Help in indirect discourse...? ὅτι + imperative ?

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
Swth\r
Textkit Fan
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: Greece

Help in indirect discourse...? ὅτι + imperative ?

Post by Swth\r »



modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis »

Smyth mentions something similar in 1842-1843 but Gildersleeve has a section (which you can see here) on it that mentions this passage.

I can only remember seeing it in relative clauses, but with the example I can think of (Ἐν π?ώτοις μνήσθητι, Κ??ιε, τοῦ Ἀ?χιεπισκόπου ἡμῶν, ὃν χά?ισαι ταῖς ?γίαις σου Ἐκκλησίαις ?ν εἰ?ήνῃ...) replacing the imperative with δεῖ or χ?ὴ + infinitive doesn't work (it'd be sacrilegious :D). That example's post-Classical, but still, it seems to me that the imperative simply keeps its original force, whatever that might have been. With your passage, I read it as "must get".

Swth\r
Textkit Fan
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: Greece

Post by Swth\r »

Having given some more serious thought on this, I think that it is not exactly "indirect discourse" here... :roll: What is your opinion fellows?

When translating it comes to me like this: "and we must show (them) that they may have whatever they want by assaulting those who do not fight back them, but [...] they will not go away from /escape them".

Hmmmm.
Also, it seems to me that using an imperative of this kind is like using optative with ἄν, when denoting also concession... Of course (formally) an optative of this kind would not be a problem inside a depended statement clause... :?
Last edited by Swth\r on Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Dives qui sapiens est...

Swth\r
Textkit Fan
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: Greece

Post by Swth\r »


Dives qui sapiens est...

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis »

For me, it is easier to deal with when it's a relative clause (I mean you can always then treat the relative pronoun as a demonstrative). In this case, I figure that what they're trying to show them, if they were speaking to them directly (I agree it's not indirect discourse in the strictest sense but it helps me), would be:

ὧν μὲν ?φίεσθε π?ὸς τοὺς μὴ ἀμυνομένους ?πιόντες κτᾶσθε, οἷς δὲ γενναῖον τήν τε αὑτῶν αἰεὶ ?λευθε?οῦν μάχῃ καὶ τὴν ἄλλων μὴ δουλοῦσθαι ἀδίκως, ἀνανταγώνιστοι ἀπ' α?τῶν ο?κ ἄπιτε

So I think a concessive meaning makes sense (like your "show them that they may get..." where the second part is then something of a threat about what will happen to them if they go after people who can defend themselves) but I also think a more imperative meaning is also possible ("show them that they must get..." with the second part now basically giving the reason why, namely that they will show them what happens when they go after people that can defend themselves). What do you think?

Swth\r
Textkit Fan
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: Greece

Post by Swth\r »


Dives qui sapiens est...

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis »



Swth\r
Textkit Fan
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: Greece

Post by Swth\r »

I am not trying to understand the specific passage through the explanation of all imperative standings. I just made some thoughts...

About (direct and indirect) questions...
What I said was that there might be a difference between the use of imperative and the use of conjunctive, as there is a difference between indicative and conjunctive (not the same of course, but I suppose that this option may have a variation). So when asking with conjunctive, it is like saying: "I don't know either if I am wrong or right about this; can you tell me?", but when asking with imperative is like saying: "I accept this point; what do you think?". :wink: For us it may be simpler to understand it as if with δεῖ +infinitive, but the point is to understand it correctly... This is the easy way to go, and I don't like it at all. I prefer to let it be un-comprehended than to give it a surface explanation. :?

Your suggestion about Lysias' fragment is that the direct discourse form is μετ' ?μοῦ καὶ τῶν οἰκετῶν πίε. Perhaps you are right. I thought that the request was made indirectly to the victim, through the witness guy, but after a better reading, it seems that you are right. So also the possibility of λέγων ὅτι= just an introductory phrase of the direct speech form that follows is not accepted.

It is hard to me to think of any reason why someone would use that instead of an infinitive. If the meaning was "drink with me and the servants", it would be "λέγων πιεῖν μετ'αὑτοῦ καὶ τῶν οἰκετῶν". In this case λέγω is a verb of will, not of saying. :wink: The use of ὅτι implies "saying", not "will"... :roll:
Dives qui sapiens est...

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis »



Post Reply