Isn't Greek wonderful. Get bothered by something. Tell others. Get them bugged by something related?

My way of translating such constructions is with a simple "it is/was...". Less headache for me,pster wrote:OK, the ship has set sail on its several year journey. A year of preliminaries are over and I have just started the book in earnest. No stopping till the end of book VIII. I am hoping that it takes less time than the war itself!
At 1.1.3, we get:
τὰ γὰρ πρὸ αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ἔτι παλαίτερα σαφῶς μὲν εὑρεῖν διὰ χρόνου πλῆθος ἀδύνατα ἦν, ἐκ δὲ τεκμηρίων ὧν ἐπὶ μακρότατον σκοποῦντί μοι πιστεῦσαι ξυμβαίνει οὐ μεγάλα νομίζω γενέσθαι οὔτε κατὰ τοὺς πολέμους οὔτε ἐς τὰ ἄλλα.
What is the subject of the first part of this? Is it the noun phrase τὰ γὰρ πρὸ αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ἔτι παλαίτερα σαφῶς? Or is it the infinitive εὑρεῖν?
The fact that ἦν can work with either the neuter noun phrase as subject or the infinitive as subject is probably the main thing that makes this so slippery.
Hobbes opts for the noun phrase: "For though the events of remote antiquity, and even those that more immediately precede the war, could not from lapse of time be clearly ascertained..." Cameron seems to agree with this as he claims the infinitive is epexegetical on the adjective. This brings us to another thing that makes it slippery: the epexegetical infinitive is usually active.
Morris and Marchant opt for the infinitive. If we were to rework Hobbes' translation for this reading, we would get: "For though to ascertain the events of remote antiquity, and even those that more immediately precede the war was not possible..."
Morris:
ἀδύνατα: pred. to εὑρεῖν, to which τὰ . . . παλαιότερα is obj. Cf. c. 59. 4; 125. 5; ii.72.16; 74. 5; 97. 29; iii.88.4; iv.1.13
Marchant
15. ἀδύνατα—Thuc. frequently uses the neut. plur. of the verbal or of an adj. for the sing. where the subject is an infin. or a sentence. The use is mainly poetical.
There seem to be three choices:
1) Hobbes and Cameron are right.
2) Morris and Marchant are right.
3) All four are wrong (except perhaps Hobbes because as a translator he had to make a choice) and they are all wrong because the Greek is indeterminate and both readings are perfectly good.
1, 2 or 3?
Thanks in advance.
Not at all! Awesome. John has read it before. I memorized all the vocabulary from Book I and have just started on my multi-year voyage through all eight books and so far it is going pretty smooth. Please, by all means, start posting questions. I have committed to respond within 48 hours to any post and John seems up to talk about almost anything. Nate as usual can't keep away. I'll be fascinated to see what kind of pace you set. I think I could go much faster than the first time I started it (12 months ago) if I didn't stop to obsess about the copula! If you can gear the conversation to more historical matters that would be great. I just picked up Thucydidean Themes and The Greek World, both by Hornblower.Scribo wrote:Too late to join in? I have a bit of spare time! I'd love to re-read Thucydides!
Sure, but "it is/was" won't work for all of passages Morris refers to. And more significantly, only Hobbes is translating and all three of the other guys have definite views, leaving me wondering what are they seeing that I'm not. However that may be, it seems like you are opting for 3, all are wrong. I'll mark down your vote.NateD26 wrote: My way of translating such constructions is with a simple "it is/was...". Less headache for me,
that's for damn sure.
Think in any case how little difference in meaning the two possibilities you've provided have.
I would not give much heed to the way translators, employing their own authority and judgement,
would turn an active verb into passive in English. If one reading took the infinitive as the predicate,
then "to find them clearly/to verify/ascertain them" is turned to the passive. If it's the subject,
then it stays active.
pster - many thanks for this, and for checking Hornblower for me.pster wrote:Hornblower gives a gloss that seems to agree with Hobbes and Cameron. I say seems to because his three volume commentary is more concerned with historical than linguistics issues.
