Translating the sentence (#6) “Today the guards are camping around the harbor, in order to be roused by the bandits when they go beyond the boundary,” I thought that “when they go” should be rendered by a future participle, πορευσομένων but Dickey, in her key, renders it by an aourist, πορευθέντων.
Are both version possible here, or mine is simply wrong? Thanks in advance.
Also, as regards #8, “Spring is dear to women, and birds are dear to children,” I thought that “women” and “children” would require articles in Greek, as referring to the respective whole classes, yet Dickey, in her key, has them without articles. What am I missing here?
Also, on p. 65, the task is to indicate for each of the sentences (without translating) whether it can be translated with μεν..δε in Greek, and, if so, how the English should be reordered to make that possible.
Regarding the sentence “Philosophers love to talk, but there’s no point in listening to them,” I thought it can be reordered as “To talk μεν philosophers love, in listening δε to them there is no point”; but Dickey says, in her key, that this sentence cannot be reordered so as to make its translation with μεν…δε possible. What did I miss? Many thanks in advance.
Also, on p. 68, the task is to analyze the following sentence by Xenophon (Memorabilia, 1.2.62), indicating, by numbering, all relations of dependence between the units which this sentence includes, each of them containing one and only one verb form:
“κατὰ γὰρ τοὺς νόμους, ἐάν τις φανερὸς γένηται κλέπτων ἢ λωποδυτῶν ἢ βαλλαντιοτομῶν ἢ τοιχωρυχῶν ἢ ἀνδραποδιζόμενος ἢ ἱεροσυλῶν, τούτοις θάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ζημία· ὧν ἐκεῖνος πάντων ἀνθρώπων πλεῖστον ἀπεῖχεν.”
As regards the ending, Dickey, in her key, has it thus:
"1 τούτοις θάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ζημία “for these death is the punishment”
1.2 ὧν ἐκεῖνος πάντων ἀνθρώπων πλεῖστον ἀπεῖχεν “from which things that man [sc. Socrates] has most of all men stayed away” (my emphases)
My first question is whether “for these” in her translation refer to the people who have committed the indicated crimes or to the very crimes that they committed. The former seems right to me, given the context; and is so translated in the Loeb edition. But if this is what Dickey meant, I fail to see how the unit labeled “1.2” depends (as it is supposed to) on the unit labeled “1”–if ὧν in 1.2 does, indeed, means, as Dickey translates it (in my view, correctly), “from which things” (not “from such criminals,” as the Loeb translation has it).
Think through logic of what the sequence of events must be. What has to take place first to rouse the guards? Right, the bandits first have cross the boundary. Remember:
The present participle expresses action taking place at the same time as the main verb in its clause.
The aorist participle expresses action prior to (taking place before) the main verb in its clause.
The future participle (when not being used in a specialized sense such as purpose) takes place subsequent to the main verb.
Therefore it has to be the aorist participle.
The main verb is “are camping”. And they are camping “in order to be roused by the bandits.” Which will happen when (and if) the bandits “go beyond the boundary.” Which implies that the bandits have not yet gone beyond the boundary; for otherwise, the guards would be already roused at this point. Thus “going beyond the boundary” seems to indicate an action subsequent to the action indicated by the main verb (“are camping”). Hence, future participle.
No, think it through. The verb in the ἵνα or ὅπως clause for “arouse” is going to be the verb prior to which the crossing must take place, and so the aorist participle. Not the main verb of the entire sentence, but the main verb of the clause in which the participle is placed.
If you mean “to be roused,” it is, even in Dickey’s own translation, not a finite verb but a participle.
In any event, I was not asking whether Dickey’s translation is correct. I am sure it is, and I understand the logic behind it. I was asking whether my translation (and the logic behind it, which I have just explained) is simply wrong or is also possible.
Not if you want to express the same thing that Dickey is expressing in English. So “to be roused” is a participle in her rendering? I have trouble seeing that. From now on, when you have questions like that, it might be best to post Dickey’s entire sentence so we can grasp her logic in the translation. So without knowing a thing about what Dickey is trying to teach the user about Greek prose comp, I would have rendered something like:
“Today the guards are camping around the harbor, in order to be roused by the bandits when they go beyond the boundary”
οἱ φύλακες σήμερον στρατοπεδεύονται περὶ τὸν λιμένα ἵνα ὑπὸ τῶν ληστῶν ὑπὲρ τὸν ὅρον πορευθέντων ἐγερθῶσιν.
