He does not even attempt to translate them, in any case, not all of them (I have consulted δή with substantives). His book is like a long repertoire of instances from which the reader is supposed to deduce how to translate comme bon lui semble.
Hi CP, I recommend reading the introduction, e.g. at p. xxxix where Denniston says about certain particles of emphasis and nuance:
‘Often they cannot be appropriately translated into a modern language, and their effect must be suggested by inflexions of voice in speaking, or by italics, exclamation marks, or inverted commas in writing … the particles may be compared to the marks of expression in a musical score, which suggest interpretation rather than dictate it.’
You are right that, if one just tries to look up δή in Denniston as if it were a lexicon—looking for a modern translation of the particle in context—they will rarely find what they’re looking for. I read Denniston cover to cover last year, and it is very helpful, not for word-to-word translation however (which I avoid).
δή in the Cratylus quote we just discussed, used in a relative clause with a ‘naming’ verb, cannot be translated accurately by itself into an English word. One of the reasons why we are all learning to read the originals!
Denniston is not enough however to get a basic grasp of particles in someone like Plato (or anyone else really). Several subsequent studies have made advances. You also need to review e.g. C.M.J. Sicking, Particles in questions in Plato, in A. Rijksbaron (ed.), New Approaches to Greek Particles, 1997, the study on particles in Plato and Lysias I mentioned in the Cratylus thread earlier today, the new Cambridge grammar, more recent commentaries on Platonic dialogues, etc.
Cheers, Chad
CP, The idea is to understand the various particles, to comprehend their function and force in their various contexts. Translation is of limited help to that goal. As always, understanding takes precedence over translation—something I think you and all of us would do well to take to heart.
And while Denniston is indeed a long repertoire of instances (painstakingly assembled), It’s a long repertoire of sorted and analyzed instances. It’s the sorting and analyzing that give it enduring value.