Test your translation skills on my compositions 
In other words, are my compositions legible? Give me your translations of them so I can see how well I’m doing.
ἐπεὶ ὁ μὲν Πρίαμος ἔθανεν ὁ δὲ Ἕκτωρ τὸν βασιλέᾱ ἐποιήθη. ἀλλὰ τίς αὐτὸν κατέστησεν;
Δημοσθένη ἰὼν ἔλαθον ἐκ τῆς ἀγορᾶς. ὅτε γὰρ λέγοι ἤειν.
ἑπείδη ὁ Πάρις βληθείη ὑπὸ δόρατος μεγάλου πόδε εἴχε οὐκ ἐτὶ μάχεσθαι.
SLMN
As you can probably tell, I’m working on temporal clauses at the moment.
A few notes (more important syntactical points in bold):
(1) ἐπεὶ ὁ μὲν Πρίαμος ἔθανεν ὁ δὲ Ἕκτωρ τὸν βασιλέᾱ ἐποιήθη. ἀλλὰ τίς αὐτὸν κατέστησεν;
Are you going for “After Priam died, Hector was made king. But who appointed him?”
-You can’t use μέν…δέ here between a subordinate clause and a main clause. You could keep μέν…δέ and get rid of ἐπεί, or vice versa.
-ἔθανεν—> ἀπέθανεν
-τὸν βασιλέα shouldn’t be acc. What case should it be?
(2) Δημοσθένη ἰὼν ἔλαθον ἐκ τῆς ἀγορᾶς. ὅτε γὰρ λέγοι ἤειν.
“I left the market without Demosthenes noticing. For whenever he would speak I went”?
Good. Don’t forget the iota subscript on ᾔειν. You could use ἐξῄειν instead of the uncompounded verb.
It’s possible but not required to omit the article with ἀγορᾶς.
(3) ἑπείδη ὁ Πάρις βληθείη ὑπὸ δόρατος μεγάλου πόδε εἴχε οὐκ ἐτὶ μάχεσθαι.
After Paris was hit by a large spear on his feet he was no longer able to fight?
-Since you’re talking about a one-time occurrence (Paris getting hit) not a general or habitual one (“whenever Paris was hit…”), you need an aorist indicative in the temporal clause instead of optative.
-ἑπείδη—>ἐπειδὴ
-ὑπὸ δόρατος μεγάλου—> better dative of instrument (without ὑπό)
-εἴχε—>εἶχε
-οὐκ ἔτι—>οὐκέτι, and word order: οὐκέτι εἶχε μάχεσθαι
Keep up the good work!
phalakros:
(1) yes that’s exactly what I was going for.
-τὸν βασιλέα …Ah it should be in the nominative, no? Because the verb is passive?
Also, a slight aside: if we did without the temporal conjunction could μέν…δέ convey a sort of temporality?
(2) yep that’s pretty much it, however.
In the second sentence I was actually going for “For, while he was talking, I went out.” So perhaps I should make it a genitive of time within which and a circumstantial participle?
My uncertainty here about the precise nature of past general leads onto my next bit.
(3)That’s exactly it.
Ok so all my sentences are past simple? I actually had this originally as a past simple but then became a little bit confused, because I guess I felt that past general could refer to a specific time, but one that we are I ignorant of. As in “at some point this happened”.
Hmm…
Ps. One thing actually, in (3) I was actually asked to use an acc. of respect while translating “After Paris’ feet were struck by a large spear…”. I bring this up because while I think I did get it there’s an ambiguity I feel because “feet” is being asked to be translated as both subject and object. No? Is there a better way I could have done it?
Thanks a million, having someone talk my compositions through is amazing! 
(1) Yep, nominative.
ἐπεί is more precisely temporal than μέν…δέ would be. It could answer the question “when did Hector become king?”. But in a narrative context, subsequent actions are often expressed by μέν…δέ. The temporal relationship is implied (similar to English “Priam died; Hector became king”).
