Nooj wrote:ἐνθάδε οἱ μὲν καλοὶ καὶ ἀγαθοὶ τὴν πατρίδα βλάπτειν καὶ πλοῦτον λαμβάνειν οὐκ ἤθελον, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀδικεῖσται ὐπὸ τῶν πονηπῶν ἐβούλοντο· τοῖς δὲ πονηποῖς, οἳ ἀεὶ ἀπρχῆς τε καὶ πλούτου ἐπεθύμουν...
My attempt:
Here, good and valorous men were unwilling to harm the fatherland and take wealth, but rather wanted to not be harmed by base men; but it was then possible for base men, who always desired both power and wealth...
I was taught that a μέν could not go on its own, and needed a δέ, but there isn't one in the first sentence. Hm...
benissimus wrote:I didn't notice any errors, although I don't see where you are getting "it was then possible" (presumably after the dot-dot-dot).
If there is a "then" in the second part of your sentence, then ἐνθάδε probably means something like "now" (since they are in adversative clauses).
Wow, I didn't know δέ could come such a long way away and the semicolon in between threw me off.It looks like τοῖς δὲ πονηροῖς contains the δέ that you are looking for.
Woops!Also, this might just be a transliteration problem, but you are writing both your rhos and pis with the symbol for pi (π, as in *πονηπῶν). Hopefully you are making the distinction in your head that your fingers are not
Nooj wrote:1) In a sentence like this:
As a result of doing wrong but seeming virtuous, the unjust man wins for himself wealth and honour.
I translated it something like:
ἐκ τοῦ μὲν ἀδικεῖν δοκείν τοῦ δὲ δοκείν τὸν καλὸν, ὁ ἄδικος καὶ τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τὴν τιμὴν φὲρεται.
And I was told I got the τὸν καλὸν wrong, and it had to be nominative...I didn't quite understand, doesn't δοκείν take an object?
The men have breastplates and shields, but are not brave.
τοῖς ἄνδρασι θύρακες καὶ ἀσπίδες εὶσιν ἀλλά οὐκ ἀγαθοὶ
Did I do the right thing in putting ἀγαθός into nominative here? Should it be dative?
I think I understand how the sentence works when it's written like:δοκεῖν in this construction takes an infinitive -- in this case you have εἶναι (which can be dropped) so καλός is a predicate adjective, and in general, these will agree with the case of the noun they refer to, even if that might contradict the usual rules. So here καλός refers to ὁ ἄδικος and so stays in the nominative. (That doesn't sound to clear but as an other example, "of those who seem wise" is "τῶν δοκούντων σοφῶν εἶναι".)
The source of my confusion here was that I had some trouble getting my head around how ἐιμί worked (like in the first sentence), whether the ἀγαθός had to agree with the subject...The dative wouldn't work, but with the nominative, at least for me, I read the sentence as saying the breastplates and shields aren't good. I think it'd be better to use ἔχω in this case.
When contrasted with ἐκεῖνος, οὗτος means the latter vs. the former.
Nooj wrote:I hope I'm not wearing out your patience, but my textbook doesn't seem to explain this very well.
Subject of Infinitive. When the subject of the action expressed by the infinitive is expressed in Greek, it is normally in the accusative case unless it is the same person or thing as the subject of the finite verb (there are further exceptions to be learned later).
Nooj wrote:My question is, what would be an example of a subject not being in the accusative case (in other words, the same person being the subject of the finite verb?). Something like 'the men want themselves to endure toil' with themselves/ἀυτοί in some case other than accusative?
A second question, it gives another sentence that is giving me headaches:
ἐκ τοῦ τὸν κακὸν ναύτην ἄρχειν.
As a result of the bad sailor's being leader.
(as a result of the fact that the bad sailor is leader)
Now the way I translate infinitives used as substantive nouns is to make the infinitive the subject. So δεῖ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους πόνους φέρειν would be 'to endure the toils is necessary for the men'. But if I try to do that for ἐκ τοῦ τὸν κακὸν ναύτην ἄρχειν, I get 'as a result of being leader for the bad soldier', which seems like rubbish English. But would it be literally correct? Have I got the grammatical conception of it down pat?
Yep, but it's at the end of the book so I had to flip forward to next semester's batch of work to find it:There's a separate issue that words like adjectives that modify the subject of the infinitive are normally in the accusative but when that's the same as the subject of the finite verb and is unexpressed, then they'll be in the nominative. So αὐτοί would in fact be in the nominative in your example. But you're using Mastronarde, right? If I remember correctly, he explains this and similar things (usually called attraction) very well.
Could this be what my passage was talking about, in a round-about way? I think I'll have a talk with my lecturer...thank you for that link by the way, it looks extremely useful.The subject of an infinitive, when expressed, is normally in the accusative, and so predicate nouns or adjectives are accusative in agreement. But when the subject of the infinitive is the same as the (nominative) subject of the governing verb, the subject of the infinitive is unexpressed and predicate nouns or adjectives are in the nominative by attraction.
