Textkit Logo

Pl. Ap. 32c1-2

Here's where you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Pl. Ap. 32c1-2

Postby NateD26 » Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:49 pm


μετὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τοῦ δικαίου ᾤμην μᾶλλόν με δεῖν διακινδυνεύειν ἢ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν γενέσθαι
μὴ δίκαια βουλευομένων
, φοβηθέντα δεσμὸν ἢ θάνατον.


I'm reviewing what I've read so far and I am not too sure about my reading of the underlined part. I initially
thought of reading this as a specific past condition, because a. he does mention only one specific account
and so it doesn't sound like a frequent occurrence of injustice on the part of the βουλή at that time,
and b. if it can't be a indef. past statement/condition (grammatically it can be either since the apodosis is in inf. inside
indirect speech and the protasis is in part. form), then the negative μή suggests it can only be a specific past condition,
something along the lines of I thought I must take my risks with the law and justice rather than being with you if you were not resolving
on justice
.

However, the English translation at Perseus has rather than join with you when your wishes were unjust,
which I do not understand how a participle with μή can be translated as a temporal clause which commonly takes οὐ.

I couldn't find anything on my Hebrew commentary or W. Tyler's, so I assume I'm making much fuss about nothing.

Thanks.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Pl. Ap. 32c1-2

Postby modus.irrealis » Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:20 pm

I think you can take this as an example of what Smyth covers in 2737, since γενέσθαι would have μή if it were negated.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Pl. Ap. 32c1-2

Postby NateD26 » Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:25 pm

modus.irrealis wrote:I think you can take this as an example of what Smyth covers in 2737, since γενέσθαι would have μή if it were negated.

I've just read this section, and while I understand the cases which Smyth mentioned, I'm not sure I understand why γενέσθαι would have
been negated with μή. Is this because a sentence with μᾶλλον ἤ was perhaps originally a subj. of deliberation, ᾤμην· «μετὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ
τοῦ δικαίου διακινδυνεύω ἢ (μὴ) μέθ᾿ ὑμῶν γένωμαι;» ?

Or maybe it's simply because δεῖ takes μή (Smyth 2714b)?
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Pl. Ap. 32c1-2

Postby modus.irrealis » Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:17 pm

NateD26 wrote:Or maybe it's simply because δεῖ takes μή (Smyth 2714b)?

I think it's simply this.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto


Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests