ἦ γὰρ δίκαια ταῦτα κἀξαρκοῦντά μοι,
τρώσασαν ἡμᾶς εἶτα συγχωρεῖν λόγοις;
I’m trying to understand why the participle is in the accusative here. Can we take the συγχωρεῖν as an epexegetical infinitive (modifying ἐξαρκοῦντα) which then governs the subject-accusative participle? Or does ἦ γὰρ somehow initiate an indirect clause?
We can “understand” σε. Then we have an acc.&inf. construction. But in her sarcastic indignation there’s really no need for the acc. to be specified.
this is the only way i can understand it, and this acc + inf is in apposition to the first line.
Yes, I see the accusative infinitive construction. But what governs this accusative infinitive construction? I see no indirect speech-- no verbs of thinking, seeing, etc.
nothing governs it, it is the subject, it is like μωρόν εἰναι χαλεπὀν.
In your example einai is the implied subject, “to be foolish is painful”. But I don’t see how the infinitive in the Hippolytus passage can stand as the subject of the sentence.
ah, OK. I think I follow you now.
So a literal translation is something like: “To come to terms in words after having wounded me – are these fair and sufficient for me?”
ἦ γὰρ δίκαια ταῦτα κἀξαρκοῦντά μοι, id est τρώσασαν ἡμᾶς εἶτα συγχωρεῖν λόγοις; ι.ε,
ἦ γὰρ τρώσασαν ἡμᾶς εἶτα συγχωρεῖν λόγοις ἐστι δίκαια ταῦτα κἀξαρκοῦντά μοι?
We could say “Is this your idea of fairness, first to wound me and then to …”. I wouldn’t worry about whether ταυτα or the infinitive phrase is technically the subject. What’s more important is that the ταυτα comes first and the rhetoric demands that it’s taken first. If you want to call the infinitive epexegetic, be my guest, likewise if you want to call it the subject (you can’t call it both), but do respect the sequence of the two verses.
The ἦ γάρ effectively conveys her indignation. I expect Denniston has something on this. I translate it as “?!”