diaphero^ + inf.

[Junya]

Please translate this sentence. It is a sample sentence in LSJ for diaphero^ (differ) when it is used with infinitive.

mone^i te^i morphe^i me^ ouchi probata einai d.

Is me^ ou indispensable in this construction with infinitive ?

[annis]

I have a hard time reading random Greek sentences without some more context. Sometimes more just helps me know what's going on, but so often Greek leaves out elements that have just been mentioned. So, this quote is from Lucian's Alexander the False Prophet, 15. Here's a bit more context,

Ἡμέρας μὲν οὖν τινας οἴκοι ἔμεινεν ἐλπίζων ὅπερ ἦν͵ ὑπὸ τῆς φήμης αὐτίκα μάλα παμπόλλους τῶν Παφλαγόνων συνδραμεῖσθαι. ἐπεὶ δὲ ὑπερεπέπληστο ἀνθρώπων ἡ πόλις͵ ἁπάντων τοὺς ἐγκεφάλους καὶ τὰς καρδίας προεξῃρημένων οὐδὲν ἐοικότων σιτοφάγοις ἀνδράσιν͵ ἀλλὰ μόνῃ τῇ μορφῇ μὴ οὐχὶ πρόβατα εἶναι διαφερόντων͵ ...

Appearing not at all like bread-eating men, but only in appearance (not?) different from cattle.

So, this is sort of tricky. Verb with an inherently negative sense sometimes take a "sympathetic" negation in dependent clauses (Smyth §2739 and after). This is most familiar with verbs of fearing, but others do it too, with senses like deny, forbid, avoid, etc. It seems that Lucian has taken διαφέρω to be among these. I wasn't able to find other examples of the verb being used in quite this way.

At least, that's how it seems. It's a peculiar clause to me.

[Markos]

Thanks, Annis. I was curious about this, so I looked it up in LSJ, and could not make heads or tails of it, not (only) because of the lack of context, but because the word διαφέρω itself is there abbreviated as δ. They do this a lot, which raises two questions.

1. Is there a rule to tell you what the form of the word in question would be if it were written out?

2. Why in the world do they do this? How much space is saved in a book this big by abbreviating the very word you are supposed to learn? There must be some rationale here, because I have never seen anyone else complain about this, but it drives me crazy.

BTW, once you gave the full quote I was able to figure out the passage, and I agree with your take.

[Junya]

Question 1.

Annis wrote :

Verb with an inherently negative sense sometimes take a "sympathetic" negation in dependent clauses (Smyth §2739 and after).

The sympathetic negation is me^.
And this me^ becomes me^ ou when the verb (of denying, forbidding, etc.) is negatived.
But here, the verb diaphero^ is not negatived.
Then why me^ ou is used here ?


(Maybe this diaphero^ means like a negatived form of eoika. diaphero^ = not seem.)




Question 2.

The infinitive phrase is translated as from ... when it is constructed with diaphero^ ?
(probata einai --- different from being cattle)
Is it like eirgei me me^ graphein (hinder from...) ?

And, the infinitive with diaphero^ is set together with me^ like eirgei (or like here, me^ ou) ?

[annis]

Then why me^ ou is used here ?

How about, it is different from the case that they are not cattle?

The infinitive phrase is translated as from ... when it is constructed with diaphero^ ?

Only in my version of the English rendition. If the LSJ is to be believed, this is a rare usage. I'm not sure what motivates to you dig into this single example so deeply.

[Junya]

Annis wrote :

If the LSJ is to be believed, this is a rare usage. I'm not sure what motivates to you dig into this single example so deeply.

I am reading something, and the passage I'm now doing seems to have this diaphero^ + inf. construction. So I want to be certain about this construction.





------------------------------------

Below is what I'm reading and what I researched about it.

τὰ δὲ πρῶτα νοήματα τί διοίσει τοῦ μὴ φαντάσματα εἶναι;

It first looked like a simple diaphero^ + gen. construction. But taking it so, the translation didn't go well.

Then I consulted Smyth on me^ And me^ ou WITH THE INFINITIVE (in my version the section is from 1630 - 1634, different from your version).
And I found in 1632 a curious presentation.

1. eirgei me me^ graphein (he hinders me from writing)

2. eirgei me graphein (the same)

3. eirgei me to me^ graphein (the same)

4. eirgei me to graphein (the same)

5. eirgei me tou me^ graphein (the same)

etc.

The 5. caught my attention. It resembles my passage quoted above in construction. So I feel like trying to apply this to my translation of that passage.
(In what point do the pro^ta noe^mata differ from phantasmata ?)


So, I want to be sure about how to translate diaphero^ + inf. construction.