(2) A past general temporal clause doesn’t work for “while he was talking, I went out.” Two ways to express this would be: (a) a genitive absolute (τούτου γὰρ λέγοντος ἐξῇα/ἐξῄειν). It’s not technically a genitive of time within which. In your αὐτοὺ γὰρ λεγόντος ἤειν note that αὐτοῦ does not usually start a sentence when unemphatic; also watch your accents and iota subscripts. Or (b) a different temporal conjunction, e.g. ἐν ὧ γὰρ ἔλεγεν [note that ἐν ᾧ acts like a single word and doesn’t split up for a particle].
(3) Present general (subjunctive in temporal clause) or past general (“iterative” optative in temporal clause) have a habitual or repeated sense. It is the same as general conditional clauses.
For “at some point,” you can use the enclitic ποτέ. It doesn’t affect the mood of the verb.
“After Paris’ feet were struck…” You handled it well, making Paris the subject in Greek and feet an acc of respect. His feet may be the subject in English, but it’s more idiomatic in Greek to put them in the acc. In general, there is rarely a one-to-one correspondence between English and Greek. At the introductory level, English set for translation will stay relatively close to the Greek, but as you move on they often depart radically. Noting such things help you learn how English and Greek syntax and idiom differ.
P.S. It’s great to post compositions on Textkit and ask for help, especially since others can learn from the discussion. But if these exercises are for a class assignment, it is better to try them on your own without help.
phalakros,
I want to continue posting compositions, so what if I just posted my attempts at the composition exercises from Keller and Russell?
For example:
Chapter 14, Exercises
C.
That’s fine with me. As long as we’re abiding by the Textkit rules.
“When someone asked what sort of thing the rule of any city was, you replied that the laws had [sic] commanded and the citizens had [sic] obeyed. But tell me, sir: didn’t the citizens themselves, at least, make laws in our city?”
A few points below (more important syntactical points in bold). Please feel free to ask questions if I’m being unclear–these comments are written in haste. You could rewrite and post your corrected version.
-τινος ἐρωτήσαντος: the enclitic τινος cannot start a sentence, so put ἐρωτ. first
-Similarly, the regular position of τινος would be after πόλεως. Remove the article from πόλεως: you can’t have both the indefinite τινος and the definite article. Watch the accent on αρχη.
-ὁποῖον ἐστίν ἥ…ἄρχη. This construction works just fine. You could also use prolepsis here: ἐρωτήσαντός τινος περὶ τῆς πόλεως ἀρχῆς ὁποῖόν τί ἐστιν [note that τις/τι is often, but not always, added to forms of ὁποῖος when it means “what sort of”]
-ὁποῖον ἐστίν: not accented properly (hint: review the rules for the accentuation of enclitics)
-The tense of ἐκέλευσαν and ἐπείσαντο is incorrect. What tense would work better here? Another detail: the aorist for πείθομαι (“obey”) is usually ἐπείσθην (more common in Attic prose) or ἐπιθόμην (more common in poetry), but not ἐπεισάμην.
-Mood: the indicative is possible for ὁποῖον ἐστίν and ἐκέλευσαν/ἐπείσαντο. What other mood would work here? (Hint: pay attention to the sequence of moods)
-οἱ νόμοι ἐκέλευσαν καὶ οἱ πολῖται ἐπείσαντο: it is possible to connect the two clauses with just καί, but it’s more idiomatic to draw out the parallelism with και…και, τε…καί, or μέν…δέ.
-λέγε με: λέγε is possible, but better would be an aorist imperative. Accusative με is wrong; what case do you need?
-βέλτιστε is fine. Often the vocative is accompanied by ὦ (scholars disagree at length about what significance can be attached to its presence or omission—answer: probably not much)
-ἐποίησαν: better to use the middle of τίθημι for making laws
-νόμους ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ πόλιν: the English is probably “the laws in our city?” If so, νόμους needs the article. πόλιν must agree with τῇ. The particle γε is awkward with αὐτοί. It would make more sense qualifying what follows, i.e. “the laws, at least the ones in our city” (τοὺς νόμους τούς γ’ ἐν τῂ…).
