Zuntz: Lesson 3

[etcetera]

Χαίρετε!

I'd like to collect a question or two concerning lesson 3 of Zuntz's course and maybe someone has the time to take a look at the exercises.

C1 Ὑετός ἐστιν. Without any context, I'm a bit in doubt. Can you translate this also as It's raining. or is it simply something like It's rain. (whenever you would say a sentence like this...)

Later in D1, he writes Ἔστιν ὑετός, which I take as Rainfall exists as it goes on with Ὑετὸν ποιεῖ ὁ θεός.

All other doubtful cases were covered in the exercises:

3. Translation English* - Greek (*since I'm using the German edition, any weird English phrases are my fault.)

a) It's raining.
Ὕει. / Ὑετὸν ποιεῖ.

b) God sends rain.
Ὁ θεὸς ὕει.

c) You speak well, Chrysippus.
Καλῶς λέγεις, ὦ Χρύσιππε.

d) What does the philosopher say?
Τί λέγει ὁ φιλόσοφος;

e) A good man's speech is good.
Χρηστοῦ ἀνθρώπου λόγος χρηστός.

f) The good wine is old.
Ὁ χρηστὸς οἶνος παλαιός ἐστιν.

g) What are you saying to the donkey?
Τί λέγεις τῷ ὄνῳ;

h) I'm listening to the speech of a wise man.
Τὸν ἀνθρώπου σοφοῦ λόγον ἀκούω.

i) Listen to the philosopher's tale!
Ἄκουε τὸν τοῦ φιλοσόπου μῦθον.

4. Translation Greek - English*

Α6. Ἆρα νείφει καὶ ὕει;
Is it snowing and raining?

D5 «Ἆρ’ ὑετὸν ποιεῖ;» - «οὐχί· οὐ ποεῖ οὔθ’ ὑετὸν οὔτε νιφετόν.»
Is it raining? – No, it’s neither raining nor snowing.

D6 Ἔστιν ὁ θεός.
God exists.

E5 Θεοῦ λόγος, οὐκ ἀνθρώπου.
God’s word, not man’s.
There's another doubt. Could this also be taken as something like:
Reason comes from God, not from man.

F2 «Τί λέγεις ἄνθρωπε;» - «οὐκ ἀκούεις; χρηστὸν λέγω λόγον.»
Man, what are you saying? – Don’t you hear? I’m saying a good word.

F5 Τὸν κόσμον θεὸν λέγω.
I say the universe is a god.
Could you also say: I call the universe a god.

G2 Σοφὸς εἶ, ὦ Χρύσιππε, καὶ σοφῶς λέγεις.
You’re wise, Chrysippus, and you speak wisely.

G5 Ὁ φιλόμυθος φιλόσοφός πώς ἐστιν.
In a way, the lover of myth is a lover of wisdom.

H3 Ὄνωι μῦθον λέγεις.
You’re telling a story to a donkey.

K5 «Καλῶς λέγεις, ὦ φιλόσοφε. καὶ λέγε μοι· τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος;» - «ὁ ἄνθρωπος μιρκὸς κόσμος ἐστίν.»
Philosopher, you speak well. Tell me: what is a human? – A human is a small world.

Thanks to all of you who take a look at this.

[seneca2008]

No one has replied so here are some quick thoughts. (Your answers seem fine to me.)

C1 Ὑετός ἐστιν. Without any context, I'm a bit in doubt. Can you translate this also as It's raining. or is it simply something like It's rain. (

Is there a difference between your two English versions. They seem to me to amount to the same. What's the weather like? It's rain. It's raining.

Later in D1, he writes Ἔστιν ὑετός, which I take as Rainfall exists as it goes on with Ὑετὸν ποιεῖ ὁ θεός.

You will see that the accentuation of Ἔστιν is different from ἐστιν. Mastronarde calls the first form emphatic, that is "stressing existence". There was a long winded discussion on this on the Forum some time ago.

In Zunz I only see a list of Greek sentences so I dont quite understand your two lists. English - Greek and Greek - English.

E5 Θεοῦ λόγος, οὐκ ἀνθρώπου.
God’s word, not man’s.
There's another doubt. Could this also be taken as something like:
Reason comes from God, not from man.

