Ф580

[Constantinus Philo]

Which one is a better translation of Ф580: Αγήνωρ ουκ εθελεν φευγειν πριν πειρησαιτ'αν Αχιληος. Fugere nolebat priusquam tentaret/tentasset Achileum.

[Hylander]

I will take a stab at this, though I'm not sure of the right answer.

In my opinion, this is in implied indirect speech, since it represents Agenor's thinking. So in his mind, if he were a Latin-speaker, he would put the verb in the future perfect: tentavero, since his trial of Achilles would occur before his flight: Nolo fugere priusquam tentavero Achillem. (not Achilleum). In indirect/reported speech this would be pluperfect subjunctive: Agenor nolebat fugere priusquam tentasset Achillem.

See Allen & Greenough 551b (emphasis supplied):

b. With antequam or priusquam the Imperfect Subjunctive is common when the subordinate verb implies purpose or expectancy in past time, or when the action that it denotes did not take place:—

“ ante pūgnārī coeptum est quam satis īnstruerētur aciēs ” (Liv. 22.4.7) , the fight was begun before the line could be properly formed.
“ priusquam tū suum sibi vēnderēs, ipse possēdit ” (Phil. 2.96) , before you could sell him his own property, he took possession of it himself.
“ priusquam tēlum abicī posset aut nostrī propius accēderent, omnis Vārī aciēs terga vertit ” (B. C. 2.34) , before a weapon could be thrown or our men approached nearer, the whole line about Varus took flight.

[*] Note 1.--The Pluperfect Subjunctive is rare, except in Indirect Discourse by sequence of tenses for the Future Perfect Indicative (§ 484. c): as, “—antequam hominēs nefāriī dē meō adventū audīre potuissent, in Macedoniam perrēxī” (Planc. 98) , before those evil men could learn of my coming, I arrived in Macedonia.

* * *

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0001

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[Constantinus Philo]

You guessed right

[Hylander]

I didn’t guess— I gave my reason. But how do you know I’m right?

[mwh]

Definitely tentasset, as Hylander explained, backed up by the relevant A&G quote.
And Constantinus, you misquoted the Homeric verse as having πριν πειρησαιτ'αν Αχιληος. There’s no αν. That would be against both syntax and meter.

[Constantinus Philo]

i know its tenassed coz i took the translation from an old Greek grammar book, however, I wanted to make it sure. anyways, if I understand all of you correctly, if i said tentaret it would mean not the oratio obliqua but the author's words, right?

[Hylander]

tentaret would mean not the oratio obliqua but the author's words,

No, tentaret would be subjunctive, not indicative, and would therefore not be the author's words, but the chronological order of the verbs would be puzzling and unintelligible, I think.

If you wanted to make the subordinate clause represent the fact of his departure and not his thoughts or intentions (i.e., the sentence would mean "before he challenged Achilles, he didn't want to leave the field" instead of "he didn't want to leave the field before challenging Achilles"), you would have to use the perfect indicative tentavit. Going back to Allen & Greenough 551a, the bolded example illustrates this structure:

551. Antequam and priusquam take sometimes the Indicative sometimes the Subjunctive.

[*] a. With antequam or priusquam the Perfect Indicative states a fact in past time:—

“ antequam tuās lēgī litterās, hominem īre cupiēbam ” (Att. 2.7.2) , before I read your letter, I wished the man to go.
“neque ante dīmīsit eum quam fidem dedit adulēscēns ” (Liv. 39.10) , and she did not let the young man go till he pledged his faith.
“neque prius fugere dēstitērunt quam ad flūmen pervēnērunt ” (B. G. 1.53) , nor did they stop running until they reached the river.

[*] Note.--The Perfect Indicative in this construction is regular when the main clause is negative and the main verb is in an historical tense. The Imperfect Indicative is rare; the Pluperfect Indicative, very rare. The Perfect Subjunctive is rare and ante-classical, except in Indirect Discourse.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ythp%3D551