two more translation questions

[Bert]

1. JWW First Greek Book paragraph 103 line 6 reads oi( stratiwtai e)n fulake e(cousi tous persaj <br />Does [font SPIonic] en fulakh[/font] here mean -on guard-?<br />If that is the case, will the following translation be correct?<br />-The soldiers (who are) on guard will have (get?) the Persians-.<br />2. Line 10 of the same paragraph reads o( de strathgoj triakosiouj o(plitaj kai peltastaj e)xei.<br />Does this mean that the general has both 300 hoplites and 300 targeteers, or the the total of the two are 300, or he has 300 hoplites and he also has targeteers.<br />Thank you in advance.<br /><br />P.S. I do believe I have SPIonic installed correctly now.<br />

[chiron2b]

[quote author=Bert de Haan link=board=2;threadid=151;start=0#721 date=1054949106]<br />[face=SPIonic][size=18=12]1. JWW First Greek Book paragraph 103 line 6 reads<br /><br /> oi( stratiw=tai e)n fulakh=| e(/cousi tou\s Pe/rsaj <br /><br /> -Does [font SPIonic] en fulakh[/font] here mean -on guard-?<br /> -If that is the case, will the following translation be correct?<br />-The soldiers (who are) on guard will have (get?) the Persians-.[/face][/size][/quote]<br /><br />

[face=SPIonic][size=18=12] ---I would suggest this translation: the soldiers, in a garrison, will HOLD the Persians<br />( fulakh/ = guard, garrison (a place/location); JWW tells you later that guard/watcher (a person) is fu/lac)[/face][/size]<br />

<br /><br />

[face=SPIonic][size=18=12]<br />2. Line 10 of the same paragraph reads<br /><br /> o( de strathgoj triakosiouj o(plitaj kai peltastaj e)xei.<br /><br />Does this mean that the general has both 300 hoplites and 300 targeteers, or the the total of the two are 300, or he has 300 hoplites and he also has targeteers.<br /><br />

---I think even in english, or any other language, you might ask for clarification of this sentence. Make your best guess.<br /><br />Hope I helped.[/face][/size]

[Skylax]

oi( stratiw=tai e)n fulakh=| e(/cousi tou\s Pe/rsaj<br />-The soldiers (who are) on guard will have (get?) the Persians-.<br /><br />e)/xein e)n fulakh=| means rather "to hold in detention"<br /><br />So it must be :"The soldiers will hold the Persians prisoners".<br /><br />Regards,<br />Fernand

[annis]

[quote author=chiron2b link=board=2;threadid=151;start=0#722 date=1054958565]<br />[face=SPIonic][size=18=12] ---I would suggest this translation: the soldiers, in a garrison, will HOLD the Persians<br />( fulakh/ = guard, garrison (a place/location); JWW tells you later that guard/watcher (a person) is fu/lac)[/face][/size]<br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />I would refine this even more to just "The soldiers will hold the Persians in a garrison (or in detention)." The e)n fulakh=| doesn't go with the soliders, nor is it parenthetic, but goes with the verb.<br /><br />In Greek, the phrase right before the verb is the focus: that's where new or especially relevant information goes. Incidental or parenthetic information tends to go after the verb, in no particular order.<br /><br />--<br />wm

[Bert]

Thanks for the replies.<br />If I would want to write -The soldiers in garison will hold the Persians- would oi( stratiwtai oi( e)n fulakh e(cousi touj persaj be correct?<br />

[annis]

[quote author=Bert de Haan link=board=2;threadid=151;start=0#730 date=1055021462]<br />Thanks for the replies.<br />If I would want to write -The soldiers in garison will hold the Persians- would oi( stratiwtai oi( e)n fulakh e(cousi touj persaj be correct?<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Yes, but I have a very strong urge to see the attributive phrase so: oi( e)n th=| fulakh=|, with the article on the garrison, too. <br /><br />Anyone else feel strongly the article is necessary here?<br />

[auctor]

Thanks for the replies.<br />If I would want to write -The soldiers in garison will hold the Persians- would oi( stratiwtai oi( e)n fulakh e(cousi touj persaj be correct?<br /> <br /><br /><br />Yes, but I have a very strong urge to see the attributive phrase so: oi( e)n th=| fulakh=|, with the article on the garrison, too. <br /><br />Anyone else feel strongly the article is necessary here?<br /><br /><br />Wouldn't the "in the garrison" be an ideal time to use a participle?<br /><br /><br />oi( stratiwtai e)n fulakh o)ntej ...

[Skylax]

See Anabasis, 4, 5, 29 : I believe it is the source of this sentence<br /><br />tau/thn me\n th\n nu/kta diaskhnh/santej ou(/twj e)koimh/qhsan e)n pa=sin a)fqo/noij pa/ntej oi( stratiw=tai, e)n fulakh=| e)/xontej to\n kw/marxon kai\ ta\ te/kna au)tou= o(mou= e)n o)fqalmoi=j<br /><br />"For that night, then, all - Xenophon's - soldiers, in this village where they were thus separately quartered, went to bed amid an abundance of everything, keeping the village chief under guard and his children all together within sight."<br /><br />So e)n fulakh=| e)/xw means here "to keep on guard". I looked on the Perseus site for the occurrences of fulakh/ in the Anabasis : it is always a guard, a group of guardsmen, soldiers mounting guard.

