Textkit Logo

Crito help

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!

Crito help

Postby Nooj » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:26 am

Hello, I've got some questions.

[43c] καὶ ἄλλοι, ὦ Σώκρατες, τηλικοῦτοι ἐν τοιαύταις συμφοραῖς ἁλίσκονται, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν αὐτοὺς ἐπιλύεται ἡ ἡλικία τὸ μὴ οὐχὶ ἀγανακτεῖν τῇ παρούσῃ τύχῃ.

Could someone describe to my how exactly this construction with verbs of hindering works? As in, why the double negative?

[43d] οὔτοι δὴ ἀφῖκται, ἀλλὰ δοκεῖν μέν μοι ἥξει τήμερον ἐξ ὧν ἀπαγγέλλουσιν ἥκοντές τινες ἀπὸ Σουνίου καὶ καταλιπόντες ἐκεῖ αὐτό

I understand ἐξ ὧν as from the reports of those, but I don't know how it should connect up to the rest of the sentence. Shouldn't there be a relative clause? e.g. ἐξ ὧν οἱ ἀπαγγέλλουσιν. Or is ἀπαγγέλλουσιν a dative participle being modified with δοκεῖν, in which case why isn't it agreeing with ἥκοντές?

[44c] οὐ γὰρ πείσονται οἱ πολλοὶ ὡς σὺ αὐτὸς οὐκ ἠθέλησας ἀπιέναι ἐνθένδε ἡμῶν προθυμουμένων.

What sort of clause is it with the ὡς?
Dolor poetas creat.
Nooj
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: Crito help

Postby pster » Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:06 pm

44c: What kind of ὡς? I would say that it is a ὡς of indirect discourse. πείσονται is the main verb. ἠθέλησας is the verb of the indirect statement. And ἡμῶν προθυμουμένων is a genitive absolute. The only thing about this reading that makes me a bit nervous is that this requires taking πείσονται more as a verb of knowing than as a verb of believing since verbs of believing usually take the infinitive of indirect discourse.

43c: I'm trying to understand this. But Smyth discusses in many places redundant μὴ with infinitives.
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Crito help

Postby NateD26 » Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:07 pm

Nooj wrote:[43c] καὶ ἄλλοι, ὦ Σώκρατες, τηλικοῦτοι ἐν τοιαύταις συμφοραῖς ἁλίσκονται, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν αὐτοὺς ἐπιλύεται ἡ ἡλικία τὸ μὴ οὐχὶ ἀγανακτεῖν τῇ παρούσῃ τύχῃ.

Smyth in §2744 10. lists this as a very common construction, and that τὸ μὴ οὐχὶ is equivalent to
ὥστε μή.

Others too, Socrates, of the same age are caught in similar misfortunes, but their age does not at all set them free with respect to being vexed/that they aren't vexed at their present fate.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Crito help

Postby NateD26 » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:24 pm

Nooj wrote:[43d] οὔτοι δὴ ἀφῖκται, ἀλλὰ δοκεῖν μέν μοι ἥξει τήμερον ἐξ ὧν ἀπαγγέλλουσιν ἥκοντές τινες ἀπὸ Σουνίου καὶ καταλιπόντες ἐκεῖ αὐτό

I understand ἐξ ὧν as from the reports of those, but I don't know how it should connect up to the rest of the sentence. Shouldn't there be a relative clause? e.g. ἐξ ὧν οἱ ἀπαγγέλλουσιν. Or is ἀπαγγέλλουσιν a dative participle being modified with δοκεῖν, in which case why isn't it agreeing with ἥκοντες?

It is a relative clause, ὧν being the relative pronoun which goes in this case with the preposition ἐξ,
and τινές being the subject of the 3rd pl. verb ἀπαγγέλλουσιν and the participles ἥκοντες and
καταλιπόντες. Of course the relative neuter accusative pronoun ἅ (ἀπαγγέλλω takes accusative) was
attracted to the implied τούτων which came originally with ἐκ and we got ἐξ ὧν.
Last edited by NateD26 on Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Crito help

Postby NateD26 » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:49 pm

Nooj wrote:[44c] οὐ γὰρ πείσονται οἱ πολλοὶ ὡς σὺ αὐτὸς οὐκ ἠθέλησας ἀπιέναι ἐνθένδε ἡμῶν προθυμουμένων.

What sort of clause is it with the ὡς?

pster wrote:44c: What kind of ὡς? I would say that it is a ὡς of indirect discourse. πείσονται is the main verb. ἠθέλησας is the verb of the indirect statement. And ἡμῶν προθυμουμένων is a genitive absolute. The only thing about this reading that makes me a bit nervous is that this requires taking πείσονται more as a verb of knowing than as a verb of believing since verbs of believing usually take the infinitive of indirect discourse.

