pster wrote:Th. 2.96:
ἀνίστησιν οὖν ἐκ τῶν Ὀδρυσῶν ὁρμώμενος πρῶτον μὲν τοὺς ἐντὸς τοῦ Αἵμου τε ὄρους καὶ τῆς Ῥοδόπης Θρᾷκας, ὅσων ἦρχε μέχρι θαλάσσης [ἐς τὸν Εὔξεινόν τε πόντον καὶ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον], ἔπειτα τοὺς ὑπερβάντι Αἷμον Γέτας καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα μέρη ἐντὸς τοῦ Ἴστρου ποταμοῦ πρὸς θάλασσαν μᾶλλον τὴν τοῦ Εὐξείνου πόντου κατῴκητο: εἰσὶ δ᾽ οἱ Γέται καὶ οἱ ταύτῃ ὅμοροί τε τοῖς Σκύθαις καὶ ὁμόσκευοι, πάντες ἱπποτοξόται.  παρεκάλει δὲ καὶ τῶν ὀρεινῶν Θρᾳκῶν πολλοὺς τῶν αὐτονόμων καὶ μαχαιροφόρων, οἳ Δῖοι καλοῦνται, τὴν Ῥοδόπην οἱ πλεῖστοι οἰκοῦντες: καὶ τοὺς μὲν μισθῷ ἔπειθεν, οἱ δ᾽ ἐθελονταὶ ξυνηκολούθουν.  ἀνίστη δὲ καὶ Ἀγριᾶνας καὶ Λαιαίους καὶ ἄλλα ὅσα ἔθνη Παιονικὰ ὧν ἦρχε καὶ ἔσχατοι τῆς ἀρχῆς οὗτοι ἦσαν: μέχρι γὰρ Λαιαίων Παιόνων καὶ τοῦ Στρυμόνος ποταμοῦ, ὃς ἐκ τοῦ Σκόμβρου ὄρους δι᾽ Ἀγριάνων καὶ Λαιαίων ῥεῖ, [οὗ] ὡρίζετο ἡ ἀρχὴ τὰ πρὸς Παίονας αὐτονόμους ἤδη...
Here we see three uses of osos. The first isn't too difficult. But I find the second and third quite hard. The general sense isn't that difficult. But the precise sense and grammatical goings seem quite difficult to me anyway. And I don't understand the breezy confidence that you guys seem to have. I suspect it is only because the general sense is usually enough to get by. But if one were looking at a precise philosophy text, I suspect that general sense wouldn't always suffice and indeed I could imagine plenty of cases where one would have to do a fair bit of work to get at exactly what quantitative claims the author is committing himself to. Even in the Thucydides, some translators seem to get confused for just this very reason. Think about in English those times one is trying to make such quantitative relative statements. One has to sit up straight and be clear. Or else the listener may end up thinking most of the A's are B's when you only meant so many A's as are C's are B's, yada yada yada. They are some of the trickiest statements one can make as the real content of the utterance is hanging on some quantity that is a property of some thing that isn't always expressed being equal to some other quantity that is a property of some thing that isn't always expressed.
pster - I'm not sure it's a question of 'breezy confidence'. As I've said before, I understand and share your desire to extract the maximum meaning from the text. Equally, however, we need to recognise that Thucydides wasn't writing 'a precise philosophy text', and we need to be wary of trying to extract more precision than the text will bear, or than is likely to have been in the author's mind.
I don't find any of the three instances here particularly problematic. My translation of the whole passage, with my rendition of the three instances in bold, is:
'So, beginning with the Odrysians, he first roused to arms all those Thracians over whom he ruled
from Mount Haemus and Rhodope to the sea (the Euxine Sea and the Hellespont), then, beyond Haemus, the Getae and the peoples of all the other parts that had been settled
south of the River Istrus more towards the Euxine Sea: the Getae and the people in this area are neighbours of the Scythians and are similarly equipped, all being horse archers. He also summoned many of the mountain-dwelling Thracians, who are autonomous and carry sabres, and who are called Dians, most of whom live on Rhodope; and some of these he hired as mercenaries, while others followed him as volunteers. In addition he roused up the Agrianians and Laeaeans, and all other Paeonian tribes over whom he ruled
, and who were the furthest peoples of his empire: for with the Laeaean Paeonians and the River Strymon, which flows from Mount Scombrus through the territory of the Agrianians and Laeaeans, the empire reached its boundary on the side towards the Paeonians, who are autonomous from here onwards.'
If you think there is some level/shade of meaning that I've missed, I'd be very happy to discuss it.