Unit 21, Part II

[Lukas]

I am having trouble translating some of a passage into Greek. The passage is,
"For that day the cavalry guarded the camp, but on the next day they rode against the enemy, for they believed they would easily defeat them.

I wrote, "Εκεὶνην τὴν ἠμέραν οἱ ῾ιππῆς τὸ στρατόπεδον ἐφυλάζατο, ἀλλ᾿ τῆ ὔτερᾳ ἠμέρᾳ πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους ἤλάσαν. ἡγησάντο γὰρ ῥᾳδίως αὐτοὺς κρατεῖν."

The answer book wrote, Εκεὶνην μὲν τὴν ἠμέραν οἱ ῾ιππῆς τὸ στρατόπεδον ἐφθύλλατον, τῆ δὲ ὔτερᾳ ἠμέρᾳ πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους ἤλάσαν. ἡγοῦντο γὰρ ῥᾳδίως αὐτοὺς κρατήσειν.

I had trouble translating "would." I was not sure whether to place it in the future, aorist, or imperfect.

I also am wondering if the answer book's ἡγοῦντο is in the imperfect? If yes, how do I know when to translate "believed" into the imperfect or aorist?

On another thread, I had a lot of trouble even reading, let alone writing, δὲ and μέν, so I am not even going to try to write them in a translation. The only question I have is when to use δὲ and when to use ἀλλά?

I also am not following how the author got κρατήσειν. What tense is the word? Is it an aorist? If yes, why is the accent not on the last syllable?

In case I made typos trying to type from the answer book, here is a picture:

[Barry Hofstetter]

Lukas, as others have observed, many of the difficulties you have would be solved if you memorized your paradigms and reviewed them regularly. Build in a cycle of review: every time you start a new section, go back and review an old one. Start at the beginning and spend 5 minutes with the paradigms and vocabulary in that chapter. Then the next time you start a new section, in your review move to chapter 2. Rinse and repeat until you catch up to where you are, and then start the review all over again. If you do this or something like it consistently it will help you greatly.

I am having trouble translating some of a passage into Greek. The passage is,
"For that day the cavalry guarded the camp, but on the next day they rode against the enemy, for they believed they would easily defeat them.

I wrote, "Εκεὶνην τὴν ἠμέραν οἱ ῾ιππῆς τὸ στρατόπεδον ἐφυλάζατο, ἀλλ᾿ τῆ ὔτερᾳ ἠμέρᾳ πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους ἤλάσαν. ἡγησάντο γὰρ ῥᾳδίως αὐτοὺς κρατεῖν."

The answer book wrote, Εκεὶνην μὲν τὴν ἠμέραν οἱ ῾ιππῆς τὸ στρατόπεδον ἐφθύλλατον, τῆ δὲ ὔτερᾳ ἠμέρᾳ πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους ἤλάσαν. ἡγοῦντο γὰρ ῥᾳδίως αὐτοὺς κρατήσειν.

I had trouble translating "would." I was not sure whether to place it in the future, aorist, or imperfect.

In the English, what is the sequence of tenses? "They believed is past tense. From the perspective of that past tense, when does the defeating take place? Before, at the same time as, or after the believing? After right? Then it's future to the past action. What form then would you want in Greek?

I also am wondering if the answer book's ἡγοῦντο is in the imperfect? If yes, how do I know when to translate "believed" into the imperfect or aorist?

Know your principal parts. They are your friends... The third principal part of ἡγέομαι is what? ἠγησάμην. That means that the aorist stem has the sigma, which you don't have in ἠγοῦντο. But you have the augmented form plus the secondary (past) tense ending -το, so that has to be imperfect.

On another thread, I had a lot of trouble even reading, let alone writing, δὲ and μέν, so I am not even going to try to write them in a translation. The only question I have is when to use δὲ and when to use ἀλλά?

ἀλλά is often called the "stronger adversative." That means that it is often used to introduce a correction or objection to the previous, or to move the narrative/discourse in a different direction. μέν...δέ, on the other hand (!) tends to introduce contrasts, some of which are communicated in English through context, not through any specific translation. What is the contrast in this sentence? It's between guarding the camp vs. attacking the enemy. Greek makes the context specific through the use of the particles, English (without any underlying Greek) most likely would not.

I also am not following how the author got κρατήσειν. What tense is the word? Is it an aorist? If yes, why is the accent not on the last syllable?

Remember what I said above about "would?" Look again at the form. Think about the principal parts of κρατέω. What stem?

