Page 1 of 1

te in line 13 of the Iliad

Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:52 pm
by Bert
[size=150]τε occurs twice in line 13 of the Iliad but I can't translate them in a meaningfull way.<br />If there is no connection between the two, the second one may simply mean -and-;and bringing countless ransom.<br />And, also, both...and etc. does not make a whole lot of sence here. What is the meaning?

Re:te in line 13 of the Iliad

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:19 am
by annis
Ah. This drove me nuts the first time I saw it. Fortunately, Smyth came to my rescue.<br /><br />[size=150]λυσόμενός τε θύγατρα φέρων τ’ ἀπερείσῑ ἄποινα<br /><br />Normally you'd want to translate paired [size=150]τε as "both... and..." but sometimes the exact meaning of [size=150]τε is hard to get. For example, it is often uses in general statements. It is quite often used in Homer after relative pronouns where no clear "and" sense is necessary.<br /><br />In this case, the sense of [size=150]τε indicating two things occuring at the same time has been extended to indicate two interrelated, dependent events.<br /><br />He came "carrying countless ransoms to free his daughter" (note the future participle indicating intent).<br />

On to line 20

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:29 am
by annis
It just occured to me that line 20 in Pharr's version has another double [size=150]τε. Except this might not be the best reading. West gives:<br /><br />[size=150]παῖδα δ’ ἐμοὶ λύσαιτε φίλην, τὰ δ’ ἄποινα δέχεσθαι,<br /><br />[size=150]λύσαιτε is a 2.pl. aorist optative; see pharr paragraph 1102 for more on this.

Re:te in line 13 of the Iliad

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:02 am
by Paul
OK, I'll bite: what's wrong with translating the 'te...te' sequence as the familiar 'both...and'?<br /><br />When I first translated line 13 it never occurred to me to translate it any other way. So now you've got me wondering about it.<br /><br />[size=150]λυσόμενός τε θύγατρα φέρων τ’ ἀπερείσῑ ἄποινα<br /><br />The evident symmetry of 'participle te'...'participle te' seems to invite such a translation, e.g., 'both desiring to free his daughter and bringing boundless ransom'. <br /><br />I see in this coordination the unity of intent and act, of inner and outer; not only does Chryses desire to free his daughter, but he acts so as to accomplish it.<br /><br />Cordially,<br /><br />Paul

Re:te in line 13 of the Iliad

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 1:05 pm
by annis
Paul wrote:<br />OK, I'll bite: what's wrong with translating the 'te...te' sequence as the familiar 'both...and'?<br /><br />When I first translated line 13 it never occurred to me to translate it any other way.<br />
<br /><br />Well, using 'both/and' probably will work for most people. To people who like to worry about grammar (i.e., me), two participles coordinated this way imply action at the same time, which is not what we have here.<br /><br /><br />
<br />The evident symmetry of 'participle te'...'participle te' seems to invite such a translation, e.g., 'both desiring to free his daughter and bringing boundless ransom'. <br />
<br /><br />It is also possible Bert [size=150]τε I [size=150]τ’ are misanalysing at the verse rather than the sentence level. Context:<br /><br />[size=150]...)ατρείδης. ὃ γαρ\ ἦλθε θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας )αχαιῶνλυσόμενός τε θύγατρα, φέρων τ’ ἀπερείσῑ ἄποινα,<br /><br />Note that I've introduced some punctuation before the [size=150]φέρων; this matches the caesura. This makes the future participle a purpose clause with the preceding line, "he came to the swift ships of the Achaeans to free his daughter, bringing countless ransoms."<br /><br />That might work better.

Re:te in line 13 of the Iliad

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 10:48 pm
by Bert
[quote author=William Annis link=board=2;threadid=312;start=0#2065 date=1059397530]<br /> <br />Well, using 'both/and' probably will work for most people. To people who like to worry about grammar (i.e., me), two participles coordinated this way imply action at the same time, which is not what we have here.<br /><br />The INTENT to free his daughter and the BRINGING of the ransom occurr at the same time. Does that make a difference?<br /><br />[quote author=William Annis link=board=2;threadid=312;start=0#2065 date=1059397530]<br /> [size=150]...)ατρείδης. ὃ γαρ\ ἦλθε θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας )αχαιῶνλυσόμενός τε θύγατρα, φέρων τ’ ἀπερείσῑ ἄποινα,<br /><br />Note that I've introduced some punctuation before the [size=150]φέρων; this matches the caesura. This makes the future participle a purpose clause with the preceding line, "he came to the swift ships of the Achaeans to free his daughter, bringing countless ransoms."<br />That might work better.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />In this way you view Te...Te... as connecting two interrelated dependent events whithout being able to translate them into English, right?<br />[/quote]

Re:te in line 13 of the Iliad

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:03 pm
by annis
[quote author=Bert de Haan link=board=2;threadid=312;start=0#2253 date=1059518923]<br />In this way you view Te...Te... as connecting two interrelated dependent events whithout being able to translate them into English, right?<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Right. There's till obviously a relationship between the two subclauses of that line. It's not like you can end after that first TE clause.<br /><br />While it is certainly important to understand the language, I don't think we're dealing with a logic puzzle. :) Once we start to overanalyze we go off into some post-modernist lala land if we're not careful. Probably my first reply about this is clearest.

Re:te in line 13 of the Iliad

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 1:16 pm
by Paul
[quote author=William Annis link=board=2;threadid=312;start=0#2065 date=1059397530]<br />Well, using 'both/and' probably will work for most people. To people who like to worry about grammar (i.e., me), two participles coordinated this way imply action at the same time, which is not what we have here.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />It seems to me possible both to care about grammar and to translate te/te as both/and.<br /><br />In what sense are the two 'events' dependent? Isn't <br /><br />luso/menoj<br /> the ground of<br /><br />fe/rwn ...<br /> ?<br /><br />I can 'intend to free' without 'bringing ransom', but I can't 'bring ransom' without 'intending to free'.<br /><br />I am not convinced that te/te suggests temporal concurrency.<br /><br />Yours in po-mo lala land, :)<br /><br />Paul