most frustrating. I had a reply almost ready but I wanted to check one more thing. When I tried to get back to my reply, all it said was; "No reply mode specified." I don't know what I did not specify but my reply was gone. So here I go again:
Iâ€™ll try to explain or give examples of how I understand some of the different datives.
Maybe I have some misconceptions that are causing my confusion.
Dative of possession
. á½„Î½Î¿Î¼Î± Î±á½Ï„á¿· Î Î±á¿¦Î»Î¿Ï‚ á¼ÏƒÏ„á½·Î½. I consider this a dative of possession. I think it has the same meaning as á½„Î½Î¿Î¼Î± Î±á½Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î Î±á¿¦Î»Î¿Ï‚ á¼ÏƒÏ„á½·Î½.
Dative of (dis)advantage
. Iliad 1:4 and 5. â€¦Î±á½Ï„Î¿á½ºÏ‚ Î´á½² á¼‘Î»á½½ÏÎ¹Î± Ï„Îµá¿¦Ï‡Îµ Îºá½»Î½ÎµÏƒÏƒÎ¹Î½ Î¿á¼°Ï‰Î½Î¿á¿–Ïƒá½· Ï„Îµ Ï€á¾¶ÏƒÎ¹. â€¦but prepared their bodies as prey for (to the advantage of) dogs and birds.
Dative of reference
. I canâ€™t think of an example from Homer right now. Here is one from Luke 18:31. â€¦.Ï€á½±Î½Ï„Î± Ï„á½° Î³ÎµÎ³ÏÎ±Î¼Î¼á½³Î½Î± Î´Î¹á½° Ï„á¿¶Î½ Ï€ÏÎ¿Ï†Î·Ï„á¿¶Î½ Ï„á¿· Ï…á¼±á¿· Ï„Î¿á¿¦ á¼€Î½Î¸Ïá½½Ï€Î¿Ï…. â€¦all the things written by the prophets with reference to the Son of man.
. This is quite common in Dutch and German. I donâ€™t know if you know Dutch and I donâ€™t know German well enough anymore to give a German example. (Here is a Dutch one anyway.) Begin me
nu niet the huilen. â€˜Meâ€™ is in the objective case because Dutch does not have a dative. Translated this would mean something like; Donâ€™t start crying on me
now. I am not the one doing the crying but I sure indicate that the otherâ€™s crying affects me.
I view Î¿á¼± in 3:195 the same as in 1:104. The weapons simply belong to Odysseus and the eyes simply belong to Agamemnon. If line 1:104 was written from the view point of Kalchas, something like â€œ..á½„ÏƒÏƒÎµ Î´á½³ Î¼Î¿Î¹ Ï€Ï…Ïá½¶ Î»Î±Î¼Ï€ÎµÏ„á½¹Ï‰Î½Ï„Î¹ á¼á¿“ÎºÏ„Î·Î½.â€ then I would see it as an ethical dative. â€œâ€¦.his eyes to me are like burning fire.â€
The long and the short of it is; I canâ€™t see how oi( in line 195 can be a dative of (dis)advantage nor an ethical dative.
What I meant by
If oi( is a dative of disadvantage then 'his' is not in the text but is assumed.
is; I took oi( as a datie of possession so that is why I translated it with 'his.' If it is actually a dative of advantage then oi( would be something like 'the armour was laying on the ground for him.' The armour could still be translated as his armour but only because it can be assumed from context, not because it is specified.
(edit: corrected typo)