dickey's prose comp: chapter six

Use this forum to organize a study group around a specific textbook. Before starting, you might wish to advertise your plan on other forums first.
Tugodum
Textkit Fan
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

dickey's prose comp: chapter six

Post by Tugodum » Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:52 pm

Translating the sentence (#6) "Today the guards are camping around the harbor, in order to be roused by the bandits when they go beyond the boundary," I thought that "when they go" should be rendered by a future participle, πορευσομένων but Dickey, in her key, renders it by an aourist, πορευθέντων.
Are both version possible here, or mine is simply wrong? Thanks in advance.

Tugodum
Textkit Fan
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: dickey's prose comp: chapter six

Post by Tugodum » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:32 pm

Also, as regards #8, "Spring is dear to women, and birds are dear to children," I thought that "women" and "children" would require articles in Greek, as referring to the respective whole classes, yet Dickey, in her key, has them without articles. What am I missing here?

Tugodum
Textkit Fan
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: dickey's prose comp: chapter six

Post by Tugodum » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:51 am

Also, on p. 65, the task is to indicate for each of the sentences (without translating) whether it can be translated with μεν..δε in Greek, and, if so, how the English should be reordered to make that possible.
Regarding the sentence "Philosophers love to talk, but there's no point in listening to them," I thought it can be reordered as "To talk μεν philosophers love, in listening δε to them there is no point"; but Dickey says, in her key, that this sentence cannot be reordered so as to make its translation with μεν...δε possible. What did I miss? Many thanks in advance.

Tugodum
Textkit Fan
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: dickey's prose comp: chapter six

Post by Tugodum » Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:54 am

Also, on p. 68, the task is to analyze the following sentence by Xenophon (Memorabilia, 1.2.62), indicating, by numbering, all relations of dependence between the units which this sentence includes, each of them containing one and only one verb form:
"κατὰ γὰρ τοὺς νόμους, ἐάν τις φανερὸς γένηται κλέπτων ἢ λωποδυτῶν ἢ βαλλαντιοτομῶν ἢ τοιχωρυχῶν ἢ ἀνδραποδιζόμενος ἢ ἱεροσυλῶν, τούτοις θάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ζημία· ὧν ἐκεῖνος πάντων ἀνθρώπων πλεῖστον ἀπεῖχεν."
As regards the ending, Dickey, in her key, has it thus:
"1 τούτοις θάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ζημία "for these death is the punishment"
1.2 ὧν ἐκεῖνος πάντων ἀνθρώπων πλεῖστον ἀπεῖχεν "from which things that man [sc. Socrates] has most of all men stayed away" (my emphases)
My first question is whether "for these" in her translation refer to the people who have committed the indicated crimes or to the very crimes that they committed. The former seems right to me, given the context; and is so translated in the Loeb edition. But if this is what Dickey meant, I fail to see how the unit labeled "1.2" depends (as it is supposed to) on the unit labeled "1"--if ὧν in 1.2 does, indeed, means, as Dickey translates it (in my view, correctly), "from which things" (not "from such criminals," as the Loeb translation has it).

Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: dickey's prose comp: chapter six

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:51 pm

Tugodum wrote:Translating the sentence (#6) "Today the guards are camping around the harbor, in order to be roused by the bandits when they go beyond the boundary," I thought that "when they go" should be rendered by a future participle, πορευσομένων but Dickey, in her key, renders it by an aourist, πορευθέντων.
Are both version possible here, or mine is simply wrong? Thanks in advance.
Think through logic of what the sequence of events must be. What has to take place first to rouse the guards? Right, the bandits first have cross the boundary. Remember:

The present participle expresses action taking place at the same time as the main verb in its clause.
The aorist participle expresses action prior to (taking place before) the main verb in its clause.
The future participle (when not being used in a specialized sense such as purpose) takes place subsequent to the main verb.

Therefore it has to be the aorist participle.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Tugodum
Textkit Fan
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: dickey's prose comp: chapter six

Post by Tugodum » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:04 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:The aorist participle expresses action prior to (taking place before) the main verb in its clause.
The main verb is "are camping". And they are camping "in order to be roused by the bandits." Which will happen when (and if) the bandits "go beyond the boundary." Which implies that the bandits have not yet gone beyond the boundary; for otherwise, the guards would be already roused at this point. Thus "going beyond the boundary" seems to indicate an action subsequent to the action indicated by the main verb ("are camping"). Hence, future participle.

Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: dickey's prose comp: chapter six

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:14 pm

Tugodum wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:The aorist participle expresses action prior to (taking place before) the main verb in its clause.
The main verb is "are camping". And they are camping "in order to be roused by the bandits." Which will happen when (and if) the bandits "go beyond the boundary." Which implies that the bandits have not yet gone beyond the boundary; for otherwise, the guards would be already roused at this point. Thus "going beyond the boundary" seems to indicate an action subsequent to the action indicated by the main verb ("are camping"). Hence, future participle.

No, think it through. The verb in the ἵνα or ὅπως clause for "arouse" is going to be the verb prior to which the crossing must take place, and so the aorist participle. Not the main verb of the entire sentence, but the main verb of the clause in which the participle is placed.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Tugodum
Textkit Fan
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: dickey's prose comp: chapter six

Post by Tugodum » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:25 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote: Not the main verb of the entire sentence, but the main verb of the clause in which the participle is placed.
If you mean "to be roused," it is, even in Dickey's own translation, not a finite verb but a participle.
In any event, I was not asking whether Dickey's translation is correct. I am sure it is, and I understand the logic behind it. I was asking whether my translation (and the logic behind it, which I have just explained) is simply wrong or is also possible.

Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: dickey's prose comp: chapter six

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:29 am

Tugodum wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote: Not the main verb of the entire sentence, but the main verb of the clause in which the participle is placed.
If you mean "to be roused," it is, even in Dickey's own translation, not a finite verb but a participle.
In any event, I was not asking whether Dickey's translation is correct. I am sure it is, and I understand the logic behind it. I was asking whether my translation (and the logic behind it, which I have just explained) is simply wrong or is also possible.
Not if you want to express the same thing that Dickey is expressing in English. So "to be roused" is a participle in her rendering? I have trouble seeing that. From now on, when you have questions like that, it might be best to post Dickey's entire sentence so we can grasp her logic in the translation. So without knowing a thing about what Dickey is trying to teach the user about Greek prose comp, I would have rendered something like:

"Today the guards are camping around the harbor, in order to be roused by the bandits when they go beyond the boundary"

οἱ φύλακες σήμερον στρατοπεδεύονται περὶ τὸν λιμένα ἵνα ὑπὸ τῶν ληστῶν ὑπὲρ τὸν ὅρον πορευθέντων ἐγερθῶσιν.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Tugodum
Textkit Fan
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

Re: dickey's prose comp: chapter six

Post by Tugodum » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:19 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:So "to be roused" is a participle in her rendering? I have trouble seeing that.
I would have rendered something like:
"Today the guards are camping around the harbor, in order to be roused by the bandits when they go beyond the boundary"
οἱ φύλακες σήμερον στρατοπεδεύονται περὶ τὸν λιμένα ἵνα ὑπὸ τῶν ληστῶν ὑπὲρ τὸν ὅρον πορευθέντων ἐγερθῶσιν.
Here is the translation given by Dickey in her key:
τήμερον οὖν αὐλίζονται οἱ φύλακες περὶ τῷ λιμένι ἐγερθησόμενοι ὑπὸ τῶν λῃστῶν ὑπὲρ τὸν ὅρον πορευθέντων.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:if you want to express the same thing that Dickey is expressing in English.
Unfortunately, English is not my native language, so I my easily miss nuances. In this case, I reasoned that, if she wanted to express in English the idea that the bandits arrived earlier than the action of the preceding verb form (i.e., "to be roused") takes place, she would have said "...to be roused when the bandits have gone beyond the boundary". But given the way she phrased it ("...to be roused when the bandits go beyond the boundary"), I thought she meant that the bandit's going beyond the boundary would be simultaneous with the guards' being roused. On this assumption, I hesitated between, on the one hand, the present participle (which would render the temporal relation of the action expressed by it to the action expressed by the preceding participle, ἐγερθησόμενοι) and, on the other hand, the future participle (which would render the temporal relation of the action expressed by it to the action expressed by the only finite verb in this sentence, αὐλίζονται). I chose the latter, as I could not recall reading anywhere that the tense of the participle might be rendering the temporal relation of the action expressed by it to the action expressed by a participle, not a finite verb.

Post Reply