The syntax of 1184-85 is interesting.Soph OT 1183-1185
Ὦ φῶς, τελευταῖόν σε προσβλέψαιμι νῦν,
ὅστις πέφασμαι φύς τ' ἀφ' ὧν οὐ χρῆν, ξὺν οἷς τ'
οὐ χρῆν ὁμιλῶν, οὕς τέ μ' οὐκ ἔδει κτανών. 1185
Bunch of questions:
#0 why ὅστις rather than ὅς ?
#1 is οὐ χρῆν = οὐκ ἔδει ?
#2 πέφασμαι + three participles (φύς, ὁμιλῶν, κτανών) is an extended metaphor from Ὦ φῶς ? Note the metaphor is lost in Jebb and Lloyd-Jones, see below.
#3 why do several translations render φύς τ' ἀφ' ὧν οὐ χρῆν as "born under a curse" or something like that. It isn't obvious how οὐ χρῆν ... leads to a rendering like:
#4 οἷς and οὕς plural. Does that mean what it appears to mean that more than one person is in view? (Cooper says it does not. vol 3, 44.3.6.0 p1934). Which leads to a second question:I who have been found to be accursed in birth, [1185] accursed in wedlock, accursed in the shedding of blood. Jebb
I who am revealed as cursed in my birth, cursed in my marriage, cursed in my killing! Lloyd-Jones 1994
#5 ξὺν οἷς τ' οὐ χρῆν ὁμιλῶν is a vague way to make reference to his marriage. ὁμιλῶν has a wide semantic range. I may be having a problem with archaic english in LSJ: consort with .
Guy Cooper addresses related questions. The syntax of πέφασμαι + three participles (φύς, ὁμιλῶν, κτανών) is addressed vol. 3, p2547, 56:1-3.0., p2552 56.4.4.A.