Actually, Smyth in §1992 N. writes this very sentence to distinguish
between two senses of πείθω and their respective constructions. This sense of convince usually takes ὡς, and rarely the acc. w. inf.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Crito help

Postby pster » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:26 pm

NateD26 wrote:Actually, Smyth in §1992 N. writes this very sentence to distinguish
between two senses of πείθω and their respective constructions. This sense of convince usually takes ὡς, and rarely the acc. w. inf.


I'm gonna have to get a hardcover copy of Smyth to keep up with you. :D

Yeah, I guess that makes sense if you think of the mp of πείθω as "becoming convinced" rather than "believing/thinking". I say that because in indirect discourse the later types of verbs take the infinitive while verbs of learning do not.

I'm just not sure why certain verbs get the infinitive while others get either a oti/ws phrase or a participle in indirect discourse.

On the infinitive side we get hoping, swearing promising, thinking, believing.

On the participle OR oti/ws phrase side we get knowing, being ignorant, learning, remembering, forgetting, showing, proving, announcing, appearing, perceiving, emotion.

One is tempted to say that the second class is more definite, i.e. that the proposition of the original direct discourse is a fact. And maybe there is something to that. It would follow that in the case of πείθω, one becomes convinced of something true. It would be interesting to do a study of the evidence and see if (the mp especially of) πείθω can be used in cases of deception.

But all of this ignores the verbs of saying. femi gets the infinitive, eipon gets oti/ws, while legw gets the participle or the oti/ws phrase.
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Crito help

Postby NateD26 » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:16 pm

pster wrote:One is tempted to say that the second class is more definite, i.e. that the proposition of the original direct discourse is a fact. And maybe there is something to that. It would follow that in the case of πείθω, one becomes convinced of something true. It would be interesting to do a study of the evidence and see if (the mp especially of) πείθω can be used in cases of deception.

But all of this ignores the verbs of saying. femi gets the infinitive, eipon gets oti/ws, while legw gets the participle or the oti/ws phrase.

Do you mean to say that the statement is perceived as true in his/her eyes or that it is in fact true?
I'd think the former is more likely.

We also need to remember the distinction between ὅτι and ὡς, where ὡς, unlike ὅτι, is followed by statements that the writer conveys as mere opinions or untrue. (Smyth §2579)
I don't think λέγω can take a participle though. (ibid. §2017)
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Crito help

Postby pster » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:09 pm

NateD26 wrote:Do you mean to say that the statement is perceived as true in his/her eyes or that it is in fact true?
I'd think the former is more likely.

We also need to remember the distinction between ὅτι and ὡς, where ὡς, unlike ὅτι, is followed by statements that the writer conveys as mere opinions or untrue. (Smyth §2579)
I don't think λέγω can take a participle though. (ibid. §2017)
[/quote]

Well, leaving oti/ws out of if for the moment (I'll look at them tomorrow when I have more time), I mean to say "in fact true". One can only know, be ignorant of, learn, remember, forget, show, prove things that are in fact true while one can believe, think, swear things that may or may not be true. In short it is a distinction between what is true and what may be false, or perhaps between what is true and what is possible. On your reading we would seemingly get a distinction between what is perceived to be true and what is possible. That is a less familiar and less useful distinction.

Just consider the most striking difference between the two classes. One contains knowledge. The other contains belief. To a philosopher, this is very very striking. English isn't like that in treating the two different syntactically. French isn't either. I'd be curious about Latin. Typically knowledge is cashed out as justified true belief (see the Theaetetus down to the 20th century). Justification doesn't seem to be in play in our dispute and if it were I would point out that most of our beliefs are justified; so leaving that aside, all that remains is the presence of truth.

I'll check out the Smyth tomorrow. Thanks for the links.
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Crito help

Postby Nooj » Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:12 am

Thank you guys! I really appreciate the help.
Dolor poetas creat.
Nooj
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: Crito help

Postby pster » Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:23 pm

NateD26 wrote:We also need to remember the distinction between ὅτι and ὡς, where ὡς, unlike ὅτι, is followed by statements that the writer conveys as mere opinions or untrue.

Smyth butchers that section because while he begins by restricting himself to verbs of saying, it is not until his fourth example that he actually cites a verb of saying. And his lack of conviction about what the evidence shows is marked by an "apparently". I'm on the case though. The verbs of saying certainly deserve some close attention. I think this thread will grow quite a bit. :!:
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Crito help

Postby pster » Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:32 pm

NateD26 wrote:Actually, Smyth in §1992 N. writes this very sentence to distinguish
between two senses of πείθω and their respective constructions. This sense of convince usually takes ὡς, and rarely the acc. w. inf.


