rustymason wrote:If we removed the aorist participle in the first clause, we'd have:
What is necessary to do, we learn by doing.
The subject accusative is assumed. Right?
rustymason wrote:But add the participle back in and then we'd have:
What is necessary for learners to do, we learn by doing.
Which is still not the English translation given.
Moreover, the faculties given us by nature are bestowed on us first in a potential form; we exhibit their actual exercise afterwards. This is clearly so with our senses: we did not acquire the faculty of sight or hearing by repeatedly seeing or repeatedly listening, but the other way about—because we had the senses we began to use them, we did not get them by using them. The virtues on the other hand we acquire by first having actually practised them, just as we do the arts. We learn an art or craft by doing the things that we shall have to do when we have learnt it: for instance, men become builders by building houses, harpers by playing on the harp.
Or possibly ‘For things that we have to learn to do [in contrast with things that we do by nature], we learn by doing them.’
NateD26 wrote:I edited my first reply, pointing out my error. The subject of the infinitive can be omitted, as in here,
and it is most likely ἡμᾶς judging by the context spiphany supplied.
The first option takes μαθόντας as a temporal clause, when we have learnt it and ἃ δεῖ ποιεῖν
as having a future aspect to that of the participle, that we shall have to do.
For we learn [a profession/an art] by doing the things that we shall have to do once we have learnt it.
This is the reason for his statement in the first clause:
τὰς δ᾽ ἀρετὰς λαμβάνομεν ἐνεργήσαντες πρότερον, We obtain the virtues after we have practiced (them) first.
The second option was explained by spiphnay.
Users browsing this forum: GJCaesar, Google Adsense [Bot] and 70 guests