XIX english-english translation; form issues, and madmen

[Tertius Robertus]

im not sure i understand this sentence: αγαetc ου κικησεται γεÏ￾οντα...

so he will not come upon the old man? great! that is good news for crises, he is free from the pervert! he will not overtake? as it is written in the key? i.e. he will not reach the old man? but he is in front of him or is there any other meaning im not aware of? (and the same goes to arrive at)

as for my problem with forms these two forms are irrecognizable: ἱεναι ἱεσθαι, there is no such stem ἱ in the previous lessons - in fact in the whole book,[well there is ἱημι] - nor perseus tools recognizes it is there a history of madness in the author's family? whence the hell does that come? (the closest thing is ἰκνεομαι but his renders ἰκεσθαι)

there is yet another problem that pisses me off in a greater and more intense manner. see, the forms ἰεναι end αφιει - which do exist - are not told to be so. the former i found in the vocab section at the back, 10 minutes of scrolling ahead of where they are first found, for the latter i had to use perseus to finally learn that this is imperfect of the mi verbs. argh, does this continues to be so in the next chapters? this displeases me [the conjugation of this highly irregular verb eimi is hidden somewhere in the morphology section - without any notice, the conjugation of mi verbs is somewhre ahead, they where introduced chapters ago, without being used, so i didnt bother, but now, without notice they asked to known ] can it be seen why im mad?

and επευφημησειν seems to be the future form of a verb given without the future forms is this a mistake?

[modus.irrealis]

im not sure i understand this sentence: αγαetc ου κικησεται γεÏ￾οντα...

so he will not come upon the old man? great! that is good news for crises, he is free from the pervert! he will not overtake? as it is written in the key? i.e. he will not reach the old man? but he is in front of him or is there any other meaning im not aware of? (and the same goes to arrive at)

I think you've got it. It's just saying "Ag. will not come upon the old man, for he is not tarrying in the Achaeans' army", which does make sense on its own -- I don't think you should put too much effort into trying to understand the exercises there as a continuous narrative.

as for my problem with forms these two forms are irrecognizable: ἱεναι ἱεσθαι, there is no such stem ἱ in the previous lessons - in fact in the whole book,[well there is ἱημι] - nor perseus tools recognizes it is there a history of madness in the author's family? whence the hell does that come? (the closest thing is ἰκνεομαι but his renders ἰκεσθαι)

They are both from ἵημι, active and middle-passive present infinitives respectively. Here you can look at the stem as being ἱε- which is the reduplicated present stem.

The mi-verbs are going to cause problems no matter what and there's a lot of memorization involved (at least there was for me). I'm not sure any book can teach them in a way that doesn't get under your skin .

[Tertius Robertus]

thanks, mode!

think you've got it. It's just saying "Ag. will not come upon the old man, for he is not tarrying in the Achaeans' army", which does make sense on its own -- I don't think you should put too much effort into trying to understand the exercises there as a continuous narrative.

the thing is thar aetc says the same thing in the iliad v 26 μη σε etc οu κικηω. let me not come upon you; perseus gives let me not find you. is he telling the priest to leave? "let you not stay on my sight, doddering man"?

The mi-verbs are going to cause problems no matter what and there's a lot of memorization involved (at least there was for me). I'm not sure any book can teach them in a way that doesn't get under your skin

tis nice to now that the hienai thing do exist. they are causing me trouble already not so much because i have to memorize them - they were not introduced yet - nor the verb hiemi were for that matter -, but because they are being used in their particular forms without caveats when i first saw aphiei i thought by analogy that it was a present later i checked the hidden grammar section concerning the topic. what i am saying is that there are things being expected to know without any reference - "i shall not teach nor point out the proper section, but you must know, puer improbe!", thing which displeases me greatly. im feeling in the middle of a gnostic initiative rite

[annis]

im feeling in the middle of a gnostic initiative rite

I thought all of life was like that. In any case, Textkit will get you through the sticky parts of this particular initiation.

I'd recommend you spend a few minutes with the imperatives of the -μι verbs, too, until something like ἄφες screams (ἀφ-)ἵημι.

[Tertius Robertus]

there are more form issues....

the last composition exercise requires one to translate to be accepted. the thing is that δεχομαι is deponent/reflexive redering δεχθαι/δεχεσθαι. how does one form the passive of this? [edit: nevermind. this form is identical to the passive. i was tricked by the fraudulent middle voice. ]

ps: dont forget the επεφημεω/επευφημεσω, thing... which is also required to be traqnslatd yet the vocab doesnt display the forms (only the pres and aorist are shown )

I'd recommend you spend a few minutes with the imperatives of the -μι verbs,

thanks for the suggestion (im almost this close to drop everything up to dedicate to brute memorization of the forms )

[modus.irrealis]

the thing is thar aetc says the same thing in the iliad v 26 μη σε etc οu κικηω. let me not come upon you; perseus gives let me not find you. is he telling the priest to leave? "let you not stay on my sight, doddering man"?

He's threatening him. In English as I speak it, I might say something like "I'd better not find you among the ships either now... or later..., or else..." The difference here compared to the exercise is that the Iliad has the subjunctive.

tis nice to now that the hienai thing do exist. they are causing me trouble already not so much because i have to memorize them - they were not introduced yet - nor the verb hiemi were for that matter -, but because they are being used in their particular forms without caveats

I took a closer look at Pharr and I agree that it's not the best setup where it sends you off to study paradigms but then not use most of the forms immediately, and it's worse when it uses forms not even in the paradigms. It's a little bit sloppy, to be charitable.

You know, though, now that I looked some things up, I'm not sure that ἱέναι is a Homeric form as it seems he would use ἱέμεναι and ἱέμεν (in compounds). If that's true, then it's strange to see it pop up in the exercises.

With á¼￾πευφημέω, it seems that it only occurs in the aorist in Homer so that might explain why the future form is not given. But it's probably in the exercises just to give you practice in the future tense -- it belongs to a class of verbs that have few irregularities in their formations of the various tenses and so on. (Again, though, maybe a little sloppy .)

[Tertius Robertus]

He's threatening him. In English as I speak it, I might say something like "I'd better not find you among the ships either now... or later..., or else..." The difference here compared to the exercise is that the Iliad has the subjunctive.

i understand it now. twas my problem enterily in the way i learnt these words, they would imply movement prior to the completion of the action. come upon = arrive in front of something. i didnt know it could mean to find (in the sense of meet with), to meet, etc.

I took a closer look at Pharr and I agree that it's not the best setup where it sends you off to study paradigms but then not use most of the forms immediately, and it's worse when it uses forms not even in the paradigms. It's a little bit sloppy, to be charitable.

tis annoying!