P.S. You’re doing well from what I’ve seen. φιλοπόνει
phalakros:
Firstly, I want to thank you for taking your time to go over my work, your corrections and guidance is very clear. I really appreciate it and I know you don’t have to do it.
(and thanks for the encouragement as well)
And so, following your corrections I arrived at this:
ἐρωτήσαντός τινος ὁποῖόν (τί) ἐστι ἡ πόλεώς τινος ἀρχὴ ἀπεκρίνω ὅτι κελεύοιέν τε ὁ νόμος καί πείθοιντο οἱ πολῖται. ἀλλ’ εἶπέ μοι, ὦ βέλτιστε, οὐχ οἱ πολῖται ἔθεσαν αὐτοὶ τούς νόμους τούς γ’ ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ πόλει;
I’ll keep prolepsis in mind for the next time, how do you identify whether it is suitable or not?
And, here is todays composition. I’m trying to do one a day from each chapter, although I’ll probably only go back as far as Ch.10 before resetting.
Ch.13.
C1.
δυστυχώς ὦ ἄνερ, εἴθε τῶν βαρβάρων τὴν πόλιν ἐχόντων σοφίᾱν ἐκτήσω ἀντὶ πλούτου. νῦν ὁ δήμος πειρῶνται ἑαύτων ἄρχειν, καὶ ἡγέμονος δεῖ σώφρονος ἴσου καὶ ὁμοίου τοῖς προτέροις.
SLMSN
ἐρωτήσαντός τινος ὁποῖόν (τί) ἐστι ἡ πόλεώς τινος ἀρχὴ ἀπεκρίνω ὅτι κελεύοιέν τε ὁ νόμος καί πείθοιντο οἱ πολῖται. ἀλλ’ εἶπέ μοι, ὦ βέλτιστε, οὐχ οἱ πολῖται ἔθεσαν αὐτοὶ τούς νόμους τούς γ’ ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ πόλει;
ἐστι: εἴη is also possible here; ἐστι is good
ὁ νόμος: should be plural to agree with κελεύοιέν
εἶπέ: the impv has an irregular accent, εἰπέ.
ἔθεσαν: I think citizens or other legislative bodies usually make (/“make for themselves”) laws in the middle (ἔθεντο), but ἔθεσαν is also possible. Not relevant to this sentence, but also note that κεῖμαι is often used for the passive sense, “the established laws” (οἱ κείμενοι νόμοι).
δυστυχώς ὦ ἄνερ, εἴθε τῶν βαρβάρων τὴν πόλιν ἐχόντων σοφίᾱν ἐκτήσω ἀντὶ πλούτου. νῦν ὁ δήμος πειρῶνται ἑαύτων ἄρχειν, καὶ ἡγέμονος δεῖ σώφρονος ἴσου καὶ ὁμοίου τοῖς προτέροις.
Good! A few notes:
δυστυχώς ὦ ἄνερ: if you mean “O unfortunate man” you need the masc vocative singular of δυστυχής (δυστυχῶς, note accent, would be the adverb). The adjective should come after ὦ (ὦ δ. ἄνερ)
ὁ δήμος πειρῶνται ἑαύτων: the verb πειρῶνται and the pronoun ἑαύτων need to agree with the number of the subject.
Watch the accents on δήμος, ἑαύτων, and ἡγέμονος.
νῦν: eventually, in your connected prose, you will want to start using particles—one of the greatest pleasures of Greek. Here you could use νῦν δὲ (“but as it is”/“as things are now”) or νῦν δ’ οὖν—δ᾽ οὖν would make a stronger transition from the hypothetical nature of the preceding statement (“would that…”) to the reality of the following (“But now, at any rate” “Be that as it may…”).
