acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
- Mitch
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:54 pm
- Location: Winnipeg, Canada
- Contact:
acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
... Τισσαφέρνει δ᾽ ἐνόμιζε πολεμοῦντα αὐτὸν ἀμφὶ τὰ στρατεύματα δαπανᾶν.
At first reading I took this as an accusative-and-participle construction i.e. "while on the other hand the king believed Cyrus [αὐτὸν] was fighting against Tissaphernes..."
But then I thought it could be an accusative-and-infinitive construction i.e. "...Cyrus[αὐτὸν] was blowing his money on his armies"
Which is it? And how can one tell here? Or could αὐτὸν perhaps be the subject for both constructions?
Thanks in advance!
At first reading I took this as an accusative-and-participle construction i.e. "while on the other hand the king believed Cyrus [αὐτὸν] was fighting against Tissaphernes..."
But then I thought it could be an accusative-and-infinitive construction i.e. "...Cyrus[αὐτὸν] was blowing his money on his armies"
Which is it? And how can one tell here? Or could αὐτὸν perhaps be the subject for both constructions?
Thanks in advance!
Cheers,
Mitch Tulloch
Mitch Tulloch
- jeidsath
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5479
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
- Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
The taxonomies of the grammarians are a bit fragile at the edges. LLMs, you'll notice, don't operate on "constructions" at all, yet they somehow come up with very natural sounding speech.
This part is perfectly good on its own:
Τισσαφέρνει δ᾽ ἐνόμιζε πολεμοῦντα αὐτὸν
But since ἐνόμιζε takes an infinitive, he has the freedom to add one, with the subject naturally being the preceding accusative.
ἀμφὶ τὰ στρατεύματα δαπανᾶν
Notice that at no point in speaking this phrase aloud or in hearing it is the listener confused about subjects, objects, indirect objects, or what word applies to what. There's no moment after hearing everything that he has to pause and figure it all out.
This part is perfectly good on its own:
Τισσαφέρνει δ᾽ ἐνόμιζε πολεμοῦντα αὐτὸν
But since ἐνόμιζε takes an infinitive, he has the freedom to add one, with the subject naturally being the preceding accusative.
ἀμφὶ τὰ στρατεύματα δαπανᾶν
Notice that at no point in speaking this phrase aloud or in hearing it is the listener confused about subjects, objects, indirect objects, or what word applies to what. There's no moment after hearing everything that he has to pause and figure it all out.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
It's your second alternative. νομίζω ordinarily takes an acc.+ inf. complement, see CGCG § 51.19. . . . αὐτὸν δαπανᾶν is the core of the indirect statement. (Otherwise, what function would δαπανᾶν serve in the sentence?) The participle πολεμοῦντα modifies αὐτὸν, i.e., Cyrus, the subject of the acc.+ inf. construction. It's a circumstantial participle expressing "manner or means", CGCG § 52.42: The King thinks that Cyrus is racking up expenses on military projects in/by waging war against Tissaphernes. In direct speech, the King's thought would be would be Τισσαφέρνει πολεμῶν αὐτος ἐπὶ τὰ στρατεύματα δαπανᾷ.
Bill Walderman
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5042
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
Yes, as Joel indicates, the Greek precludes all possibility of confusion here. Once you reach πολεμοῦντα, or αὐτὸν, you expect an infinitive to follow at some point (or failing an infinitive, at least something to complete the sense). So to say that Τισσαφέρνει δ᾽ ἐνόμιζε πολεμοῦντα αὐτὸν is “perfectly good on its own” needs qualification. It’s good only as far as it goes.
The participle itself has no particular force, apart from its forward position. It’s only the immediate context that might justify calling it “causal” and suggest a translation such as “he thought it was because he was at war with Tiss that he was spending on the troops” (rather than e.g. “while at war with Tiss”).
