5, 1, 17

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
Constantinus Philo
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

5, 1, 17

Post by Constantinus Philo »

θάρρει, ἔφη, ὦ Κῦρε: οὐδ᾽ ἐὰν μηδέποτε παύσωμαι θεώμενος, οὐ μὴ κρατηθῶ ὥστε ποιεῖν τι ὧν μὴ χρὴ ποιεῖν.
This oude is used in the meaning of kai, so why not just using kai?
Semper Fidelis

phalakros
Textkit Fan
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:51 pm

Re: 5, 1, 17

Post by phalakros »

οὐδ’/μηδ’ ἐάν is the negative version of καὶ ἐάν/ἐὰν καί.

User avatar
Constantinus Philo
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: 5, 1, 17

Post by Constantinus Philo »

yes but here the preceding clause is not negative, so why oude? it is probably adverbial meaning 'even'. if so, then ou me is redundant. οὐδ᾽ ἐὰν μηδέποτε παύσωμαι θεώμενος, κρατηθῶ ὥστε ποιεῖν τι ὧν μὴ χρὴ ποιεῖν. is good enough
Semper Fidelis

phalakros
Textkit Fan
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:51 pm

Re: 5, 1, 17

Post by phalakros »

The preceding clause (θάρρει) has nothing to do with it.

Yes, it means “even” and introduces a concessive clause. Positive concessive clauses can be introduced by εἰ καί or καὶ εἰ. Eg. εἰ καὶ χαλεπόν ἐστιν, δεῖ ποιεῖν ἃ χρή (“even if it’s difficult…”). It’s “positive” because the main clause (δεῖ ποιεῖν) is not negated.

Negative concessive clauses are usually with οὐδ’ εἰ or μηδ’ εἰ. Eg οὐδ’ εἰ πρόχειρον εἴη, οὐκ ἄν εἴη ἐφ’ ἡμῖν τοὺς νόμους παραβαίνειν (“even if it should be easy, it would not be in our power…”). It’s negative because the main clause (οὐκ ἄν εἴη) is negative. In Greek it’s idiomatic for the negatives to repeat (οὐδ’…οὐκ). Similarly in the sentence from Xenophon. In a language like standard English, the repeated negative would either be superfluous or the two negatives would cancel each other (since standard English does not have negative concord). But it’s proper idiom in Greek. Your rewriting, removing οὐ μή, is neither idiomatic nor grammatically possible (οὐδέ + subjunctive in an independent clause like this is not grammatical).

Does that make sense?

User avatar
Constantinus Philo
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: 5, 1, 17

Post by Constantinus Philo »

now everything is clear thank you
Semper Fidelis

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: 5, 1, 17

Post by Hylander »

For οὐ μή + aor. subj. see Smyth 1804; Goodwin GMT 294 ff., Appendix II -- here, emphatic denial.
Bill Walderman

Post Reply