Here is the translation given by Dickey in her key:
τήμερον οὖν αὐλίζονται οἱ φύλακες περὶ τῷ λιμένι ἐγερθησόμενοι ὑπὸ τῶν λῃστῶν ὑπὲρ τὸν ὅρον πορευθέντων.
Unfortunately, English is not my native language, so I my easily miss nuances. In this case, I reasoned that, if she wanted to express in English the idea that the bandits arrived earlier than the action of the preceding verb form (i.e., “to be roused”) takes place, she would have said “…to be roused when the bandits have gone beyond the boundary”. But given the way she phrased it (“…to be roused when the bandits go beyond the boundary”), I thought she meant that the bandit’s going beyond the boundary would be simultaneous with the guards’ being roused. On this assumption, I hesitated between, on the one hand, the present participle (which would render the temporal relation of the action expressed by it to the action expressed by the preceding participle, ἐγερθησόμενοι) and, on the other hand, the future participle (which would render the temporal relation of the action expressed by it to the action expressed by the only finite verb in this sentence, αὐλίζονται). I chose the latter, as I could not recall reading anywhere that the tense of the participle might be rendering the temporal relation of the action expressed by it to the action expressed by a participle, not a finite verb.
My Greek looks so Koine compared to hers. Yes, she used the future active participle of purpose here, a nice Attic construction. The logic of the sequence of tenses remains the same, however. Here, as she composes the sentence, ἐγερθησόμενοι effectively takes the place of a purpose clause using ἵνα or ὅπως, so that the action of the participle in the prepositional phrase still must precede the action in the participle ἐγερθησόμενοι.
BTW, this also shows that there are often multiple ways to express a thought in a language. 
Barry, Your translation was fine, except στρατοπεδευειν wouldn’t be used of guards stationed outside of the main army encampment.
Tugodum, As I think Barry’s explained (I haven’t read this string of posts thoroughly), your future would not do. It would imply that the guards would be roused by the pirates before they crossed the boundary. The present would be acceptable (“as they are in the process of going beyond the boundary,” stressing the simultaneity) but the aorist is better. Once/If/When they go beyond the boundary (aor.), the guards will be roused.
Thanks a lot! This nails it down for me with perfect clarity.
Adding to our “database” for Chapter 6, I submit sentence 16:
‘When the assembly was deliberating, some men were lying, and others were not; because the orator showed (i.e. revealed) this, the citizens stopped deliberating and have now gone home.’
- βουλευομένης τῆς ἐκκλησίας οἱ μὲν ἐψεύδοντο, οἱ δὲ οὔ. ταῦτα δὲ φήναντος τοῦ ῥήτορος, οἱ οὖν πολίται τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι λήξαντες οἴκαδε νῦν ἐπορεύθησαν.
ταῦτα δὲ φήναντος τοῦ ῥήτορος - can the genitive absolute take an object? Do I even need to state an object here? It seems pretty obvious what the orator is revealing.
or, although the subordinate clause and the main clause have different subjects, could I use a causal circumstantial participle instead of the GA? (ἄτε δὲ φήνας (τᾶυτα) ὁ ῥήτωρ…)
Mostly excellent, but two things amiss:
- ουν can only come at sentence beginning (as 2nd word). [Edit. Not true of course but it can’t be used within the body of the sentence like this.]
- aorist ἐπορεύθησαν won’t do for “have now gone home.” (απ)οιχονται would go well.
As for “Because” etc., the most straightforward option would be a clause as in the English, introduced by e.g διοτι or επειδη and with ο ρητωρ as its subject. The genitive absolute is another good option. It doesn’t make the causality explicit (hence your impossible ουν no doubt) but perhaps that’s not necessary.
- ἄτε δὲ φήνας (τᾶυτα) ὁ ῥήτωρ… would not do. It would need to be gen.abs., since the subject of the clause is not the rhetor but the citizens. Remember ατε doesn’t govern a construction (it’s not a conjunction) but just adds a degree of specificity to the import of a participle, and it’s not terribly common in Attic. I’d reserve it for “inasmuch as.”