Notice that the accent marks as printed in our modern texts are always placed, when they occur on a diphthong, over the second element of the diphthong (βασιλεύς, βασιλεῦ). In the case of the circumflex this is rather misleading: the circumflex indicates a high pitch on the first part of the diphthong, although it is written over the second.
Nooj wrote:Could this be what my passage was talking about, in a round-about way?The subject of an infinitive, when expressed, is normally in the accusative, and so predicate nouns or adjectives are accusative in agreement. But when the subject of the infinitive is the same as the (nominative) subject of the governing verb, the subject of the infinitive is unexpressed and predicate nouns or adjectives are in the nominative by attraction.
Notice that the accent marks as printed in our modern texts are always placed, when they occur on a diphthong, over the second element of the diphthong (βασιλεύς, βασιλεῦ). In the case of the circumflex this is rather misleading: the circumflex indicates a high pitch on the first part of the diphthong, although it is written over the second.
I'm struggling to pronounce different parts of the diphthong in different pitches because they mix together in my mind. I think the eu in βασιλεύς is supposed to sound like the English 'feud' with a higher pitch on the second part. So basiliyoOOs...? I was wondering if you knew of any recordings of people attempting to speak in ancient Greek. It's a minor question, but when reading out sentences, I want to say it properly.
Nooj wrote:Χαίρετε φίλοι!
I've tried to translate 'a beautiful work belongs to everyone who hears it'. Is this a close approximation?
ἡ καλὰ ποίησίς ἐστι τὸ μέρος πάντων οἳ αὐτῆς ἤκουσαν.
We're up to participles now and they're rather lovely things. I'm also amused at the 'gentive absolute'. If you had to choose...ablative absolute or genitive absolute?
Nooj wrote:καὶ πέρι τούτου, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὐκέτι μῦθόν σοι ἐρῶ ἀλλὰ λόγον.
And concerning this matter, Socrates, I will no longer call it a fable but a story.
ὧδε γὰρ δεῖ νομίζειν·
For it is necessary to think.
ἔστιν τι ἓν ἢ, οὐκ ἔστιν οὗ ἀνάγκη πάντας τοὺς πολίτας μετέχειν, εἴπερ μέλλει πόλις εἶναι;
What is there or what isn't there that all citizens must share in, if in fact it is likely to be a city?
NateD26 wrote:2. ἄλλοθι οὐδαμοῦ (p.576 II. top left) of manner, in no other way.
so, "For in this matter, this difficulty about which you are puzzled is in no other way than (this) solved."
modus.irrealis wrote:For οὐδενός, I read it as a genitive of comparison, i.e. οὐδενὸς βελτίους ποιοῦσιν = they don't make them better than anyone, which is another possibility.NateD26 wrote:2. ἄλλοθι οὐδαμοῦ (p.576 II. top left) of manner, in no other way.
so, "For in this matter, this difficulty about which you are puzzled is in no other way than (this) solved."
I would take the ἤ here as "or" and ἐν τούτῳ as going with λύεται: "for in this is this difficulty about which you are puzzled solved or in no other way."
Well the thing that really threw me off was ἣν αὐτοί ἐισιν ἀγαθοὶ. I don't understand what an accusative ἣν was doing there, because I can't see a verb that goes with it - is it an accusative of respect? 'in which they themselves are virtuous'?modus.irrealis wrote:For οὐδενός, I read it as a genitive of comparison, i.e. οὐδενὸς βελτίους ποιοῦσιν = they don't make them better than anyone, which is another possibility.
Nooj wrote:Well the thing that really threw me off was ἣν αὐτοί ἐισιν ἀγαθοὶ. I don't understand what an accusative ἣν was doing there, because I can't see a verb that goes with it - is it an accusative of respect? 'in which they themselves are virtuous'?
NateD26 wrote:I think your translation is great; that's how we learned to use the articular infinitive.
A more literal translation may be:
I think/methink this is the great danger of having a diary/war-journal;
(namely) you have exaggerated everything (and thus you are glorified by your own hands).
Well I couldn't think of another aspect to go along with it. My textbook says that the perfect aspect describes a completed action with a continuing result, which seemed to me adequate in this instance.Just so I would know for my own translations, why have u decided to use the perfect for exaggerate?
spiphany wrote:- Instead of a relative clause, I would use a participle. Also, "man" doesn't need to be explicit here; the participle is sufficient.
Thus: ὁ Σίσυφος εὐδαιμονέστατος τῶν ζωόντων
Nooj wrote:We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact.
οὐκ μὲν ἴσμεν οὗτινος ἐρῶμεν, ἔτι δὲ αἴτιοί ἐσμεν τούτου ὅ ἐσμεν. I wasn't sure how to translate 'that is the fact'.
The accentuation of athematic-verb optatives normally do not precede the diphthong containing the mood vowel iota.
Thank you.Nooj wrote:So ἀνισταῖο instead of ἀνίσταιο.
SorryNooj wrote:I've got another question if you don't mind. ...
Users browsing this forum: danbek, donhamiltontx, Google Adsense [Bot] and 100 guests