καὶ γὰρ οἱ στρατηγοί, ὦ φίλε
and the generals as well, my friend. Is the causal force of γάρ still felt here? The Brill dic, simply gives the meaning of this combination as ‘also.’
Denniston quotes it on pp 109-110: saying kai is the connective and gar meaning indeed , more or less.
It does seem to fit with the group that he has classified it with. This Euthyphro example is exactly like the A.Ag.1255 example: Καὶ μὴν ἄγαν γ᾿ Ἕλλην’ ἐπίσταμαι φάτιν. --Καὶ γὰρ τὰ πυθόκραντα· δυσμαθῆ δ᾿ ὅμως, glossed by Denniston as “Aye, and so are Pytho’s oracles (spoken in Greek)”.
Conversely, the examples in καὶ γὰρ.I.1-3, on pages 108 and 109, take a normal connective γάρ that does its normal thing, justifying what precedes.
I do think that for many of these in II, Denniston’s gloss “yes, and” should really be the subtly different “yes, and so/also”. Ar.Lys.12 certainly seems to demand it, for example. But Pl.Grg467B seems to take “yes, and” instead.
thanx for checking the examples
Thinking about this some more, I believe that the sense of γάρ in these is actually the standard one, but it’s just the rhetorical position that makes it slightly confusing.
“[Yes], for here is further example[, which proves you wrong/modify your statement]”
Looking through the Denniston examples in καὶ γάρ.II, I think that this fits all of them.
You mentioned the Brill’s glosses for καὶ γάρ, which are “also, indeed, even”. That would give a person something accurate to write down if his only concern is producing translation (φῦσαι) … but it really only translates the καί (in fact, you can leave every γάρ out of a translation and it will still make sense in English).
Here in Euthyphro, “generals [do this] too” gets you along in the dialogue, but the sense is really closer to: “Yes, for generals also [do this]-- but…”
if u consult Kuhner Gert it might be clearer.
Yes, I see that he speaks to this directly in 545.2a.
Oft erscheint γάρ = ja in Erwiderungen und Antworten. … Hier überall lässt sich γάρ nur dann als kausale Konjunktion fassen, wenn man unnötigerweise zur Annahme einer Ellipse greift (“du hast Recht, denn”, “das ist natürlich, denn”).
Google Translate: Often γάρ = yes appears in replies and answers. … Here everywhere, γάρ can only be understood as a causal conjunction if one unnecessarily resorts to the assumption of an ellipse (“you are right, because”, “that is natural, because”).
He’s describing exactly what I suggested above. But I disagree with the statement that this is done “needlessly” (unnötigerweise). The ellipse only exists in English. The “yes” is added because connective γάρ implies agreement even while its main function remains connection.
Google Translate translates “denn” as “because”, but it’s more precise to say “since” or “for”, like γάρ.
now its more confusing, if gar is kinda yes, so what is kai?
yes also? also, yes? i would say the context requires ‘but also’ so gar is like but and kai is like also.