After a bit of a break from composition here goes nothing:
How do they look, guys?
SLMSN
Quick notes:
ἑκῶς: for ἑκών? You need a nom pl.
περὶ ὧν με λέγοντα: needs a finite verb and nominative subject
πρὶν εἶδον good if you mean “until they saw the ships and the dead.”
ἀπαυστῶς: would be accented on the penult. It strikes me as later Gk; more Attic might be συνεχῶς.
καίπερ ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἐθέλοντας: you want a different construction here (hint: one very common for an absolute clause).
ἵωμεν typically accented ἱῶμεν, though the manuscripts are unstable on these forms. “As long as we throw weapons at each other?” Double acc. doesn’t work for this. You could use ἐπὶ ἀλλήλοις or the gen., or use a different verb like βάλλω. Maybe something more specific for ὅπλα?
ἑώς: accent. Alternatively, you could use πρὶν ἂν here (with what is sometimes called a “virtual negative”—not sure if that is covered in Keller & Russell. Is that the book you are still using?).
It would help to have the English prompt for these exercises. In some cases, I’m not quite sure what you’re getting.
phalakros
so I was going for
so how about:
2. οὐ συνῆκαν τὰ πράγματα περὶ ὧν ἔλεγον πρὶν εἶδον τᾶς ναῦς καὶ τοὺς πεπτωκότας
To be honest I don’t know what made me insist on using the participle, I think I was originally going to try to do it w/o the noun “πράγματα”.
–
2. ὡς οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀμφοτέρῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ταῦτα εὑρίσκειν/ζητεῖν ἔδεισαν μὴ τὰ ἰοῖεν κακῶς ἡμῖν.
Because it was not possible for both of the men to examine these things we were afraid that things would go badly for us.
A little question, these three forms all say “The democracy must not be hated by anyone”, right?
a. οὐ δεῖ τὴν δημοκρατίᾱν μισεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τινος.
b. ἡ δημοκρατίᾱ τινὶ οὐ μισητέᾱ ἐστίν.
c. οὐ μισητέον τὴν δημοκρατίᾱν τινί.
SLMSN
slimsne
This would be an excellent idea for all future posts in this thread. I am not inclined to read through the Greek which may or may not be correct work what you might be trying to say and then think about how it might be expressed. It would also make it much more helpful for readers of this thread.
It is nevertheless a very instructive thread and thanks for starting it. Thanks too to phalakros for the time he spends on this and other threads.
seneca2008
From now on I’ll make sure to add what I’m aiming for with each piece of Greek. Maybe that will lower the participation barrier a little. Regardless, I’m glad that this has been instructive for people, I’m just trying to be able to write in decent Greek.
What would you guys think of some epic to attic prose exercises? to try and understand the subtler differences of composition? I’m still basically using English word order…
SLMSN
Just a note to say I’ll hopefully have more time for Textkit in a few weeks
Hello everyone,
After a little break I’ve returned to my Greek composition. I’ve purchased a copy of Dickey’s Introduction to the Composition and Analysis of Greek Prose.
I decided to dive straight into it.
So here’s the first one, with many many more to come in the next few days.
τὴν μὲν χάριν δῶρα λαβόντες ἔχομεν καὶ δὲ τὴν ἐλπίδα οὔπω δῶρα λαβόντες. ἑταιροι τούτῳ τῴ ἀθλίῳ γέροντι οὐκέτι εἰσίν, οὐδὲ πολὺν τὴν ἐλπίδα οὐδὲ πολὺν τὴν χάριν ἔχει.
We have gratitude when we have received gifts, and hope when we have not yet received gifts. This miserable old man no longer has comrades; he has neither much hope nor much gratitude.
SLMSN
For those of us that have Dickey, this is sentence 11 from the end of Chapter VI in the Sentences Exercise. Dickey discusses the use of μέν…δέ in Section D3 (Additional Complications). One thing she mentions is that the particles should follow the words being contrasted, which in the first sentence I believe are gratitude and hope (χάριν μεν…ἐλπίδα δε). In the second sentence, I wonder if “he has neither much hope nor much gratitude” could be subordinated to main clause to show why he no longer has comrades (ᾧ οὐδ’ ἐλπίς οὐδέ χάρις πολλή οὖσα or οὐκ ἔχοντι ἐλπίδαν οὐδέ χάριν πολλήν. ) . I’m really just a beginner myself, but I thought I’d offer my thoughts to get you started in the analysis, Slimsne.
