ὥστε γε τῷ ποδὶ τεκμήρασθαι
The commentaries make a big deal of the choice between ὡς and ὥστε. To me, they look alike, unexplainable.
can it be an absolute infinitive?
Some notes quickly jotted down after this morning’s double-book call (possibly all train of consciousness nonsense on my part):
Acheloios again!
ἥ τε αὖ πηγὴ χαριεστάτη ὑπὸ τῆς πλατάνου ῥεῖ μάλα ψυχροῦ ὕδατος, ὥστε γε τῷ ποδὶ τεκμήρασθαι. Νυμφῶν τέ τινων καὶ Ἀχελῴου ἱερὸν ἀπὸ τῶν κορῶν τε καὶ ἀγαλμάτων ἔοικεν εἶναι.
I don’t believe that it’s an absolute infinitive, as the subject is the person forming the judgement about the water’s coolness, and the thing being judged, the coolness of the water, is the object, even if not expressed.
To me, ὡς would work like ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, to limit the statement. At least, so one would discover with his foot. ὥστε works as a natural result. So one would find out with his foot.
γέ is the part most in need of explanation. With ὡς it increases the limitative pullback of the original statement.
With ὥστε the γέ emphasizes that this really is the natural result. To me emphasizing that the water is so cool that you’d certainly put your foot in to find out.
ὥστε is better than ὡς by context, because he’s got no reason to be anxious or limitative about the statement of the water’s coolness, rather he wants to emphasize it and make it as real as possible to the reader.
This is not an abs. inf. I can see it now. This is an ordinary consecutive clause with the particle γε posing a problem for the commentators, and I do not see why γε must be problematic here: the water is cold, at any rate, it is so to judge by the foot. Maybe if he had dipped his hand into it, it would not have felt that cold.
ὡς seems distinctly preferable to me, and I suspect that we should read ὥς γε. (τε and γε very easily and frequently confused in manuscripts, so τε/γε will be mutual variants.) The γε seems perfectly apt: he can only go by the evidence of his foot. I agree with Constantinus on that.