Re prolepsis: there’s no fixed rule for when to use it. You’ll get a feel for its idiomatic use through reading lots of Greek. In general, it can emphasize (or “topicalize”) the subject of a subordinate clause. It’s used especially in certain constructions, like indirect question. Some quick examples (anyone should jump in if they spot mistakes):
ἆρ’ οἶσθα τὸν Σωκράτη, ὅς (/ὅστις) ἐστι καὶ ὁπόθεν πάρεστι;
Do you know who Socrates is and where he comes from? (Do you know Socrates, who he is and where he comes from?)
ἀφίκετο ἡ ἀγγελία τῶν παίδων, ὅτι ἁρπασθεῖεν. (instead of ὅτι οἱ παῖδες ἁρπασθεῖεν)
(News about their children arrived, that they had been snatched away).
With double prolepsis for balance as well as emphasis:
οἱ ἐν τέλει τοὺς ἀρχομένους ἐφοβοῦντο μὴ τέλος ἀποσταῖεν βασιλέα ὁρῶντές γ’ ἡλίκος εἴη καὶ ὅσων κύριος.
(The rulers were afraid that their subjects would finally revolt as they [the subjects] considered the might and influence of the king of Persia.)
οὐδὲ κήδονται, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν, τῶν παίδων, εἰ ὑπὸ τῶν πονηρῶν ἁρπασθήσονται. (instead of εἰ οἱ παῖδες ὑπὸ…)
They’re not even concerned, as it seems to me, about evil men snatching away their own children. […on second thought, you probably won’t meet this construction in K&R, so just ignore it if it’s not clear]
phalakros
ok. so today I have a few more than usual, they’re taken mainly from the drills. Semester is basically over and I’m just preparing for my exam now.
I had a lengthy response to your corrections of the last two compositions, which I lost when I was automatically logged out while writing it. 
I had also composed the below straight into the computer from a rough draft…so I haven’t re-combed them for errors. I’ll make sure to Ctrl+C long posts from now on!
Quickly on the first three:
Good; no grammatical issues. It would be idiomatic to say οὐκ ἐδύνατο τῶν παρόντων πεῖσαι οὐδένα or the like (note the multiple negatives; I’m not sure if K&R introduces this topic).
-ἔλεγε doesn’t work here with the acc + inf construction. You could use (1) ἔφη with acc + inf, or (2) ἔλεγε/εἶπεν with ὅτι/ὡς, changing τὴν πόλιν and εσχειν accordingly.
-Do you really want a past general construction (whenever the general would go…he would say) or is this a one-time occurrence? I’d have to see the English to know for sure, but the latter makes more sense.
-A circumstantial participle for “after/when he came” would be better than a temporal clause (ἐπεὶ…)
-σαφῶς: better positioned before ἔλεγε(/ἔφη/εἶπεν).
-Ἀθεναίων: spelling
-μέγα τείχος: should be plural
-ἔσχειν: the aor inf would be σχεῖν not ἔσχειν, but the present inf would be better (continuous aspect)
-τοσούτους: that would mean Plato loved “so many stars.” You likely mean Plato loved stars “so much that…” What form of τοσοῦτος do you need for that?
-ἀστέρα: you need masc pl acc
-ἐφίλησε: impf better than aor (continuous aspect)
-ἔγραψε works but γράφει present doesn’t (you’re talking about the past). Alternatively, you could use the inf.
-“a few poems?” You probably want τινα (or possibly οὐ πολλὰ) instead of ὀλίγα (I’d have to see the English to know for sure). The latter would usually mean just a few.
-πάντες οἳ αὐτὰ ἀναγιγνώσκοντες χαίρουσιν. You’ve mixed up two constructions. You could use (1) χαίρουσιν + participle: either πάντες οἱ αὐτὰ ἀναγιγνώσκοντες (all who read them…) or πάντες αὐτὰ ἀναγιγνώσκοντες (everyone enjoys reading them); or (2) a relative clause: οἳ αὐτὰ ανα. with a finite verb (not a ptcp).
-The tenses are amiss in the last sentence (they were such that everyone does enjoy). In other words, either ἦσαν should be present or χαίρουσιν past, depending on the English.
