Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
 pster
 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 1071
 Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
Smyth 2511 reads:
The antecedent of a neuter relative is often omitted, leaving the relative with the force of a conjunction. So ἐξ οὗ and ἀφ' οὗ since, ἐν ᾧ while, εἰς ὅ till, μέχρι (ἄχρι) οὗ until. ἀνθ' ὧν and ἐξ ὧν because (cp. οὕνεκα, ὁθούνεκα), ἐφ' ᾧτε on condition that ( cross2279).
These things always give me trouble. Evidently I am not the only one. Smyth translates ἐξ ὧν by "because", but I just encountered it at Plb. 6.6.7 where the translator, correctly in my opinion, translates it as just the opposite, ie "hence". A because B = B, hence A.
So back to Smyth, can anybody just fill in a few of these for me?
What antecedent has been omitted?
Has a repeated/duplicate preposition been omitted?
What does the antecedent/relative actually refer to? Perhaps in some of them it refers to a moment in time, but what about the others?
Thanks in advance.
The antecedent of a neuter relative is often omitted, leaving the relative with the force of a conjunction. So ἐξ οὗ and ἀφ' οὗ since, ἐν ᾧ while, εἰς ὅ till, μέχρι (ἄχρι) οὗ until. ἀνθ' ὧν and ἐξ ὧν because (cp. οὕνεκα, ὁθούνεκα), ἐφ' ᾧτε on condition that ( cross2279).
These things always give me trouble. Evidently I am not the only one. Smyth translates ἐξ ὧν by "because", but I just encountered it at Plb. 6.6.7 where the translator, correctly in my opinion, translates it as just the opposite, ie "hence". A because B = B, hence A.
So back to Smyth, can anybody just fill in a few of these for me?
What antecedent has been omitted?
Has a repeated/duplicate preposition been omitted?
What does the antecedent/relative actually refer to? Perhaps in some of them it refers to a moment in time, but what about the others?
Thanks in advance.

 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 789
 Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
 Contact:
Re: Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
In 6.6.9 we have ἐξ οὗ functioning in much the same way.
I remember reading about this usage in Sidgwick but I don't have it at hand
at the moment. I'm sure others will chime in.
I remember reading about this usage in Sidgwick but I don't have it at hand
at the moment. I'm sure others will chime in.
Nate.

 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 789
 Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
 Contact:
Re: Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
In 2279, Smyth referenced ἀφίεμέν σε, ἐπὶ τούτῳ μέντοι, ἐφ' ᾧτε μηκέτι . . . φιλοσοφεῖνpster wrote: So back to Smyth, can anybody just fill in a few of these for me?
What antecedent has been omitted?
Has a repeated/duplicate preposition been omitted?
What does the antecedent/relative actually refer to? Perhaps in some of them it refers to a moment in time, but what about the others?
Thanks in advance.
we release you, on this condition however, that you no longer search after wisdom (P. A. 29c),
which seems to include a demonstrative pronoun τούτῳ as antecedent as well as a repeated
preposition. Here, I would venture a guess that, despite the special meaning of μέντοι
as however, τοι adds some emphasis that is not present otherwise.
"we agree to release you, however, on this condition alone, (on the condition/namely) that
you no longer do that thing you're famous (nay, notorious) for, and is really the very reason
you're on trial." [I'm paraphrasing a bit ]
I think it has the same function of a prepositional phrase but in a form of relative clause.
Nate.
 pster
 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 1071
 Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
Re: Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
Some other questions that I have:
Has a copula also been omitted?
Are the demonstrative and the relative always in the same case?
Has a copula also been omitted?
Are the demonstrative and the relative always in the same case?
 pster
 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 1071
 Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
Re: Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
Thanks, and you are probably on the right track. But I just don't understand that. For starters, where is the conjunction "that" coming from? And how is the core logic of it supposed to go?NateD26 wrote:In 2279, Smyth referenced ἀφίεμέν σε, ἐπὶ τούτῳ μέντοι, ἐφ' ᾧτε μηκέτι . . . φιλοσοφεῖνpster wrote: So back to Smyth, can anybody just fill in a few of these for me?
What antecedent has been omitted?
Has a repeated/duplicate preposition been omitted?
What does the antecedent/relative actually refer to? Perhaps in some of them it refers to a moment in time, but what about the others?
Thanks in advance.
we release you, on this condition however, that you no longer search after wisdom (P. A. 29c),
which seems to include a demonstrative pronoun τούτῳ as antecedent as well as a repeated
preposition. Here, I would venture a guess that, despite the special meaning of μέντοι
as however, τοι adds some emphasis that is not present otherwise.
"we agree to release you, however, on this condition alone, (on the condition/namely) that
you no longer do that thing you're famous (nay, notorious) for, and is really the very reason
you're on trial." [I'm paraphrasing a bit ]
I think it has the same function of a prepositional phrase but in a form of relative clause.
P on condition that Q
If we add a demonstrative and a preposition, we get something like:
P on this, on which Q.
That just seems bizarre to me.
We get repeated prepositions in phrases like this:
I sent him to the house to which you sent her.
But that is an accident. Typically, we get different prepositions:
I sent him to the house, of which you were speaking.
I'm lost.
 pster
 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 1071
 Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
Re: Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
Before you put up the other Smyth reference, I was thinking along these lines:
P on this, which is Q.
We release you on this (condition), which (condition) is you don't search. (Maybe Greek doesn't need a "that"/oti for clauses like the second half here?)
Then drop the copula and use attraction:
P on which Q.
P on this, which is Q.
We release you on this (condition), which (condition) is you don't search. (Maybe Greek doesn't need a "that"/oti for clauses like the second half here?)
Then drop the copula and use attraction:
P on which Q.