[Lukas]

In the English, what is the sequence of tenses? "They believed is past tense. From the perspective of that past tense, when does the defeating take place? Before, at the same time as, or after the believing? After right? Then it's future to the past action. What form then would you want in Greek?

For them, the defeating takes place in the future; for me it takes place in the past. Do I place it in the past, from my perspective? If it takes place in past tense, do I place believed in the imperfect or aorist?

Plus look at part of the sentence, ". . . but on the next day they rode against the enemy . . . " In English, I am saying it happened in the future, but I am using past tense "rode." I would say it that way in English without even thinking about it, but I do not know how the Greek handles it.

The first three principal parts of κρατέω are κρατέω κρατήσω ἐκράτησα.

I thought I read that I use the infinitive in the present tense for the future, but I was mistaken. I went back and read that there is an infinitive for the future tense, so I think it is a future infinitive.

[Barry Hofstetter]

It doesn't matter when it takes place for you. It matters when it takes place in the context of the sentence. That's what determines your sequence of tenses. Yes, you would used the future infinitive here, as your answer key correctly does.

[seneca2008]

The answer book wrote, Εκεὶνην μὲν τὴν ἠμέραν οἱ ῾ιππῆς τὸ στρατόπεδον ἐφθύλλατον, τῆ δὲ ὔτερᾳ ἠμέρᾳ πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους ἤλάσαν. ἡγοῦντο γὰρ ῥᾳδίως αὐτοὺς κρατήσειν.

"For that day the cavalry guarded the camp, but on the next day they rode against the enemy, for they believed they would easily defeat them.

"guarded the camp" This is clearly in the past and it is an activity that happened over a period so we use the imperfect in Greek. "they rode" this again is clearly in the past but it refers to a time period which is undefined and is clearly a one off completed action. All we know is that at some point on the next day they rode against the enemy. So we use the aorist here. "they believed" this is again in the past and is something presumably the believed over a period and thus we use the imperfect. "they would ...defeat them" this is something that they believed would (will) happen and so its future.

So the verbs here are:

ἐφύλαττον (not ἐφθύλλατον) 3 pl impf
ἤλάσαν 3 pl aor
ἡγοῦντο 3 pl impf
κρατήσειν future infinitive

I think you have not yet grasped the difference between the imperfect and the aorist. In particular you need to look again at the difference between tense and aspect.

On page 164 M. says

"2. Present-Stem Aspect. The present stem has the aspect of action not yet completed, or in progress, repeated, customary, or pertaining to general truth: ......

This force of the present stem is evident throughout the present system, not just in the present indicative. The imperfect is a past tense with the aspect of continuous or incomplete or repeated or customary action:

3. Aorist-Stem Aspect. The aorist stem conveys an action that is instantaneous and includes conceptually its completion. In the indicative, since the aorist carries no suggestion of duration or of permanent results of the action, it is used to refer to a simple, unique occurrence in the past (for instance, for the statement of historical fact):

I suggest you re-read the beginning of unit 20. If you have more questions about this difficult topic then please ask again.

[Lukas]

ευχαριστῶ!

I reread Unit 20 yesterday and will again today. I was having trouble with "would" plus wondering if I write from my perspective or the perspective of the person(s). Sounds like I have to figure out what the tense and aspect of each verb in English is and translate each one on a case to case basis.

[seneca2008]

I was having trouble with "would"

I have not given a good explanation on this.

Do you understand why there is an infinitive in this sentence "ἡγοῦντο γὰρ ῥᾳδίως αὐτοὺς κρατήσειν."?

This is an example of indirect discourse.

In direct speech what they believed was that "they will easily defeat them". In your sentence this is to turned into indirect speech "they believed that they would easily defeat them". See page 167 about how " in English, the verb of the statement sometimes changes tense in the shift from a direct to an indirect form" with the examples there. In Greek however the tense has to remain the same.

7. on page 167 explains "Greek Indirect Discourse with the Infinitive". If you read that again you will see that "In the transformation from direct to indirect form, the finite verb of the statement or thought is always changed to the infinitive of the same tense stem and same voice."

As ever if this is not clear ask again.

Edit: the advice about translation from English to greek on p 172 is helpful

"IV. Render into Greek. (Note: When translating indirect discourse from English into Greek, always determine first what is the direct form of the thought or statement and use the direct form to decide the tense of the Greek infinitive. Remember that an English past tense may represent a present tense in direct discourse, that indirect would may represent direct will, and that indirect had X’ed may represent a direct simple past [aorist].)"