-------------------------------------------
And I'm sorry John, he doesn't take up the ama issue from book VI. The Belgian site seems to be working now. I just checked and there are about 300 occurrences in Thucydides. Maybe you, Nate and I could do 100 each and see what we learn?
pster - many thanks for your very kind remarks. I'm feeling a bit better at the moment, so I thought I'd look in, even if I can't always do so as often as I'd wish.pster wrote:John,
I'm very sorry to hear about your health. Make sure to find good real experts to handle your issues. Your presence will be missed and your seat at the head of the table will remain empty till you return.
pster
As I said above, I don't understand Betant's entry.John W. wrote:
The two personal examples are at 4.21.1 (ὁρῶντες τῶν τε ἐπιτηδείων τὴν περὶ τὴν Πελοπόννησον κομιδὴν ἀδύνατον ἐσομένην) and 6.39.2 (ἃ ὑμῶν οἵ τε δυνάμενοι καὶ οἱ νέοι προθυμοῦνται, ἀδύνατα ἐν μεγάλῃ πόλει κατασχεῖν): the second of these two is interesting, in that the opening ἃ agrees (in Betant's view) with ἀδύνατα following. Both Marchant and Smith (in the Ginn series) share this view.
You can read it online you know. Bigger fonts will save your eyes.Scribo wrote:So I have Hornblower's commentaries (still haven't asked him to sign it, I am a coward...), another book on verb forms in Thuc, lots of articles, a book on prose styles....and so I'm ready to start in my break.
Which is when I notice that I don't own the text anymore.![]()
Need to go borrow one....
pster - sorry for the late reply.pster wrote:As I said above, I don't understand Betant's entry.
Regarding 6.39.2, I'm not sure how to read it. It seems to me that there are three possibilities. Let's introduce some English shorthand:
what they desire impossible in-a-great-city to-hold
This seems to be what we have to work with.
------------------------
Marchant and Smith go for:
what they desire onta impossible in-a-great-city to-possess
I dont really understand what kind of participle that is. It doesn't seem conditional, concessive, temporal or causal. And don't we need a finite verb anyway? Don't we??
----------------------------------------
Why don't Smith and Marchant think the copula is finite?
what they desire to-possess eisi impossible in-a-great-city
Can't we use the relative as the subject like that?
----------------------
I like the quasi-impersonal (I'm going to be pedantic a la Smyth henceforth):
what they desire, to-posses in-a-great-city esti impossible
Or rephrased:
to-possess in-a-great-city what they desire is impossible
Thucydides phrasing is explained by the way the phrases build on what came before, which required that the relative phrase to be out front.
-----------------------
OK, gotta break for grub.
John, can you clear this up for me. Can't we have quasi-impersonals that are plural? Indeed, aren't most? LSJ II seems to imply as much as for things c. inf. they give one singular example and many plural examples.pster wrote:This is my first look at Betant. I don't quite understand his layout. He gives a singular and a plural, then a long list of impersonals, then a long list of plurals. But aren't some impersonals plural? I have to read up on impersonal verbs for my other thread. I'll post more in a couple of hours.
He classifies it as "Plur." which he mysteriously seems to treat as distinct from "Impersonaliter". Maybe his em-dash means less than LSJ's?John W. wrote:
In spite of his treatment of 6.39.2, Betant classifies ἀδύνατα at 1.1.3 as impersonal,
Right, I should have used the singular.John W. wrote:
I agree with you that, in 6.39.2, the omitted copula seems more likely to be finite - presumably ἐστιν to go with the neuter plural.
One thing I don't like about this is that the subject would have to be the ἃ phrase. But I don't think that is allowed. On my reading, we can take the ἃ phrase as a predicate where a demonstrative has dropped out--at least I think that is what I would have to say. On your reading we would have to have the demonstrative drop out of the subject which is probably not really allowed. Or perhaps you are thinking to take the entire first part beginning with ὀλιγαρχία as the subject for your ἐστιν? That's bold. Actually, I kind of like it now that I look at it. No disappearing demonstrative needed! Of course, I could probably try and smuggle in the whole first part as my object.John W. wrote: Looking at these two passages again, I think that the construction can be straighforwardly analysed as personal:
6.39.2: ἀδύνατα [ἐστιν] ... κατασχεῖν = 'are impossible to secure';
Here, the infinitve is so far out in front of the adjective, that I am uncomfortable. Although this usage is supposed to give us some sense of the infinitive being originally a dative and we do put datives out in front. So maybe not so bad.John W. wrote: 1.1.3: τὰ ... εὑρεῖν ... ἀδύνατα ἦν = 'the [events] were impossible to discover'.