 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 789
 Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
 Contact:
Re: Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
I guess I'm mixing 'which' and 'that' in my mind.
By 'that' I don't add some ὅτι but simply read the relative pronoun to have that meaning.
Indeed, you can do away with the redundancies by omitting the antecedent and first prep. phrase
which is often the case.
By 'that' I don't add some ὅτι but simply read the relative pronoun to have that meaning.
Indeed, you can do away with the redundancies by omitting the antecedent and first prep. phrase
which is often the case.
Nate.
 pster
 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 1071
 Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
Re: Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
I think one needs to understand the section in light of the two preceeding ones. I think I will soon be able to address each of them. Probably a copula has to be understood in all of them.
 pster
 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 1071
 Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
Re: Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
Here is how I think these can be derived. There is probably a typo or two. If you catch one, please let me know. My eyes glaze over anymore when I look at these. Also, one can quibble with comma placement.
Call the two sentences that are to be joined by the conjunction P and Q.
In each case we need a copula (is) and a neuter demonstrative (that/those). We can call our relative pronoun which.
The main move employed in some, but not all, may seem like a slight of hand, but I think it is correct. It took me a couple of days to figure out how to get the conjunctions to go in the right direction. However, it is important to note that there are some subtle differences between the derivations.
The interesting moral of the story is that when you see one of these conjunctions, the relative pronoun in the conjunction often, but not in all cases, originally referred to the proposition that directly follows it.
If that seems puzzling, something that may or may not make it less puzzling is the idea that a conjunction like good old English "that" is regarded in (formal) semantics as being originally a demonstrative pronoun. Consider: "Jane said that Bill was tired." One can think of the "that" as just pointing ostensively at the sentence "Bill was tired". So: Jane said that! <point finger at>>>> "Bill was tired."

ἐξ οὗ: since
According to Sidgwick, this is a temporal sense and it is the main way to say "since" in Greek (and it takes the indicative.)
P is that, from which Q = P, from which Q = from which (namely P), Q = since P, Q
Alternatively,
P is that, ἐξ οὗ Q = P, ἐξ οὗ Q = ἐξ οὗ (namely P), Q = ἐξ οὗ P, Q = since P, Q

ἀφ' οὗ: since
Should be identical to the preceding.

ἐν ᾧ: while
P is at that moment, at which moment Q = at which moment (namely at the moment of P) Q = at which moment (namely the moment of P), Q = while P, Q
Alternatively,
P is at that moment, ἐν ᾧ Q = ἐν ᾧ (namely at the moment of P), Q = ἐν ᾧ (namely the moment of P), Q = ἐν ᾧ P, Q = while P, Q
One can also imagine these being derived with an extra preposition.
P is ἐν τούτῳ, ἐν ᾧ Q = ἐν ᾧ (namely ἐν ᾧ P), Q = ἐν ᾧ P, Q
I am not sure which derivation is correct. And I am not sure whether "P is ἐν τούτῳ" is correct Greek. Can we have a predicate dative of time with a copula like that?
However that may be, it is worth noting that most of these derivations do not make use of an extra preposition.