[annis]

[quote author=auctor link=board=2;threadid=151;start=0#750 date=1055106765]<br />Wouldn't the "in the garrison" be an ideal time to use a participle?<br />[/quote]<br /><br />You would think so, but I can't think of a time when I've seen any particple of ei)mi/ with this sort of prepositional phrase after an article.<br />

[auctor]

The following is taken from my JACT reader (and as such may or may not be unadulterated Greek)<br /><br />[face=SPIonic]<br /><br />ti/j ou(toj o( e)pi thj krema/qraj w)/n;<br /><br />[/face]<br /><br />Who is this who is in the basket?<br /><br />I've had a look in Perseus Aristophanes' Clouds, I don't find this exact phrase so maybe it has been "made up". But it is the sort of construction I was suggesting to get over the ambiguity.<br /><br />cheers,<br />Paul

[annis]

[quote author=auctor link=board=2;threadid=151;start=0#767 date=1055166914]<br />But it is the sort of construction I was suggesting to get over the ambiguity.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />I guess I don't really see any ambiguity here, especially given the habit in Greek of often dropping the verb "to be" anyway.<br /><br />I just pulled Herodotus off the shelf and started thumbing through Book E (First chapter of the second volume of the OCT edition), and ran across two on the first page:<br /><br />E.1. [face=SPIonic]oi( de\ e)n th=| Eu)rw/ph|[/face]<br /><br />E.18. [face=SPIonic]ta\ me\n dh\ a)po\ Paio/nwn[/face].<br /><br />Again, page 9, line 6, [face=SPIonic])Enetw=n tw=n e)n tw=| )Adri/h|[/face].<br /><br />I suspect using a participle of "to be" with the article+preposition phrases is a bit emphatic.<br /><br />Anyone else have examples?

[Skylax]

[quote author=auctor link=board=2;threadid=151;start=0#767 date=1055166914]<br /><br />[face=SPIonic]<br /><br />ti/j ou(toj o( e)pi thj krema/qraj w)/n;<br /><br />[/face]<br /><br />Who is this who is in the basket?<br /><br />I've had a look in Perseus Aristophanes' Clouds, I don't find this exact phrase so maybe it has been "made up". <br />[/quote]<br /><br />You're right, it's a "made up" inspired by Clouds, 218 :<br /><br />[face=SPIonic]<br />fe/re, ti/j ga\r ou(=toj o( e)pi\ thj krema/qraj a)nh/r;<br /><br />"Well, who is this one, the man in the basket ?"<br />[/face]<br /><br />No participle. The phrase [face=SPIonic]e)pi\ thj krema/qraj[/face], as inserted between article and noun, is used as an attribute. Without a participle, it's purely a way to identify the character in contrast with the other characters in sight. With a participle ([face=SPIonic]w)/n[/face]) it would be a way to describe the character in itself, thus to draw particular attention to the fact that the man is in a basket.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Fernand<br /><br />

[Skylax]

[quote author=William Annis link=board=2;threadid=151;start=0#771 date=1055191862]<br />I guess I don't really see any ambiguity here, especially given the habit in Greek of often dropping the verb "to be" anyway.<br /><br />I just pulled Herodotus off the shelf and started thumbing through Book E (First chapter of the second volume of the OCT edition), and ran across two on the first page:<br /><br />E.1. [face=SPIonic]oi( de\ e)n th=| Eu)rw/ph|[/face]<br /><br />E.18. [face=SPIonic]ta\ me\n dh\ a)po\ Paio/nwn[/face].<br /><br />Again, page 9, line 6, [face=SPIonic])Enetw=n tw=n e)n tw=| )Adri/h|[/face].<br /><br />I suspect using a participle of "to be" with the article+preposition phrases is a bit emphatic.<br /><br />Anyone else have examples?<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Two examples of similar phrases, the one without a participle, the other with a participle.<br /><br />Isocrates, On the Peace, 68 :<br />[face=SPIonic]ta\s sunqh/kaj ta\s peri\ th=j au)tonomi/as[/face]<br />"the treaty (Acc.) which guaranteed our independence" <br />Identification of a treaty. I think that no participle has been "dropped" here. With a participle, the meaning would be slightly different : it would be more a description than an sheer identification. See for example :<br /><br />Ibidem, 16 :<br />[face=SPIonic]tai=s sunqh/kaij ... tai=s genome/naij ... pro\j basile/a... [/face]<br />"the covenants (Dat.) ... which we have entered into with the king of Persia". The phrase includes the reminder of a story.<br /><br />(English translations : George Norlin - Loeb)<br /><br />Regards,<br />Fernand