I mentioned this as one of my two slippery features at the outset. "still consults it?"--Today was my first time ever consulting Goodwin.John W. wrote: For the use of an active verb after an adjective where one might logically expect a passive verb, Smith (on 6.39.2) refers us to section 763 of Goodwin's Moods and Tenses (incidentally, I never seem to see this work mentioned on here: am I the only who who still consults it?). Unfortunately Goodwin does not cite any Thucydidean examples, but he does give one from Plato's Phaedo (90c-d), λόγου ... δυνατοῦ κατανοῆσαι, 'a speech possible to understand', which seems a useful parallel.
I've since found this same example from Plato cited by Smyth (section 2006).John W. wrote:For the use of an active verb after an adjective where one might logically expect a passive verb, Smith (on 6.39.2) refers us to section 763 of Goodwin's Moods and Tenses (incidentally, I never seem to see this work mentioned on here: am I the only who who still consults it?). Unfortunately Goodwin does not cite any Thucydidean examples, but he does give one from Plato's Phaedo (90c-d), λόγου ... δυνατοῦ κατανοῆσαι, 'a speech possible to understand', which seems a useful parallel.
John W. wrote: One other example in Betant's list has struck me as interesting in this context: 2.72.2, i.e. ἀπεκρίναντο αὐτῷ ὅτι ἀδύνατα σφίσιν εἴη ποιεῖν ἃ προκαλεῖται ἄνευ Ἀθηναίων. Despite the proximate presence of ἃ, the use of ἀδύνατα here looks impersonal (Betant certainly classifies it as such), which I think may reinforce your argument as to the other two passages we have discussed.
Great question. I know that it has nothing to do with hiatus.John W. wrote:
One key question for me, which we've not specifically addressed, is this: if Thucydides wished to use the word in its impersonal sense, would he have opted for the neuter form ἀδύνατα in such close, and potentially misleading, proximity to the neuter plurals ἃ and τὰ in these two passages, or would he have used the singular ἀδύνατον to obviate any risk of confusion?
pster - many thanks for this and your previous posting. I should have mentioned the accusative point, which is of course another argument against the verb's being passive (despite the fondness of translators for rendering it as such).pster wrote:Hornblower has a full page discussion of the first 20 words. Evidently there is some question whether the allies remained or went home and came back. He seems to come down on the side of going home and coming back. Let me know if you want me to read what he says closely. I just skimmed it.
pster - many thanks for this and your previous posting. I should have mentioned the accusative point, which is of course another argument against the verb's being passive (despite the fondness of translators for rendering it as such).pster wrote:Hornblower has a full page discussion of the first 20 words. Evidently there is some question whether the allies remained or went home and came back. He seems to come down on the side of going home and coming back. Let me know if you want me to read what he says closely. I just skimmed it.
By the first twenty words, I meant οἱ δὲ ξύμμαχοι...ποιεῖσθαι. Hornblower's discussion of this is a super dense page because this is a much emended passage. I will look at it again tomorrow. I may just have to type it and send it to you in a PM.John W. wrote:
I'd be grateful if you could see if Hornblower sheds any light. For my current reading of Thucydides I'm using Alberti's edition of the Greek text, which reads αὖθις instead of the OCT's αὐτοὶ before ἔτυχον ὄντες, and so supports what you say is Hornblower's interpretation.
pster - I'm most grateful, but reluctant to put you to that much trouble. Please only do so if you really have the time.pster wrote:By the first twenty words, I meant οἱ δὲ ξύμμαχοι...ποιεῖσθαι. Hornblower's discussion of this is a super dense page because this is a much emended passage. I will look at it again tomorrow. I may just have to type it and send it to you in a PM.
I've always had trouble figuring out this pronoun. Still do.pster wrote:John, while I'm making my coffee, let me just ask a simple question. Doesn't σφίσι always refer to the subject of the main clause? Isn't that why we call it an indirect pronoun?
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ancgreek/ ... html#par37