I don't understand how I should read this sentence. LSJ says this under ὅς, B.IV.2:
My Hebrew commentary states it as nominal sentence, that ὃ δὲ πάντων ἀλογώτατον = τὸ δὲ πάντων ἀλογώτατόν ἐστιν ὅτι...the neut. of the Relat. is used in Att. to introduce a clause qualifying the whole of the principal clause which follows :
the latter clause is commonly introduced by γάρ, ὅτι, εἰ, ἐπειδή, etc.,
Should it be read this way?
"The most absurd thing of all is that it is also not possible to know and say their names."
By "their" he means those accusers, right? i thought initially that he continues the theme of defenseless, innocent children and now
he piles on 'without reasoning skills/speechless' to even know or say their own names, but it obviously doesn't make sense with the following
"except if one happens to be a comic poet".
[edited a little bit]