- ταυτα is fine (far better than τουτο), and needed. Whether or not it’s in a gen.abs. an active participle of a transitive verb will have an object just as a finite form or an infinitive would. The GA makes no difference to that.
Minor points;
perhaps αποφήναντος, to avoid the special Attic sense of the uncompounded verb;
πολῖται accent;
τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι λήξαντες is fine, though perhaps Dickey means yοu to use παύομαι. (I no longer have the book.)
[Incidentally, the quote in the preceding post was not Barry but me.]
Thank you, Michael!
I was hoping I could distract you from your taxes!
Major points:
- use of οὖν -What I missed was the significance of “sentence” in Dickey’s text:
‘almost every sentence in a work of Greek prose is connected to the preceding sentence by a conjunction or other connecting word, just as each clause within a sentence is connected. Words commonly used this way include δέ, καί, ἀλλά, γάρ and οὖν…it is a good idea to use one of these near the start of every sentence in a connected passage, except the first.’
I was thinking I could use οὖν at the beginning of clauses, no matter where they occur in the sentence. - οἴκαδε νῦν ἐπορεύθησαν - just wasn’t thinking - two words down in Dickey’s vocabulary list was ‘οἴχομαι’. Much better choice. πορεύομαι, I think is used more for troop movements, at least in Xenophon.
Minor points:
- Using compound verbs to achieve precision is something (among many things) I need to work on.
- For others reading this, my mistake was forgetting that in πολῖται, the ultima (a final αι) is short, so the penult takes the circumflex.
- λήγω-παύομαι. Dickey offers both, although she only mentions using παύομαι with a participle, whereas λήγω can be used with the genitive as well as with a participle. After looking in the LSJ, it appears I could have used the genitive with παύομαι as well. Initially, I was thinking to use βουλευόμενοι παψάμενοι, but felt using the genitive of the articular infinitive with λήγω would be clearer, or it seems I could have used τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι παψάμενοι.
So, to recap: the second sentence should read:
ταῦτα δ’ ἀποφήναντος τοῦ ῥήτορος, τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι λήξαντες(or βουλευόμενοι παψάμενοι or τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι παψάμενοι ), οἱ πολῖται οἴκαδε νῦν οἴχονται.
I’ve lingered here in Chapter VI, trying to improve my usage of connectives and learning to use Dickey’s system of analysis. I intend to go through the CGCG treatment of particles at this juncture as well. All this is in aid of reading Lysias and then Plato’s Apologia. It helps that Dickey’s first example in this chapter is the first sentence in Lysias’ On the murder of Eratosthenes.
All the best,
Don
From sentences 17-21:
They wished to make camp immediately, on the grounds that the enemy was not far away.
ὡς δ’ οὐ πολὺ ἀπέχοντες οἱ μὲν πολέμιοι, οἱ δ’ εὐθὺς αὐλίσασθαι ἠθέλησαν.
EDIT: Have deleted all but what mwh kindly corrected. I’m demoting myself to the fourth form and starting over with North and Hillard!
Main thing is you need to get on top of use and position of δε.
And some of your syntax is seriously off (e.g. ὡς δ’ οὐ πολὺ ἀπέχοντες οἱ μὲν πολέμιοι, οἱ δ’ εὐθὺς αὐλίσασθαι ἠθέλησαν. Try ηθελον δ’ ευθυς αυλισασθαι, ως των πολεμιων ου πολυ απεχοντων).
More later if I can.
Thanks for looking at these, Michael and my apologies for the shoddy syntax. I obviously have a lot of revision to do. I meant to do a lot more reading on particles before attempting these sentences and will definitely do so before trying any more.
I knew I should have used the imperfect ἤθελον instead. εὐθύς lured me into thinking their desire was momentary, but then desire rarely is a momentary thing, is it?
For the rest, I was attempting unsucessfully to set up a μέν…δέ construction with οἱ μὲν πολέμιοι paired with οἱ δέ (στρατιῶται), but I see now that the clauses are not parallel syntactically. In ὠς…πολέμιοι I was trying to use a ὡς + participle construction to reflect “on the grounds that”, whereas in the second clause, οἱ δ’ εὐθύς… ἠθέλησαν, I used ἐθέλω + complementary infinitive. Somehow, I totally missed the very obvious solution of using a genitive absolute.
