ἀλλὰ adverb?

Greek Learning Greek
1

οὐ μὲν ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν ταύτης τῆς ἀπορίας σαφῶς ἐξέσται τὰς αἰτίας κατανοεῖν, ὅταν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξήγησιν αὐτῶν τῆς πολιτείας ἔλθωμεν.

The Pereus translation is close enough:

The explanation of this difficulty will be clearly understood when we come to the description of their civil constitution.

But can anybody explain ἀλλὰ here?

2

I think Smyth got some sections on this usage, but I’m a little tipsy to look it up
(it was Purim today). Something like “the explanation will be none other than/nothing but clear…”

Then again, as Stirling has noted in the other thread, overly relying on Smyth and LSJ’s
archaic and confusing terminology leaves the student at best, unenlightened, and at worst,
hair-tearingly frustrated.

3

Thanks. I somehow didn’t think I was looking at the word for “but”. I thought the accents were different for the “but” word! I didn’t mention Smyth or LSJ, so not sure why you brought them up! Must be my reputation for defending them! :unamused:

4

I brought them up. Nothing to do with your reputation. :smiley:

5

οὐ μὲν ἀλλὰ is a cluster of particles, probably like the more common οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ, discussed in Denniston at p. 28, Smyth sec. 2767. It transitions from the preceding sentence, something like “however.” Can you post the preceding sentence or provide a cite?

6

Thanks so much for this. I did not know about that Smyth reference. The reference is from Plb. 1.64.2:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plb.+1.64&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0233

It reappears as a fragment in Plb. 6.1.

Let us know what word you think needs to be supplied as per Smyth.

7

In fact, it is μὴν, not μὲν. After looking at the Greek, I think just “however” or even just “but” will do as a translation of οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ.

Loose translation: “Why [what’s the reason that], someone might wonder, were they unable to fit out as many ships or mount as many naval expeditions when they had got control of everything and had a much more overwhelming superiority than previously? However [or just “but”], we will be able to understand the reason for this puzzle clearly when we get to the discussion of their constitution.”

8

My TLG version has μὲν, and so does the version on Perseus. What version do you have
that has μὴν in it?

Relevant fragment full citation:

Perseus
καὶ τί δήποτ᾽ ἔστι τὸ αἴτιον, [6] ἀπορήσαι τις ἄν, ὅτι κεκρατηκότες οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι τῶν ὅλων καὶ πολλαπλασίαν ἔχοντες ὑπεροχὴν νῦν ἢ πρόσθεν οὔτ᾽ ἂν πληρῶσαι τοσαύτας ναῦς οὔτ᾽ ἀναπλεῦσαι τηλικούτοις στόλοις δυνηθεῖεν; [7] > οὐ μὲν ἀλλὰ > περὶ μὲν ταύτης τῆς ἀπορίας σαφῶς ἐξέσται τὰς αἰτίας κατανοεῖν, ὅταν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξήγησιν αὐτῶν τῆς πολιτείας ἔλθωμεν. [Idem I, 64, 1].



TLG
6.1.6.1
Καὶ τί δήποτ’ ἔστι τὸ αἴτιον, ἀπορήσαι τις ἄν,
ὅτι κεκρατηκότες <οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι> τῶν ὅλων καὶ πολ-
λαπλασίαν ἔχοντες ὑπεροχὴν νῦν ἢ πρόσθεν οὔτ’
ἂν πληρῶσαι τοσαύτας ναῦς οὔτ’ ἀναπλεῦσαι τηλι-
6.1.7.1
κούτοις στόλοις δυνηθεῖεν; > οὐ μὲν ἀλλὰ > περὶ μὲν
ταύτης τῆς ἀπορίας σαφῶς ἐξέσται τὰς αἰτίας κατα-
νοεῖν, ὅταν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξήγησιν αὐτῶν τῆς πολιτείας
ἔλθωμεν. [Idem I, 64, 1].

9

The link in Pstr’s 10:59 post has μὴν. So does the Loeb (the second edition, revised in 2010). So does Buettner-Wobst/Dindorff (1882). These are all I.64.1. The Loeb doesn’t reprint the same passage at VI.1.6.1, but Buettner-Wobst/Dindorff has μὴν there. I think μὲν is just wrong.

10

I think Qimmik is right. The Tufts Perseus gives μὴν at 1.64 and μὲν in 6.1. Weil has μὴν and makes no mention of different readings in his commentary. So I suspect the incorrect μὲν got into Perseus early on.