Textkit Logo

Acharnians.

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!

Acharnians.

Postby peripatein » Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:56 pm

Dear Members,

A few queries I'd hereby wish to present regarding Aristophanes' comedy.

(1) Line 247: is ἔστ᾽ in the imperative?
(2) Lines 255-6: what would be the very literal translation for κἀκποιήσεται γαλᾶς σοῦ μηδὲν ἥττους βδεῖν?
(3) Lines 257-8: may these be translated thus - walk/go to the front, and in the crowd be very much on guard that someone stealthily may nibble at your gold?
(4) Line 266: doesn't ἕκτῳ ἔτει translate - in the sixth year?
(5) Lines 271-5: what would be the very literal translation? Why is the masc. prtc. employed?
(6) Line 283: why would this not translate - you (sg.) will not throw/hit; you (sg.) will not throw/hit?

Whatsoever pertinent comments and responses would be highly valued.

Sincerely,

Yuval.
phpbb
peripatein
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:32 pm
Location: Paris, France

Re: Acharnians.

Postby modus.irrealis » Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:16 pm

peripatein wrote:(1) Line 247: is ἔστ᾽ in the imperative?

I don't think so, because then why καλόν in the neuter? I think it's just ἐστί. I'm not a hundred percent sure about the accent, but this is probably due to teh rule about elision explained in Smyth 174.

(2) Lines 255-6: what would be the very literal translation for κἀκποιήσεται γαλᾶς σοῦ μηδὲν ἥττους βδεῖν?

I understand it as "will produce weasels in no way worse than you at farting"

(3) Lines 257-8: may these be translated thus - walk/go to the front, and in the crowd be very much on guard that someone stealthily may nibble at your gold?

Yes, or also "so that someone doesn't nibble at (= steal I think) your gold things without you noticing", since that's the usual implication of λανθάνω.

(4) Line 266: doesn't ἕκτῳ ἔτει translate - in the sixth year?

Yes, but Greek uses this a little differently. Smyth covers it in 1585 so it means either "five years ago" or "for six years".

(5) Lines 271-5: what would be the very literal translation? Why is the masc. prtc. employed?

The masc. participles modify the subject of the infinitive καταγιγαρτίσ(αι).

(6) Line 283: why would this not translate - you (sg.) will not throw/hit; you (sg.) will not throw/hit?

They're questions though, so "won't you hit?" being used as a command.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Acharnians.

Postby peripatein » Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:02 am

Thank you for your reply. Please see below for further discussion/comments/queries.

(1) Line 247: It is in the neuter as it is most probably ἔστω. Hence, in the sense of expressing a wish, prior to the beginning of the ceremony -- let it be beautiful/good. Elision requires accentuation, yet not peremptorily on the penult. How do you reason?

(2) Lines 255-6: How was the following translation arrived at "embrace you so firmly .. that you fart like a weasel"?

(3) Lines 257-8: A modal must be used with the subj., I reckon, hence may, instead of does.

(4) Line 266: If ἕκτῳ ἔτει is to be translated "for six years", why isn't the conventional accusative employed?

(5) Lines 271-5: What would be the literal translation? Is the subject Dikaiopolis? Why are the participles translated as infinitives?

(6) Line 283: You're most right about their being questions. Yet why commands? And by which indicator?

Sincerely,

Yuval.
phpbb
peripatein
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:32 pm
Location: Paris, France

Re: Acharnians.

Postby evelynz8735 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:03 am

peripatein wrote:Dear Members,

A few queries I'd hereby wish to present regarding Aristophanes' comedy.

(1) Line 247: is ἔστ᾽ in the imperative?
(2) Lines 255-6: what would be the very literal translation for κἀκποιήσεται γαλᾶς σοῦ μηδὲν ἥττους βδεῖν?
(3) Lines 257-8: may these be translated thus - walk/go to the front, and in the crowd be very much on guard that someone stealthily may nibble at your gold?
(4) Line 266: doesn't ἕκτῳ ἔτει translate - in the sixth year?
(5) Lines 271-5: what would be the very literal translation? Why is the masc. prtc. employed?
(6) Line 283: why would this not translate - you (sg.) will not throw/hit; you (sg.) will not throw/hit?

Whatsoever pertinent comments and responses would be highly valued.

Sincerely,

Yuval.







Thanks you for the post.
Hi guys, Im a newbie. Nice to join this forum.





__________________
watch free movies online
evelynz8735
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:55 am

Re: Acharnians.

Postby modus.irrealis » Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:26 pm

peripatein wrote:(1) Line 247: It is in the neuter as it is most probably ἔστω. Hence, in the sense of expressing a wish, prior to the beginning of the ceremony -- let it be beautiful/good. Elision requires accentuation, yet not peremptorily on the penult. How do you reason?

Ah, I thought you meant ἔστε (with a similar issue with the accent). About ἔστω, I don't know how often a -ω would be elided.

About the accent, my reasoning was that normally the accent would be καλόν γ' ἐστί, but then the -ί gets elided and that pushes the accent back like the examples in the section in Smyth. There's a similar example at line 397 ἔνδον ἔστ’ Εὐριπίδης; and 900 ὅ τι γ’ ἔστ’ Ἀθάναις. I guess it's also possible that it's just the "emphatic" ἔστι to begin with, but in any case I think in context an indicative sounds best.

