It’s simply the definite article which (as usual in Greek) goes with the name Φίλιππος. The confusing bit is the acute accent (which makes it look a bit like a relative pronoun), but that’s due to the enclitic τε “throwing its accent back” onto the word before it.
To add to this answer, the particle τε in this instance means “both,” since it is taken with καί. ὅ τε Φίλιππος καὶ ὁ πάπποςboth Philip and grandfather (Klewlis, you missed the second ὁ in this sentence, by the way).
Also, it should read ἀκούουσιν rather than ἀκούσιν.
Here are my solutions. I’ll be skipping translation exercises into English for the time being. (I read them out loud, but I don’t want to spend my Greek study time polishing English sentences.)
5β
Read and translate the following forms, and then give the corresponding singular forms:
ἐν νῷ ἔχομεν IV πρὸς τὸ ἄστυ (the city) βαδίζειν INF καὶ τοὺς χοροὺς DO ὁρᾶν TV-INF.
We wish to walk to the temple (τὸ ἱερόν) and honor the god (use ὁ θεος).
As I said in my first post, I may not (better, cannot) keep working at your pace.
last week I did not manage to do anything.
Before posting my replies, I write them on paper so I will just reply to those different from mine
Exercise 5β
no problem
5γ
ariphron wrote:
6. οἰκεῖ οἰκεῖτε
οἰκοῦσιν from: οἰκέ+ουσιν = οἰκοῦσιν (with circumflex because of the accent on the first of the contracted vowels)
φίλει φιλεῖτε
this is correct as φίλει is imperative 2sing
while
klewlis wrote: 7. φίλει φιλεῖτε I had φιλουσιν
φιλουσιν is 3rd plur. whereas φίλει is imperative 2nd sing, so the related imper. 2nd pl. is φιλεῖτε
I am going to write my work only where it differs from yours
[quote="jaihare Exercise 5δ
The dog sees the rabbit and chases [it] to the top of the hill.
ὁ πατὴρ μέγα βοᾷ καὶ τὸν δοῦλον καλεῖ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας.
Do you (p.) see the rabbit? Why aren’t you releasing the dog?
οὕτως ἀνδρεῖός ἐστιν ὁ παῖς ὥστε μέγα τιμῶμεν αὐτόν.
4. We intend to go to the city and see the choruses.
ἐθέλομεν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν βαδίζειν καὶ τὸν θεὸν τιμᾶν.
5. Do not be so careless, boy; go to the hill and look for the dog.
μὴ οὕτω χαλεπὸς ἴσθι, ὦ πάππε· ἐγὼ γὰρ αἴτιος οὐκ εἰμί.
[/quote]
The dog sees the hare and chases (it) towards the top of the hill
Ὁ πατὴρ μέγα βοᾷ καὶ τὸν δοῦλον ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου καλεῖ
Do you see the hare? Why don’t you loosen the dog?
Οὕτως ανδρεῖός ἐστιν ὁ νεανίας ὥστε αὐτὸν μέγα τιμῶμεν
4. We intend to go to the city and see the dances
Ἐθέλομεν πρὸς τὸ ἱερὸν βαδίζειν καὶ τὸν θεὸν τιμᾶν
5. Don’t be so lazy, boy; go to the hill and look for the dog.
Μὴ οὕτω χαλεπὸς ἴσθι, ὦ πάππε• ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐκ αἴτιός εἰμι
Not really. It’s φιλεῖ (φιλέ-ει → φιλεῖ). The imperative is φίλει (φίλε-ε → φίλει). The accent is important in this case.
οἰκεῖ is indicative (οἰκέ-ει → οἰκεῖ)
οἴκει is imperative (οἴκε-ε → οἴκει)
In the indicative, the long ending (-ει) draws the accent from the antepenult to the penult. It then contracts, and the accent stays where it was (which has now become the ultima). In the imperative, the short ending (-ε) does not draw the accent away from the antepenult. It remains on the previous syllable when the contraction occurs.
interesting enough, we get to the same conclusion but I would give a different reason for the accent. this is what I learned: in the indicative the accent is on οἰκέ-ει, but when contraction occurs, if the first vowel to be contracted is accented, then the result is a circumflex on the contracted Group, if the second is accented, then the result is an acute on the contracted Group, if neither is accented, the resulting contracted Group is not accented either.
So, as I know, the present is οἰκεῖ because the first vowel had the accent, before contraction.
Whereas, recessive accentuation in the imperative moves the accent before contraction takes place, thus we have no accented vowel to contract, resulting in unaccented contracted Group.
Does this make any sense to you?
Ariphr. and Klewlis μὴ οὕτω χαλεπὸς ἴσθι, ὦ πάππε: οὐ γὰρ αἰτίος εἰμὶ εγώ.
Bruna Μὴ οὕτω χαλεπὸς ἴσθι, ὦ πάππε• ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐκ αἴτιός εἰμι
the accent is αἴτιος, as for the word order in the second part, I would say both yours and mine are possible. Let’s see if anybody else comments.
Yeah, the meaning of “why” needs to be in the neuter. Either τί; or διὰ τί; is appropriate. Notice also that they’ve written *ῶ πίλοι instead of ὦ φίλοι.
FYI: In Hebrew, there are two words for “why?” We have both מדוע mah-DOO-ah and למה LAH-mah. Thus, both of the following sentences are good:
?למה אתה צוחק - LAH-mah ah-TAH tsoh-CHEK
?מדוע אתה צוחק - mah-DOO-ah ah-TAH tsoh-CHEK
When laughing at someone, the word that you add is על ahl. So, to ask what are you laughing at?, the right way is to say the following:
?על מה אתה צוחק - ahl mah ah-TAH tsoh-CHEK
People have begun leaving off the word ahl from this latter sentence. If you laugh at someone because something happened and they want to tell you to stop laughing, you will often hear in Israel:
!?מה אתה צוחק - mah ah-TAH tsoh-CHEK
This reminds me of the use of τί; on its on as the word for “why?” It was always weird to me to find that it is used in such an ambiguous way in Greek writings. I still prefer to use διὰ τί; instead.
