It’s quite OK to translate τῷ ἀνδρί as “to her husband.” It does indeed contain the concept of possession. If it were someone else’s husband, then we would expect to see τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς “to her [the other woman’s] husband.” If it’s the husband of the subject, then we would not expect to see a possessive pronoun.CanadianGirl wrote:Exercise 11ζ
1. The woman learning that the child was blind, said to the man (husband) “Oh Zeus what ought we to do?”
Again, possession is implied. It should be “their brother.” The subject of εἶπον is plural, so it is “they said” rather than “she (or he) said.” This is where we get the “their” of possession, since the subject is both the man and his wife (or, the wife and her husband).CanadianGirl wrote:2. Arriving at the home of the brother, she (or he) said to him what the child suffered (or experienced).
I think we should understand εἶπον in this case as a report of what happened, so it should be “they told him what the child had gone through” or something similar. “Said” is kinda bland for such a situation. I told say to you what I did – I tell you what I did.
Good.CanadianGirl wrote:3. The men, leaving the women in the house, led the child to the doctor.
I would take πρὸς τὸ ὄρος as “to the mountain” and ἀνὰ τὸ ὄρος as “up the mountain.” This sentence doesn’t really tell us if they went up the mountain. You could translate πρός as “up to” and then say that he led the dog up to the mountain, which is fine. It just doesn’t imply an upward direction.CanadianGirl wrote:4. The farmer leading the dog up (or to) the hill, discovered the wolf attacking the sheep.
I’d think of τὸ ὄρος as something bigger than a hill in our minds. A small hill is called ὁ βουνός. (Cf. Luke 3:5 – πᾶν ὄρος [mountain] καὶ βουνὸς [hill] ταπεινωθήσεται.) I’ll grant that ὄρος is sometimes translated as “hill,” but it’s better to think of it as a large hill or mountain. I’m not sure if the farmer in this sentence took the dog to the base of the mountain, where he found the wolf attacking the sheep, or if he actually just walked in the direction of the mountain, but I’d translate it as if they went to rather than toward the mountain.
The verb παρασχοῦσα is an aorist participle of παρέχω, which doesn’t mean “prepare.” The word “prepare” is quite close to this, which can account for the confusion. It would be παρασκευάζω, so the corresponding participle would be παρασκευάσασα (aor part act fs “having prepared”). What this sentence should say, though, is that she gave him food or supplied food for the child. παρέχω is to provide, supply, hand over.CanadianGirl wrote:5. The mother having prepared food for the child, ordered him to hurry to the field
Also, to be precise, the verb κελεύει is the present tense.
“Having provided the boy food, his mother ordered him to hurry to the field.”
And here you translated an aorist (παρέσχες) as a present (“delivers”). Why not as the past? You translated a present tense as the past (which is acceptable if we’re looking at a full narrative), so why translate an aorist as present?CanadianGirl wrote:6. Arriving at the field he delivers dinner to his father.
As a general note, the aorist participle should not be thought of as concomitant with the main verb. It should be thought of as happening before it or providing background for it. That is, “having arrived [the arriving is finished], he gave…” It’s also common in colloquial translation to just say “he arrived and gave.” Translating the aorist participle with a simple -ing in English might mislead the reader, who will understand the action of the participle as ongoing while the main verb takes place.
What’s the difference between: “saying a blessing, he gave them the bread” and “having said a blessing, he gave them the bread”? Obviously, in the first one we would assume that he was still blessing either them or the bread as he gave it to them. In the second one, he finished the blessing before he started to hand out the bread. The first would naturally be a present participle in Greek; the second would be an aorist participle.
Again, translate λιπών as “having left” rather than as “leaving” so as to distinguish it from λείπων.CanadianGirl wrote:7. The father, leaving the plow in the field, took the dinner.
I would not translate μέν... δέ… as “so… and…” The word “so” is best rendered by οὖν (“therefore, then, so”). Here we have a contrast of what the boy did and what the wolf did. “On the one hand, the boy pelted the wolf; on the other hand, the wolf was afraid and fled.” We often render μέν... δέ... as “while” or “whereas” one thing happened, another also happened. You can also just leave μέν untranslated.CanadianGirl wrote:8. So the child throws (something) at the wolf, and he (the wolf) flees, terrified.
“The boy pelted the wolf, and it ran away scared.”
“While the boy pelted the wolf, it ran away scared.”
“Whereas the boy pelted the wolf, it conversely ran away scared.”
Anything of the sort, but leave “so” out of it, since it is not a conclusion of anything.
Excellent.CanadianGirl wrote:9. The young people died, while fighting for the city.
The participle παθόντες is aorist – “having suffered.” There is no sense of “could not” here. Just render οὐκ ἔφυγον as “they did not run away.” It’s not that they couldn’t run away (as if they were cowards who found no way of escape). Rather, they did not run away (because they were brave and would rather die fighting for their city).CanadianGirl wrote:10. Suffering terrible things, they could not flee but they fell, fighting bravely.
“Having suffered terrible things, they did not run away; rather, they fell bravely fighting (for the city [from the previous sentence]).”