I’d write χάριν μὲν … ἐλπίδα δὲ without articles and without καὶ. I’d also use μήπω instead of οὔπω and put it right before λαβόντες for sake of clarity.
Accent typos: ἑταῖροι, τῷ
πολλὴν is the accusative singular feminine.
Thanks guys,
Ok so correcting for the errors alone;
χάριν μὲν δῶρα λαβόντες ἔχομεν ἐλπίδα δὲ δῶρα μήπω λαβόντες. ἑταιροὶ τούτῳ τῷ ἀθλίῳ γέροντι οὐκέτι εἰσίν, οὐδὲ πολλὴν ἐλπίδα οὐδὲ πολλὴν χάριν ἔχει.
-right of course she very clearly says “μὲν… δὲ…” follow the opposing terms
-I used the article in front of “hope” and “gratitude” because I believed they were abstract nouns, no?
-thank you bedwere for pointing out those errors
Aetos, I like the idea of clarifying the causal subordination of the last clause. So maybe:
χάριν μὲν δῶρα λαβόντες ἔχομεν ἐλπίδα δὲ δῶρα μήπω λαβόντες. ἑταιροὶ τούτῳ τῷ ἀθλίῳ γέροντι οὐκέτι εἰσίν ἔχοντι οὐδὲ πολλὴν ἐλπίδα οὐδὲ πολλὴν χάριν.
-can the same “πολλὴν” modify both nouns, as in your formulation?
-and must the “ἔχοντι” also be negated?
Once again thank you for your time.
SLMSN
Ok, I’ve just finished the days composition. Have a go at analysing it if you like.
κενὰ οὐ πολλάκις εἰσὶ τὰ κοῖλα δένδρα. πολλοὶ γὰρ θεηροὶ ἐν δένδροις ὑπάρχουσιν. τὰ δὲ δένδρα μὴ φύονται κοίλως, ἀλλὰ παλαιὰ δένδρα πολλάκις κοῖλος γίγνουσιν. εἰ θηροὺς οὖν βλάπτειν οὐ βούλῃ, τὴν ἔχουσαν πολλὰ παλαιὰ δένδρα ὕλην οὐ καύσεις.
Hollow trees are not often empty; many wild animals exist in trees. Trees do not grow hollow; old trees often become hollow. If we do not wish to harm wild animals, we shall not burn the forest that has many old trees.
Regards,
SLMSN
Excellent that you are undertaking this. A few corrections (I don’t have Dickey, so make sure you double check the vocabulary she is giving you):
θεηροὶ should either the third declension θήρ, hence θῆρες, or the more common θηρίον, and so θηρία.
κοῖλος γίγνουσιν. Should be κοῖλα to agree with δένδρα, and γίγνονται because it’s a deponent, no active forms.
θηροὺς, accusative plural should be θῆρας
βούλῃ, should be βουλόμεθα.
καύσεις, rather καύσομεν.
Neuter plurals take singular verbs.
Good use of connectives. Ιmproving the grammar and the word order:
ου πολλακις κενα εστι τα δενδρα τα κοιλα· εν γαρ τοις δενδρεσιν υπαρχει θηρια πολλα. ου μεντοι πεφυκε κοιλα τα δενδρα, αλλα τα (γε) παλαια πολλακις κοιλα γιγνεται. εαν ουν μη θελωμεν βλαψαι θηρια, ου καυσομεν την πολλα και παλαια δενδρα εχουσαν υλην.
Questions, comments?
————
And on the previous one (“We have gratitude when we have received gifts, and hope when we have not yet received gifts. This miserable old man no longer has comrades; he has neither much hope nor much gratitude“), I’d say
χαριν μεν εχομεν δωρα λαβοντες, ελιπιδα δε μηπω λαβοντες. και δη τῳδε τῳ αθλιῳ γεροντι ουκετι εισιν εταιροι· ουτε πολλην ελπιδ’ εχει ουτε πολλην χαριν.
Notes: First sentence straightforward enough.
Second sentence: και δη rather than just και or δε I think, but arguably too strong and αλλα would be quite acceptable (some sort of connective is needed).
Asyndeton seems apt for the continuation; ωστε would be overdoing it;
And ουτε, not ουδε!, it’s just “neither … nor” (though the positive ολιγην ελπιδ’ εχει και ολιγην χαριν would really be better).
Keep it simple, keep it Greek.