The incredibly weird thing about that Smyth 1992 is that it is in the explicitly infinitive NOT in indirect discourse section. Seems like perhaps he is saying the infinitive use (urge) is not indirect discourse, while ws (convince) perhaps is?

One grammar question leads to another, and another. The great grammar regress. (What does cb have to say about that?! By the time I figure it all out, I'll have forgotten the original question!) Argh. Good thing I have 20 free hours next week for Greek grammar! That Nooj guy better hope I don't run into him in a dark alley!
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Crito help

Postby NateD26 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:22 am

pster wrote:Well, leaving oti/ws out of if for the moment (I'll look at them tomorrow when I have more time), I mean to say "in fact true". One can only know, be ignorant of, learn, remember, forget, show, prove things that are in fact true while one can believe, think, swear things that may or may not be true. In short it is a distinction between what is true and what may be false, or perhaps between what is true and what is possible. On your reading we would seemingly get a distinction between what is perceived to be true and what is possible. That is a less familiar and less useful distinction.

The way you phrased your initial post, it sounded like you put πείθω with ὡς in the same category of
verbs of knowing, learning, etc., but perhaps I read wrong.

The fact that it is with ὡς, along with Smyth's distinction in 2579 (it doesn't have to be verbs of saying
per se; you've read enough of the Apology to find abundant examples of his conclusion being in
fact quite true, and while you might feel comfortable pointing out his lack of conviction in it, I'm still
too much of a beginner to try disagreeing with him and haven't read enough material to find examples
to the contrary), makes it clear that it is a form of indirect speech (unlike πείθω with infinitive,
urge someone to an action), and that the dependent statement is to be taken as the
(hypothetical) opinion of the masses of Socrates' true feelings, nothing more.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Crito help

Postby Nooj » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:48 am

Another question folks:

[44d] εἰ γὰρ ὤφελον, ὦ Κρίτων, οἷοί τ᾽ εἶναι οἱ πολλοὶ τὰ μέγιστα κακὰ ἐργάζεσθαι

1) Aren't wishes supposed to take acc + infinitive?
2) Why isn't οἱ πολλοὶ accusative if it's the subject of εἶναι?
Dolor poetas creat.
Nooj
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: Crito help

Postby pster » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:46 pm

NateD26 wrote:The way you phrased your initial post, it sounded like you put πείθω with ὡς in the same category of
verbs of knowing, learning, etc., but perhaps I read wrong.


In my initial post, I did and still do place πείθω with ὡς in the same category of verbs of knowing, learning, etc. Indeed, I have seen nothing here that threatens my overall conjecture that in the non-infinitive cases the subordinate idea is something factual the vast majority of the time . Nothing. Moreover, in perusing the Smyth, I have uncovered some more evidence. He writes, "a. μαρτυρῶ with ὅτι (ὡς) expresses reality; with the infinitive it denotes uncertainty."

NateD26 wrote:it doesn't have to be verbs of saying
per se; you've read enough of the Apology to find abundant examples of his conclusion being in
fact quite true, and while you might feel comfortable pointing out his lack of conviction in it, I'm still
too much of a beginner to try disagreeing with him and haven't read enough material to find examples
to the contrary


I'm only going on what Smyth actually wrote. He says verbs of saying. In every other place he trots out the whole list. I'm not relying on any expertise of Greek here, just pointing out that three of his four examples are not verbs of saying. He is being unclear. That is all I meant.

I've read the whole Apology now but I am not sure what examples you are referring to nor what you think they show.

NateD26 wrote:The fact that it is with ὡς, along with Smyth's distinction in 2579 .....makes it clear that it is a form of indirect speech (unlike πείθω with infinitive,
urge someone to an action), and that the dependent statement is to be taken as the
(hypothetical) opinion of the masses of Socrates' true feelings, nothing more.


Not sure what the bold is for because I agree with the general thrust of this.
User avatar
pster
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am

Re: Crito help

Postby NateD26 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:31 am

Nooj wrote:Another question folks:

[44d] εἰ γὰρ ὤφελον, ὦ Κρίτων, οἷοί τ᾽ εἶναι οἱ πολλοὶ τὰ μέγιστα κακὰ ἐργάζεσθαι

1) Aren't wishes supposed to take acc + infinitive?
2) Why isn't οἱ πολλοὶ accusative if it's the subject of εἶναι?

According to Smyth 1781, ὤφελον (with or without εἴθε/εἰ γάρ) is followed by only the infinitive,
and the subject of the infinitive remains in the nominative.
Nate.
NateD26
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am


Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bedwere, Google Adsense [Bot], gregf and 41 guests