The participle itself has no particular force, apart from its forward position. It’s only the immediate context that might justify calling it “causal” and suggest a translation such as “he thought it was because he was at war with Tiss that he was spending on the troops” (rather than e.g. “while at war with Tiss”).
- jeidsath
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5479
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
- Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
This is incorrect, and the LSJ entry for νομίζειν gives other examples:mwh wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2024 5:02 pm Once you reach πολεμοῦντα, or αὐτὸν, you expect an infinitive to follow at some point (or failing an infinitive, at least something to complete the sense). So to say that Τισσαφέρνει δ᾽ ἐνόμιζε πολεμοῦντα αὐτὸν is “perfectly good on its own” needs qualification. It’s good only as far as it goes.
"Τισσαφέρνει δ᾽ ἐνόμιζε πολεμοῦντα αὐτὸν" is every bit as "complete" as "νόμιζε . . ἄνδρα ἀγαθὸν ἀποκτείνων." Both give a full sense without other additions, and we can hardly complain that Greek generals did not spend as much time on school-grammars as they should'uv.5. c. part., νομίσωμεν ἐκγενησόμενον Th.7.68; νόμιζε . . ἄνδρα ἀγαθὸν ἀποκτείνων X.An.6.6.24; νόμιζε ταῦτα δεδογμένα Pl.R.450a, cf. D.14.9 (s.v.l.).
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5042
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
Joel is correct to say that LSJ gives examples (not “other” examples though) of νομιζω with participle rather than infinitive. But that’s exceptional usage, and in our sentence Τισσαφέρνει δ᾽ ἐνόμιζε πολεμοῦντα αὐτὸν is not complete in itself, nor would a competent reader expect it to be. Once you reach πολεμοῦντα or αὐτὸν, as I said, you expect an infinitive to follow—and (of course) that’s what we get.
- jeidsath
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5479
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
- Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
Oh really? Provide a case for your claim then. Why would a reader have expected an infinitive to follow here, but not in the LSJ examples cited, where it doesn't?mwh wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2024 6:51 pm Once you reach πολεμοῦντα or αὐτὸν, as I said, you expect an infinitive to follow—and (of course) that’s what we get.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
The LSJ citation from Thucydides is not an example of νομίζω + part. without an infinitive. εἶναι at the end is necessary to complete the sentence, just as it is in the coordinate ἅμα μὲν branch of the same sentence.
The example from the Republic is not quite apposite, either: "consider these points agreed on by all of us," not really a full-blown indirect statement.
As the grammar books, which are normative, based on a great many examples drawn from a wide range of Greek literature and are written by scholars who have spent their lives studying and reading Greek, confirm, νομίζω when introducing indirect statements normally takes an infinitive, and it sets up the expectation that an infinitive will follow.
The example from the Republic is not quite apposite, either: "consider these points agreed on by all of us," not really a full-blown indirect statement.
As the grammar books, which are normative, based on a great many examples drawn from a wide range of Greek literature and are written by scholars who have spent their lives studying and reading Greek, confirm, νομίζω when introducing indirect statements normally takes an infinitive, and it sets up the expectation that an infinitive will follow.
Last edited by Hylander on Thu Nov 28, 2024 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bill Walderman
- jeidsath
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5479
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
- Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
Which leaves us the Xenophon...
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5042
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
Joel, this is silly, and your belligerence is quite uncalled for (as well as spoiling my Thanksgiving festivities). Why are you behaving like this? You know as well as I do that νομιζειν and many other verbs that introduce indirect statement (apart from verbs of knowing etc.) habitually take acc,.&inf. rather than acc.&participle. You don’t mean to tell me that in reading this sentence you took it to be complete before the infinitive?!
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5042
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
And the lone exception to the norm in Xenophon is also readily disposed of. It goes νόμιζε δέ, ἂν ἐμὲ νῦν ἀποκτείνῃς, δι᾽ ἄνδρα δειλόν τε καὶ πονηρὸν ἄνδρα ἀγαθὸν ἀποκτείνων (Anab.6.6.24). There νόμιζε is treated as a verb of knowing, quite understandably. It could almost as well be ἴσθι or ἐπίστασο.