How smooth! It was immediately sensible to me. I wish I could get my connectives and word order to work like that. The only thing that stuck out to me is a quibble with the assignment sentence. It struck me that the Greeks would have talked about the τὰ κοῖλα τῶν δέδρων instead of the τὰ κοῖλα δένδρα.
I think I’d move οὐκέτι εἰσίν to the beginning of the sentence just to make the connexion clearer between γέροντι and ἔχοντι.
Remember, the penult takes the circumflex when the ultima is short, so ἑταῖροι, not ἑταιροὶ.
Under certain conditions, πολλὴν can modify both nouns, but a better construction might be to use it with a partitive genitive, so:
ἔχοντι οὐτ’ ἐλπίδος ούτε χάριτος πολλήν. (Note I’m using οὐτε, not οὐδέ). So altogether it would read:
οὐκέτι εἰσίν ἑταῖροι τοὐτῳ τῷ ἀθλίῳ γέροντι ἔχοντι οὐτ’ ἐλπίδος οὐτε χάριτος πολλήν.
Hopefully, one of the other members can give a definitive answer.
EDIT: I see mwh has checked in! I’m going to post this, because I’d like to know myself if I’m correct on the thoughts above.
Most of the time:
- A plural verb may be used when stress is laid on the fact that the neuter plural subject is composed of persons or of several parts: τὰ τέλη τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων αὐτὸν ἐξέπεμψαν the Lacedaemonian magistrates despatched him T. 4. 88, φανερὰ ἦσαν καὶ ἵππων καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἴχνη πολλά many traces both of horses and of men were plain X. A. 1. 7. 17.
Smyth, H. W. (1920). A Greek Grammar for Colleges (p. 264). New York; Cincinnati; Chicago; Boston; Atlanta: American Book Company.
So his use of the plural here is possible, though unlikely.
Joel proposes τὰ κοῖλα τῶν δένδρων for my τα δενδρα τα κοιλα. That would work well if we were already talking about trees. (Incidentally, the new Cambridge grammar is good on the difference between e.g. τα κοιλα δενδρα and τα δενδρα τα κοιλα.)
Aetos suggests ἔχοντι οὐτ’ ἐλπίδος ούτε χάριτος πολλήν in the previous composition. That won’t do, since it leaves πολλην high and dry without anything even implicitly to refer to. πολυ would be better (ου πολυ εχοντι ουτ’ ελπιδος ουτε χαριτος perhaps), but even that’s a bit of a stretch, and I see little call for a partitive genitive. ουτ’ ελπιδα πολλην εχοντι ουτε χαριν πολλην would be ok; the πολλην must be repeated (nothing wrong with that). I’m not too happy about εχοντι either. It leaves the force of the participle unclear—but then I suppose the same could be said of the relationship between the two clauses in the English. (I like my asyndeton, but it wouldn’t be everyone’s choice.)
Let’s try to avoid neuter plural pedantries. It clutters the thread, and there’s many more important things here that have gone without comment.
Wow guys, amazing responses. I really appreciate the time you’ve all taken to provide some analysis.
So I’ve arrived at these:
11-12
χάριν μὲν ἔχομεν δῶρα λαβόντες, ἐλπίδα δὲ μήπω λαβόντες. καὶ δὴ τῷδε τῷ ἀθλίῳ γέροντι οὐκέτι εἰσί ἑταῖροι· οὐτὲ πολλὴν ἐλπίδ’ ἔχει οὐτὲ πολλὴν χάριν
13-15
οὐ πολλάκις κενὰ εἰσὶ τὰ δένδρα τὰ κοῖλα· ἐν γὰρ δένδροις ὑπάρχουσιν θῆρες πολλοὶ. οὐ μέντοι πέφυκε κοῖλα τὰ δένδρα ἀλλὰ τὰ γε παλαιὰ πολλάκις κοῖλα γίγνεται. ἐὰν οὖν μὴ θέλωμεν βλάψαι θῆρας, οὐ καύσομεν τὴν πολλὰ καὶ παλαιὰ δένδρα ἔχουσαν ὕλην
OK, it’s a wrap.
11-12. και δη just adds something else, in a fairly attention-getting sort of way. (Similarly, τῷδε is more vivid than τουτω.) But plain δε would be fine, as an ordinary non-committal sentence connective.
13-15. δενδρεσι not δενδροις is the regular dat.pl. in Attic.
Onward and upward!