Again, thanks for your time, Michael.
You don’t need to explain. I saw what you were after.
ευθυς applies to the setting up camp. ηθελησαν aor. is often negatived, ουκ ηθελησαν they refused, like ουκ εφασαν they denied.
I thought your translations were very promising. I copy them here, followed by a few comments and hints.
17-21. The general who had obtained the expedition by lot marched to the harbor with a thousand soldiers. There he found an ancient temple; instead of burning this (i.e. the temple), the army made camp there in order to receive their allies. But they (i.e. the allies) arrived at the harbour without the soldiers’ noticing them, for the harbour (is) big, and made camp beyond the river. They wished to make camp immediately, on the grounds that the enemy was not far away. On the second day the general accepted hostages from the allies and killed the traitor who was found in the army.
ὀ στρατηγὸς τὴν στρατείαν λαχὼν εἰς τὸν λιμένα ἐπορεύθη, ἔχων χιλίους στρατιώτας. ἐκεῖ δ΄ ηὗρε νεών ἀρχαῖον· ἀντί τοῦ τόνδε καῦσαι, ὁ δὲ στρατὸς τοὺς συμμάχους δεξόμενος ἐκεῖ ηὐλίσατο. ἀλλ’ οἱ δ’ ἐις τὸν λιμένα ἀφικόμενοι τοὺς στρατιώτας ἔλαθον, μεγάλου γὰρ τοῦ λιμένος, καὶ ὑπὲρ τὸν ποταμὸν ηὐλίσαντο. ὡς δ’ οὐ πολὺ ἀπέχοντες οἱ μὲν πολέμιοι, οἱ δ’ εὐθὺς αὐλίσασθαι ἠθέλησαν. τῇ δὲ δευτέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ, ὁ στρατηγὸς τοὺς ὁμήρους ἀπὸ τῶν συμμάχων δεξάμενος τὸν ἐν τῷ στρατῷ εὑρεθέντα προδότην ἀπέκτεινε.
26-27. Such things as are not common are often new. This man, because he takes pleasure in things that are not common, wishes to find new things.
τὰ μὴ κοινὰ ὄντα πολλάκις καινά ἐστιν. οὖτος οὖν τοῖς μὴ κοινοῖς ἡδόμενος, καινὰ εὑρίσκειν ἐθέλει.
- The general who had obtained the expedition by lot: if no comma between “”the general” and “who” this should properly be ὁ … λαχὼν, but your version flows well. (And quiet flows the Don.)
- ἔχων good for “with”
- νεών ἀρχαῖον: or νεών τιν’ ἀρχαῖον
- “instead of burning this (i.e. the temple), the army made camp” Rather than αντι του infin., a bit stiff (and it needs δε as second word), you could try e.g. τουτον δ’ ουκ εκαυσεν ο στρατος αλλ’ ἐκεῖ ηὐλίσατο ινα τους συμμαχους δεξηται. Let αλλα do its job (“but instead”, “not A but B”). I don’t much like the switch from general to army though.
- “But they (i.e. the allies) arrived at the harbour without the soldiers’ noticing them, for the harbour (is) big, and made camp beyond the river.” ἀλλ’ οἱ δ’ won’t do. Try οὖτοι μεντοι (cancel αλλ)… Good use of ελαθον. μεγάλου γὰρ τοῦ λιμένος nο!, ungrammatical. Either delete γαρ or parenthesize like the English (μεγας γαρ ο λιμην).
- “They wished to make camp immediately, on the grounds that the enemy was not far away.” “ὡς δ’ οὐ πολὺ ἀπέχοντες οἱ μὲν πολέμιοι, οἱ δ’ εὐθὺς αὐλίσασθαι ἠθέλησαν.” No!, bad syntax. Gen.abs.needed. Try ηθελον δ’ ευθυς αυλισασθαι, ως των πολεμιων ου πολυ απεχοντων.
- Last sentence is fine!
26-27. Good. τα μη κοινα perfect (though I’m unsure about κοινα).
ατε would go well before τοις μη κοινοις ηδομενος.
βουλεται (wants) better than εθελει (is willing), though εθελειν does sometimes go wider.
Pretty soon you’re going to have to choose between Thuc. and Xen.!