Here’s what I’m thinking:
I’m understanding the first to mean “stealing other (people)'s things is neither good nor noble.”
H&Q tell me that if a participle isn’t in the attributive position, then it’s circumstantial, and every attributive position it gives as an example includes an article. As there is no article with ἀδικοῦντες, I’m assuming it’s necessarily circumstantial. Correct me if I’m wrong here, because I don’t feel H&Q were as clear as they could have been with participles. Three things are kind of mysterious to me though. One is the the οὗτοι, which seems to go with the participle, but H&Q tell me it must be accompanied by the article. Then there’s the οἳ. Relative clause pronoun with what antecedent? ἀδικοῦντες? οὗτοι? And why is there that ominous ἂν, which I’m trained to expect in conditionals and potential optatives, but nevertheless shows up uninvited.
Can anyone explain these things to me? Greek seems to so logical and then so not. I’m shaking my fist at you, Mr. Hansen and Mr. Quinn!!!
I don’t have trouble understanding the sentence itself, but I’m not sure how to explain it to you. Since this is from Hanse and Quinn, I’ll refer to that to try to come up with a clarification.
First of all, you have the first part of the setence spot on.
I’ll edit this post once I’m done finding the relevent parts of H&Q to help you out (or if H&Q is inadequate, Smyth).
EDIT : I’m tired of looking through H&Q myself, so here are my best answers off the top of my head :
The participle is indeed circumstancial. οὗτοι can be used without an article as long as it is not modifying a noun - for example, this sentence is not saying οἰ οὗτοι ἄνθ?ωποι, though that is implied. Since the demostrative has no noun, and the participle is circumstancial, there is no need for for an article.
Oh, and this is a conditional sentence. In fact it is two conditional sentences slapped together.
Ηὕ?ηκα, I think I got it:
“If anyone is ever indicted for theft by the speakers, these (refers back to the anyone) are not honored by the citizens, being that they’ve done wrong.”
Am I right?
I posted this before seeing what you edited, and now I’m wondering how there are two conditional sentences with only two verbs.
“houtos” can perfectly well be used without the article. if it is used with a definite noun phrase (noun+article), it usually comes before the article (“houtos ho anthropos”). but not necessarily.
as for your participle, it’s circumstantial (participles outside of the attributive position are by and large circumstantial, but they could be supplemental, and sometimes they could even be attributive). it has to agree with “houtoi,” because it’s nominative plural masculine. the relative clause has a masculine plural antecedent, which means that it, too, refers back to “houtoi.” it’s a general relative clause, as spiphany pointed out. “whoever gets indicted by the rhetors on a charge of theft,” i.e. “such men as get indicted.” the “an” can be a little puzzling, but it usually marks off a clause as irrealis—not stating an actual fact. in this case, it’s specifying a (potential) class of people. the negative would be “me,” not “ou.” also realize that the verb, “graphontai,” is subjunctive—so this is sort of like a relative clause of characteristic in latin.
This sentence is from Hansen and Quinn Unit 9 Exercises. Thought I would add that so that folks searching for help can find this thread easily. (The title of the thread should reflect where the sentence comes from for easy browsing as well).
“It is neither noble nor good to steal others’ things. For these infamous wrong doers, who may be indicted for theft, are not honored by the citizens.”
After reading the comments in this thread though, maybe this is better, I am not sure:
“It is neither noble nor good to steal others’ things. For if anyone may be indicted for theft, these infamous wrong doers are not honored by the citizens.”
Then again, as I look back at Agrippa’s translation, with the participle being circumstantial–“being that they’ve done wrong”–that makes sense to me. I was trying to use οὗτοι as modifying ἀδικοῦντες. It’s not in that position though.
So perhaps this is best I can come up with:
“It is neither noble nor good to steal others’ things. Having done wrong, if anyone may be indicted for theft, these infamous men are not honored by the citizens.”
I think that οὗτοι here is pointing to the thieves’ infamy.