εἰς ὅ: till
P is that, up to that Q = P, up to that Q = up to that (namely P), Q = till P, Q
Alternatively,
P is that, εἰς ὅ Q = P, εἰς ὅ Q = εἰς ὅ (namely P), Q = till P, Q

μέχρι (ἄχρι) οὗ: until
P is that, as far as which Q = P, as far as which Q = as far as which (namely P), Q = until P, Q
Alternatively,
P is that, μέχρι οὗ Q = P, μέχρι οὗ Q = μέχρι οὗ (namely P), Q = μέχρι οὗ P, Q = until P, Q

ἀνθ' ὧν: because OR therefore
Smyth says it means "because". But LSJ list "therefore" as the first meaning and "because" as the second:
—hence “ἀνθ᾽ ὧν” wherefore, A.Pr.31, S.OT264, Th.6.83, Ev.Luc.12.3; “ἀντὶ τούτου” therefore, Ep.Eph.5.31; but ἀνθ᾽ ὧν also for ἀντὶ τούτων ὄτι . ., because, S.Ant. 1068, Ar.Pl.434
ἀνθ' ὧν: therefore (CASE 1)
P is that, in return for which Q = P, in return for which Q = P, therefore Q
Alternatively,
P is that, ἀνθ' ὧν Q = P, ἀνθ' ὧν Q = P, therefore Q
ἀνθ' ὧν: because (CASE 2)
LSJ indicates how this works.
ἀντὶ τούτων ὅτι P, Q = ἀνθ' ὧν P, Q = because P, Q
I only give one derivation here because I don't have an extra English word for ὅτι.

ἐξ ὧν: because
P are those, from which Q = P, from which Q = from which (namely P), Q = because P, Q
Alternatively,
P are those, ἐξ ὧν Q = P, ἐξ ὧν Q = ἐξ ὧν (namely P), Q = ἐξ ὧν P, Q = because P, Q

ἐφ' ᾧτε: on condition that
P is that, upon which Q = P, upon which Q = upon which (namely P), Q = upon which (namely P), Q = on condition that P, Q
Alternatively,
P is that, ἐφ' ᾧτε Q = P, ἐφ' ᾧτε Q = ἐφ' ᾧτε (namely P), Q = ἐφ' ᾧτε P, Q = on condition that P, Q
The example from Smyth 2279 mentioned above illustrates a later manipulation/development.
Call the two sentences that are to be joined by the conjunction P and Q.
In each case we need a copula (is) and a neuter demonstrative (that/those). We can call our relative pronoun which.
The main move employed in some, but not all, may seem like a slight of hand, but I think it is correct. It took me a couple of days to figure out how to get the conjunctions to go in the right direction. However, it is important to note that there are some subtle differences between the derivations.
The interesting moral of the story is that when you see one of these conjunctions, the relative pronoun in the conjunction often, but not in all cases, originally referred to the proposition that directly follows it.
If that seems puzzling, something that may or may not make it less puzzling is the idea that a conjunction like good old English "that" is regarded in (formal) semantics as being originally a demonstrative pronoun. Consider: "Jane said that Bill was tired." One can think of the "that" as just pointing ostensively at the sentence "Bill was tired". So: Jane said that! <point finger at>>>> "Bill was tired."

ἐξ οὗ: since
According to Sidgwick, this is a temporal sense and it is the main way to say "since" in Greek (and it takes the indicative.)
P is that, from which Q = P, from which Q = from which (namely P), Q = since P, Q
Alternatively,
P is that, ἐξ οὗ Q = P, ἐξ οὗ Q = ἐξ οὗ (namely P), Q = ἐξ οὗ P, Q = since P, Q

ἀφ' οὗ: since
Should be identical to the preceding.

ἐν ᾧ: while
P is at that moment, at which moment Q = at which moment (namely at the moment of P) Q = at which moment (namely the moment of P), Q = while P, Q
Alternatively,
P is at that moment, ἐν ᾧ Q = ἐν ᾧ (namely at the moment of P), Q = ἐν ᾧ (namely the moment of P), Q = ἐν ᾧ P, Q = while P, Q
One can also imagine these being derived with an extra preposition.
P is ἐν τούτῳ, ἐν ᾧ Q = ἐν ᾧ (namely ἐν ᾧ P), Q = ἐν ᾧ P, Q
I am not sure which derivation is correct. And I am not sure whether "P is ἐν τούτῳ" is correct Greek. Can we have a predicate dative of time with a copula like that?
However that may be, it is worth noting that most of these derivations do not make use of an extra preposition.

εἰς ὅ: till
P is that, up to that Q = P, up to that Q = up to that (namely P), Q = till P, Q
Alternatively,
P is that, εἰς ὅ Q = P, εἰς ὅ Q = εἰς ὅ (namely P), Q = till P, Q

μέχρι (ἄχρι) οὗ: until
P is that, as far as which Q = P, as far as which Q = as far as which (namely P), Q = until P, Q
Alternatively,
P is that, μέχρι οὗ Q = P, μέχρι οὗ Q = μέχρι οὗ (namely P), Q = μέχρι οὗ P, Q = until P, Q

