Iliad 1:64-69

[Bert]

I am having considerable difficulty with lines 65 and 68.
I will write out line 64-69

[face=SPIonic] o(/j k' e)/poi, o(/ti to/sson e)xw/sato Foi=boj )Apo/llwn,
ei)/ t' a)r' o(/ g' eu)xwlh=j e)pime/mfetai ei)/ q' e(kato/mbhj,
a)/ ke/n pwj a)rnw=n kni/shj ai)gwn te telei/wn
bou/letai a)ntia/saj h(mi=n a)po\ loigo\on a)mu=nai."
h)= toi o(/ g' w(=j eipw\n kat' a)/r' e(/zeto, toi=si d' a)ve/sth
Ka/lxaj Qestori/dhj, oi)wnopo/olwn o)/x' a)/ristoj,[/face]

who may tell why the glorious Apollo is angered so much
whether he finds fault on account of a vow or on account of a hecatomb
if perhaps having partaken of the fat of unblemished lambs and goats,
he is willing to avert destruction from us".
Having said this, he sat down, and in their midst arose
Calchas son of Thestor, of the seers by far the best,

I think the first line is okay (??)
In the second line I translated [face=SPIonic]ei)/....ei)/[/face][face=Arial] as whether.... or. I don't know how to reconcile this with [/face] [face=SPIonic]t'....q'[/face] It can't be -whether the one or the other- and -both the one and the other-.
The third and forth I think are okay too.
The fifth line I would translate the same it the first four words were not there, so why are they there?
Can some one translate these lines for me including all those little words that are so hard to translate? Maybe then I will understand the meaning of them a little better.

[Bert]

An additional question about this;
It was my understanding that the time of a participle is relative to the time of the main verb in the sentence. If this is true then in line 67[face=SPIonic]a)ntia/saj [/face]occurred before [face=SPIonic]bou/letai. [/face] No problem.
But what about in line 68 where both [face=SPIonic]ei)pwn[/face] and [face=SPIonic]e(/zeto[/face] are aorist.
Was he in the process of sitting down as he spoke? Not likely. Or is there no time significance in the participle at all but just aspect?[face=Arial][/face]

[chrisb]

Your translation sounds fine to me, but why not 'Phoebus Apollo' in line 64?

In answer to your other query, I think that the aorist participle is used precisely because it suggests that the action has been completed. As you say, it is a question of aspect. The aorist participle is used because it regards the action as a single completed event.

chrisb

[Paul]

Hi Bert,

[face=SPIonic]ei)/ te ... ei)/ te[/face] is how Homer typically says 'either .. or'.

According to Denniston [face=SPIonic]h)= toi[/face] literally meant 'Verily, I tell you.' But he goes on to say that that [face=SPIonic]toi[/face] has probably lost some of its vividness. Hence you typically see [face=SPIonic]h)= toi[/face] translated simply as 'truly', 'surely', 'indeed'.

[face=SPIonic]o(/ ge[/face] = 'even he'. So a literal, albeit awkward, rendering to incorporate those 4 words might be:

"Truly even he thus having spoken was sitting down.."

(Your translation is much better.)

BTW: I think that [face=SPIonic]e(/zeto[/face] is imperfect, not aorist.

Cordially,

Paul

[Bert]

Your translation sounds fine to me, but why not 'Phoebus Apollo' in line 64?

In answer to your other query, I think that the aorist participle is used precisely because it suggests that the action has been completed. As you say, it is a question of aspect. The aorist participle is used because it regards the action as a single completed event.

chrisb

Why not Phoebus? I just have been translating into English. It had not occurred to me to use it as a name rather than an adjective.

Is there a time relationship at all between a participle and the main verb?

Thanks for replying.

[Bert]

Hi Bert,

[face=SPIonic]ei)/ te ... ei)/ te[/face] is how Homer typically says 'either .. or'.
According to Denniston [face=SPIonic]h)= toi[/face] literally meant 'Verily, I tell you.' But he goes on to say that that [face=SPIonic]toi[/face] has probably lost some of its vividness. Hence you typically see [face=SPIonic]h)= toi[/face] translated simply as 'truly', 'surely', 'indeed'.

I didn't realize ei and te belonged together so I was trying to translate ei...ei and te...te seperately
The same with [face=SPIonic]h)= toi[/face]I tried to work with them without seeing them as a unit.

[face=SPIonic]o(/ ge[/face] = 'even he'. So a literal, albeit awkward, rendering to incorporate those 4 words might be:

"Truly even he thus having spoken was sitting down.."

(Your translation is much better.)

BTW: I think that [face=SPIonic]e(/zeto[/face] is imperfect, not aorist.

Cordially,

Paul

Your right. It is imperfect. Thanks.

[annis]

Is there a time relationship at all between a participle and the main verb?

Sometimes. First, this tense/aspect change works for participles, infinitives, imperatives, subjunctives and optatives. Only in the indicative is the aorist really a tense, and even that isn't always clear.

I think I can safely say that a future participle marks an action in the future relative to the tense of the main verb, and that a present participle is contemporary with the main verb.

[face=spionic]e)/fh strathgei=n[/face] - "he said that he was in command" or, bad English, "he said that he is in command"

[face=spionic]e)/fh strathgh/sein[/face] "he said that he would be in command." Here English uses "would" to indicate a future relative to the past.

The aorist indicates a point action, which can signify that the act is already done, so the aspect sense logically implies a tense at least part of the time:

[face=spionic]tau=ta ei)pw\n h)=lqen[/face] "after saying this, he went."

[face=spionic]tau=ta le/gwn h)=lqen[/face] "while saying this he went."

Have I made this clearer or muddled it up more? Pharr hides some of this in sections 1072-1084, 1107, 1108.

[Bert]

Have I made this clearer or muddled it up more? Pharr hides some of this in sections 1072-1084, 1107, 1108.

Clearer for sure. Thank you.