(2) Lines 255-6: How was the following translation arrived at "embrace you so firmly .. that you fart like a weasel"?

I have no idea. I don't really see how it's possible.

(3) Lines 257-8: A modal must be used with the subj., I reckon, hence may, instead of does.

This is about English, though, and too me it's natural to use just "does" here.

(4) Line 266: If ἕκτῳ ἔτει is to be translated "for six years", why isn't the conventional accusative employed?

My understanding is that with the ordinal, it stressed the relation to the present time. I think the the idea here is something like "in the sixth year I invoked you" which implies that "for six year I haven't invoked you". But I haven't come across this construction enough to really understand its nuances.

(5) Lines 271-5: What would be the literal translation? Is the subject Dikaiopolis? Why are the participles translated as infinitives?

Something like "For it is much sweeter, o Phales Phales, to find the youthful wood-carrying Thratta of Strymodoros stealing from Phelleus and grab her waist and raise her and throw her down and deflower her." I think it's implied that it's Dikaiopolis but it could also just be in general I guess. It's just that English isn't as flexible as Greek when it comes to participle so participle + infinitive usually sounds better in English as infinite + and + infinitive -- the meaning is the same.

(6) Line 283: You're most right about their being questions. Yet why commands? And by which indicator?

I think because of the imperatives right before. But there are other possibilities. They could be genuine questions, "you're not hitting him?", but it seems to me that the Chorus is getting impatient and meaning the questions as a request/command.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Acharnians.

Postby peripatein » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:21 pm

(5) I would personally have expected those participles to be in the nominative. To be then translated as - much sweeter it is, having discovered the youthful wood-carrying Thratta of Strymodoros stealing from Phelleus and having grabbed her waist and raised her and thrown her down, to deflower her.
How do you reason?
And of what verb are these participles the direct object?
phpbb
peripatein
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:32 pm
Location: Paris, France

Re: Acharnians.

Postby NateD26 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:10 pm

peripatein wrote:(5) I would personally have expected those participles to be in the nominative. To be then translated as - much sweeter it is, having discovered the youthful wood-carrying Thratta of Strymodoros stealing from Phelleus and having grabbed her waist and raised her and thrown her down, to deflower her.
How do you reason?
And of what verb are these participles the direct object?

This is indirect speech dependent upon Πολλῷ γάρ ἐσθ' ἥδιον and so the implied subject and its participles are in accusative;
it is still nominative in meaning.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Acharnians.

Postby peripatein » Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:13 pm

Makes much sense and as I a prioi reasoned. Thank you.
phpbb
peripatein
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:32 pm
Location: Paris, France

Re: Acharnians.

Postby NateD26 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:43 pm

modus.irrealis wrote:t's just that English isn't as flexible as Greek when it comes to participle so participle + infinitive usually sounds better in English as infinite + and + infinitive -- the meaning is the same.

To add to that, Smyth in his introduction to the circumstantial participle (2054a) notes that "[the circumstantial participle] may often be rendered
by adverbial phrases or even by a separate finite verb, which brings out distinctly the idea latent in the participle". (Here the finite verbs became
infinitives under indirect speech.)
Last edited by NateD26 on Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Acharnians.

Postby NateD26 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:11 pm

modus.irrealis wrote:Ah, I thought you meant ἔστε (with a similar issue with the accent). About ἔστω, I don't know how often a -ω would be elided.

It seems that elision is restricted to short vowels. All instances I've found show ἔστω to not be elided before a word beginning in a vowel.
e.g. οὐδ' εἰ πάνυ πόλλ' ἔχω περὶ κλοπῆς λέγειν, ἀλλ' ἔστω ἐμοὶ ἐκεῖνός γε... (Demosthenes Orat., Against Timocrates, 127.2-3).
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Acharnians.

Postby modus.irrealis » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:37 am

NateD26 wrote:This is indirect speech dependent upon Πολλῷ γάρ ἐσθ' ἥδιον and so the implied subject and its participles are in accusative;

I wouldn't call this indirect speech, though, just an infinitive clause.

NateD26 wrote:It seems that elision is restricted to short vowels. All instances I've found show ἔστω to not be elided before a word beginning in a vowel.
e.g. οὐδ' εἰ πάνυ πόλλ' ἔχω περὶ κλοπῆς λέγειν, ἀλλ' ἔστω ἐμοὶ ἐκεῖνός γε... (Demosthenes Orat., Against Timocrates, 127.2-3).

Thanks. With it being poetry I didn't want to make any claims about elision without looking into it more closely.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Acharnians.

Postby NateD26 » Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:55 pm

modus.irrealis wrote:I wouldn't call this indirect speech, though, just an infinitive clause.

Thanks, modus. I always forget to make that distinction.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Acharnians.

Postby juliew9855 » Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:08 am

Hi !
I've just visited this forum. Happy to get acquainted with you. Thanks.
juliew9855
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:07 am


Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], John W., Qimmik and 46 guests