-Let me know if anything is unclear—these are hasty notes. You can post your revised version. Others should feel free to jump in.
phalakros
so I arrived at this, the first two I feel satisfied with your corrections. The last three I feel need a lot of work.
Are these Ok?
SLMSN
ἠλίθιος ἐστί: accentuation
λανθάνεται: better ἐπιλανθάνεται
ὅπου: you need a different indirect interrogative for “whither” (hint: it’s very similar)
Ἑράκλειτος: spelling
οἷος Ἑράκλειτος ὁ ποιητής: if you mean this specifically about the past (what a great poet he was), ἦν is usually not omitted. As it is, it makes a statement about the present.
ἔργα: for prose you could say, e.g., λόγους συνέγραψε; for poets (which Heraclitus was not) usually (ποιήματα) ἐποίησε. More economically, you could just omit the extra noun, τοσαῦτα καλὰ συνέγραψε.
You mean to talk about quantity not quality, yes? (as many good works as Plato wrote not works as good as Plato’s)
I led you astray by bringing up multiple negatives if they aren’t introduced in your textbook. You can say οὐκ ἐδύνατο τῶν παρόντων πεῖσαι οὐδένα with the simple negative οὐκ going before the compound negative οὐδένα. In that configuration, οὐκ…οὐδένα, the meaning stays negative (and more emphatic). If the simple negative follows the compound negative, οὐδένα…οὐκ, they cancel each other out: “there was no one he wasn’t able to persuade,” i.e. he persuaded everyone.
-Still not the right form for ἀστέρες (you need acc not nom)
-Sequence of moods doesn’t apply here.
-οὕτως πολὺ/ τοσούσδε: for “so much” you could use the demonstrative adverbs οὔτως or τοσοῦτον. τοσοῦτον is an adverbial accusative.
-for “little poems” μικρά is fine. λεπτὰ would be a good word to described poems (small in addition to fine, intricate; like the poems of Callimachus).
-αὐτὰ is redundant and better omitted.
-ἀναγιγνώσκω is perfectly fine for “read.” For the audience of poetry, you could use also ἀκροάομαι.
so I’m going for
“Did you appoint this politician? He is so silly that he often forgets where he is or where he is going.”
I’m not very good with ‘proper’ English, is whither what I want here?
I’m going for “What sort of poet is Heraclitus! He composed as many good works as were written by Plato.”
This is how Heraclitus is spelled in my book?
ok, K&R do bring up negatives but I glided over them because it broke my brain.
τοσοῦτον ὁ Πλάτων ἐφίλει τοὺς ἀστέρας ὥστε περὶ αὐτῶν μῑκρὰ ποιήματα ἔγραψεν. καὶ τοιαῦτα ἦσαν ὥστε πάντες οἱ ἀναγιγνώσκοντες ἔχαιρον.
cheers
SLMSN
βέβηκε is good.
Also, note that ὡς (instead of ὥστε) to introduce a result clause with a finite verb is not that common. It’s not wrong though. Xenophon uses it the most.
Should be Ἡράκλειτος.
Fair enough, but do come back to them at some point. Negatives in Greek are wonderfully complex.
τοσοῦτον: There is an adjective, τοσοῦτος, -αύτη, -οῦτο(ν) and an adverb, τοσοῦτον (an “adverbial accusative”):
τοσούτους (adjective) τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐφίλει ὥστε… means “he loved so many stars that…”
τοσοῦτον (adverb) τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐφίλει ὥστε… means “he loved stars so much that…” You could replace τοσοῦτον with οὕτω (also an adverb).
αστέρες acc pl also in Modern Gk, I think.
Might get onto that now, I’ve been putting it off and I shouldn’t let them catch me off guard in the exam. And the gritty problems tend to yield the most interesting results anyway.
Oh ok, my grammar in any language is shocking so I wasn’t aware of the difference. That makes a lot more sense. 
SLMSN
Yep, ὅποι is right