Your second version rather adds a commentary to the first. I am sure lots of ink has been spilt over this kind of interpretation.

F5 Τὸν κόσμον θεὸν λέγω.
I say the universe is a god.
Could you also say: I call the universe a god.

Is there really a difference in meaning between these two sentences?

[etcetera]

No one has replied so here are some quick thoughts. (Your answers seem fine to me.)

Thank you very much indeed. I was beginning to worry...

Is there a difference between your two English versions. They seem to me to amount to the same. What's the weather like? It's rain. It's raining.

Is there really a difference in meaning between these two sentences?

I don't think that there is a difference. But at times I tend to be a bit too generous when translating, so I want to make sure that I'm not missing some differences here that Zuntz actually wants me to recognize. So thank you for putting my mind at ease.

You will see that the accentuation of Ἔστιν is different from ἐστιν. Mastronarde calls the first form emphatic, that is "stressing existence". There was a long winded discussion on this on the Forum some time ago.

My suspicion was that I was supposed to notice this difference here, hence the question, thank you.

In Zunz I only see a list of Greek sentences so I dont quite understand your two lists. English - Greek and Greek - English.

The main lesson consists of the Greek sentences (denoted by a somewhat unique alphanumerical system A1-x, B1-x etc. Not sure if this feature made it to the English edition). But the exercises in the second volume have those sentences I posted. First there are German sentences which are very similar to the translations of the actual sentences in the main lesson text and then the student is asked to translate the indicated sentences from the lesson's text into German. Those are the two exercises I posted above.

[des2021]

First I'm new here so I am still trying to figure out what's what. And before all and above all Seneca is absolutely right. However I noticed from your next post on lesson 4 you're not really a beginner. You seem to want overprecise definitions for very simple sentences. And some are discussing these with you via very learned scholarship.

So on the difference between it's rain and it's raining. Notwithstanding Seneca is completely right and accurate there is an overprecise difference that might be possible. Let us suppose that there is a cricket test match going on and you look out upon the sky on the fifth day and it looks grey and cloudy that might mean nothing. In the early hours of the game it feels like its spitting or perhaps some birds have flown over ahead. Then finally after lunch when all hope was going down the drain the heavens open. At this point you cry with relief it's rain. And you are describing the specific point in time when you knew honour would saved with a draw.

As apposed to I guess the present continuous used of it is raining which describes what rain does over a period of time it softens the ground up for the slow and spin bowlers. The problem with taking this view of the difference is its over precision. The speaker would have to have this understanding of the difference in their mind, think it through and then in the excitement of the happening choose the more appropriate grammatical description. But as Seneca points out English speakers do not normally or consistently enough use the distinction so it is not really valid to suggest that there is a difference at all.

It's like choosing significance when giving decimal approximations. If you are thinking in terms of 10 decimal places and all the data is actually round up to 2 decimal places then that dog don't hunt. And then again in the Greek sometimes it's a simple as Parry's this form fits the metre better.

The reason thing and God I'm not touching that with a bargepole.

On your third what is the difference between
F5 Τὸν κόσμον θεὸν λέγω.
I say the universe is a god.
Could you also say: I call the universe a god.

Again you could thrash this horse long after its dead and its body has been consumed by worms before being taken away by the local council put in a showcase then blown up in WWII and finally given burial in Hyde Park Cemetery.

But again in theory I say is merely a statement of fact and I call might suggest a judgement. So you could in English say the sentence He says the universe is God and I call God the Universe. And in one sense the broader sense both phrases mean exactly the same thing aside from nothing about God works that way.

If A = B then B = A
And a bit like classical syntax the word order may change stress but it won't change meaning unlike English sometimes.

So I agree completely with Seneca. But since others have now engaged with you and its not that you are a beginner trying to get the basics of Greek then perhaps this is something to do with Zuntz using kosher Greek phrases from the get go to describe simple grammatical terms.

There are other problem with translation but I think this one is just an overprecise use of English the thoughts are so slender they cannot hold the weight of the scholarly debate that thankfully has not ensued.

But it may be that I have completely missed the point of what is done here.