Joel was just trolling, for reasons best known to himself. I don’t know why he has to be so disagreeable, or what’s given him such a big chip on his shoulder. He's become less than helpful to anyone.
Joel was just trolling, for reasons best known to himself. I don’t know why he has to be so disagreeable, or what’s given him such a big chip on his shoulder. He's become less than helpful to anyone.
- Mitch
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:54 pm
- Location: Winnipeg, Canada
- Contact:
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
Much thanks to everyone and sorry for the delay responding. While my goal (or hope at least) is what Joel has articulated i.e. to be able to understand the Greek without having to analyze it grammatically, the approach I'm taking (for better or for worse) is to try and get a good grasp of the grammatical concepts first as a foundation.
Hence my decision to work through CGCG where I'm currently wading through ch49 Conditional Clauses (seems straightfoward) and ch50 Relative Clauses (finding it difficult). And so far I've only dipped into chs 51 The Infinitive and 52 The Participle a few times which probably explains some of the questions I've been asking here lately. But I very much appreciate Bill's responses where he's pointed me to specific CGCG sections to consider, and also Michael's more general (but extremely helpful) insights in his comments on my questions.
For anyone who is interested, my learning plan is to try and achive intermediate level (whatever that means) reading comprehension in Classical Greek by using:

:-)
Hence my decision to work through CGCG where I'm currently wading through ch49 Conditional Clauses (seems straightfoward) and ch50 Relative Clauses (finding it difficult). And so far I've only dipped into chs 51 The Infinitive and 52 The Participle a few times which probably explains some of the questions I've been asking here lately. But I very much appreciate Bill's responses where he's pointed me to specific CGCG sections to consider, and also Michael's more general (but extremely helpful) insights in his comments on my questions.
For anyone who is interested, my learning plan is to try and achive intermediate level (whatever that means) reading comprehension in Classical Greek by using:
- CGCG as a grammar (but thank you for the occasional references to Smyth, a book which I found impossible to work with as an intermediate grammar but which is now sometimes helpful to me as a reference work)
- CGL as a lexicon, which I find much easier to follow than Middle Liddle (though it occasionally fails me and I have to look up words in LSJ via Logeion or parse them first using the Perseus Greek Word Study Tool)
- Xenophon's Anabasis as an exercise to cement the grammatical concepts in my mind, as simply reading CGCG and comprehending the examples in it isn't enough to help me understand and retain those grammatical concepts in my leaky mind.

:-)
Cheers,
Mitch Tulloch
Mitch Tulloch
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
For your systematic review of Greek grammar, you might want to take a look at The Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek by James Morwood, which is inexpensive (around USD 15) and presents all the key points very succinctly and clearly. You could use it along with CGCG.
Personally, I like to use the online version of LSJ on my iPad, which is much more convenient than wielding a physical dictionary, especially when I'm sitting on my recliner with a cat in my lap, as I am now.
Personally, I like to use the online version of LSJ on my iPad, which is much more convenient than wielding a physical dictionary, especially when I'm sitting on my recliner with a cat in my lap, as I am now.
Bill Walderman
- Mitch
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2023 3:54 pm
- Location: Winnipeg, Canada
- Contact:
Re: acc. & what? (X. An. 1.1.8)
Thanks Bill, I have looked at the Oxford grammar (it's available for borrowing on archive.org) and I might try using it for review purposes once I've finished working through CGCG. But the Oxford grammar doesn't go deep enough on many topics, at least to satisify my own need for understanding. OGCG almost feels to me like it was written as a crutch for undergraduate students to help them pass their exams; CGCG on the other hand feels like it can take me a lot further...
Cheers,
Mitch Tulloch
Mitch Tulloch