ἀνθ' ὧν: because OR therefore
Smyth says it means "because". But LSJ list "therefore" as the first meaning and "because" as the second:
—hence “ἀνθ᾽ ὧν” wherefore, A.Pr.31, S.OT264, Th.6.83, Ev.Luc.12.3; “ἀντὶ τούτου” therefore, Ep.Eph.5.31; but ἀνθ᾽ ὧν also for ἀντὶ τούτων ὄτι . ., because, S.Ant. 1068, Ar.Pl.434
ἀνθ' ὧν: therefore (CASE 1)
P is that, in return for which Q = P, in return for which Q = P, therefore Q
Alternatively,
P is that, ἀνθ' ὧν Q = P, ἀνθ' ὧν Q = P, therefore Q
ἀνθ' ὧν: because (CASE 2)
LSJ indicates how this works.
ἀντὶ τούτων ὅτι P, Q = ἀνθ' ὧν P, Q = because P, Q
I only give one derivation here because I don't have an extra English word for ὅτι.

ἐξ ὧν: because
P are those, from which Q = P, from which Q = from which (namely P), Q = because P, Q
Alternatively,
P are those, ἐξ ὧν Q = P, ἐξ ὧν Q = ἐξ ὧν (namely P), Q = ἐξ ὧν P, Q = because P, Q

ἐφ' ᾧτε: on condition that
P is that, upon which Q = P, upon which Q = upon which (namely P), Q = upon which (namely P), Q = on condition that P, Q
Alternatively,
P is that, ἐφ' ᾧτε Q = P, ἐφ' ᾧτε Q = ἐφ' ᾧτε (namely P), Q = ἐφ' ᾧτε P, Q = on condition that P, Q
The example from Smyth 2279 mentioned above illustrates a later manipulation/development.
 pster
 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 1071
 Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
Re: Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
At Th. 1.2.4, we have:
διὰ γὰρ ἀρετὴν γῆς αἵ τε δυνάμεις τισὶ μείζους ἐγγιγνόμεναι στάσεις ἐνεποίουν ἐξ ὧν ἐφθείροντο, καὶ ἅμα ὑπὸ ἀλλοφύλων μᾶλλον ἐπεβουλεύοντο.
Here again ἐξ ὧν seems to mean "hence" rather than "because".
Unfortunately, this thread is the most convenient place for me to keep track of my thoughts on these things. Somebody should come up with an antibump function! So, don't feel compelled to waste your time on these matters.
διὰ γὰρ ἀρετὴν γῆς αἵ τε δυνάμεις τισὶ μείζους ἐγγιγνόμεναι στάσεις ἐνεποίουν ἐξ ὧν ἐφθείροντο, καὶ ἅμα ὑπὸ ἀλλοφύλων μᾶλλον ἐπεβουλεύοντο.
Here again ἐξ ὧν seems to mean "hence" rather than "because".
Unfortunately, this thread is the most convenient place for me to keep track of my thoughts on these things. Somebody should come up with an antibump function! So, don't feel compelled to waste your time on these matters.

 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 2090
 Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
στάσεις ἐνεποίουν ἐξ ὧν ἐφθείροντο  Here the relative has an explicit antecedent, namely, στάσεις, doesn't it? So you probably don't need to resort to a conjunction to translate it: "disorders, from which (or 'as a result of which') they were devastated . . . "
 pster
 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 1071
 Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
Re: Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
Very good. A little voice in the back of my head was saying the same thing, but I wanted to keep moving forward and to just make a note of it for future investigation. Thanks!

 Textkit Zealot
 Posts: 3394
 Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Conjunctions and Smyth 2511
Misleading of Smyth to say the antecedent "is omitted," when there IS no antecedent. ex ou, af'ou, lit. "from which" (sc. time, cause, whatever; there is no specific antecedent to be understood — that's why it's neuter). This is tantamount (in Smyth's world) to ek de toutou, apo de toutou, etc.: that's what he means by "leaving the relative with the force of a conjunction."pster wrote:Smyth 2511 reads:
The antecedent of a neuter relative is often omitted, leaving the relative with the force of a conjunction. So ἐξ οὗ and ἀφ' οὗ since, ἐν ᾧ while, εἰς ὅ till, μέχρι (ἄχρι) οὗ until. ἀνθ' ὧν and ἐξ ὧν because (cp. οὕνεκα, ὁθούνεκα), ἐφ' ᾧτε on condition that ( cross2279).
These things always give me trouble. Evidently I am not the only one. Smyth translates ἐξ ὧν by "because", but I just encountered it at Plb. 6.6.7 where the translator, correctly in my opinion, translates it as just the opposite, ie "hence". A because B = B, hence A.
So back to Smyth, can anybody just fill in a few of these for me?
What antecedent has been omitted?
Has a repeated/duplicate preposition been omitted?
What does the antecedent/relative actually refer to? Perhaps in some of them it refers to a moment in time, but what about the others?
Thanks in advance.
Not sure that's altogether clear, but perhaps it may help.