Would this translation be correct: “I have not seen the the tribe of this company, nor have I perceived what land boasts, rearing this race, not to lament the suffering afterwards.”
This translation seems awkward and confusing, but it also seems the most literal to me. I have looked at Lattimore’s and Smyth’s translations, and they seem to translate the participle " τ?έφους᾽" too loosely. Furthermore, their translations also seem a bit perplexing.
i think you’re basically right. this is a fine example, by the way, of incorporation, which someone here asked about recently.
“i have not seen the race of this association,
nor (have i seen) the land which boasts that,
while rearing this clan with impunity, she does not lament her labor afterwards.”
we have indirect discourse, more or less, following epeukhetai; “aia” is the subject both of “epeukhetai” and the infinitive “me metastenein,” which explains why “trephousa” is in the nominative. “trephousa” is just a circumstantial participle, on the level of “me metastenein,” i think, and not “epeukhetai” (that is to say, the rearing accompanies her lack of complaining, it doesn’t necessarily accompany her boasting).
I think part of what makes the translation, especially of the end part, sound awkward, is that English is more comfortable making its points with a series of finite verbs one after the other, where Greek is more likely to subordinate one or more of a series of events with a participle. So the point of the statement would probably fall more naturally into English something like this:
I know of no land which can claim that it raises this species and doesn’t regret it afterwards.
(obviously this doesn’t respect the syntax of the Greek sentence, but I think it gets the idea across more clearly in English)
smyth 2725: “mh” is often used with verbs and other expressions of asseveration and belief, after which we might expect “ou” with the infinitive in indirect discourse.