τὸ μὲν οὖν οὐ τὶς οὐδὲ ὅλως εἴρηται ἢ ἐν ἑλληνικῇ χρήσει κεῖται
‘Not some’ is either not spoken at all or it is found in Greek usage.
τὸ μὲν οὖν οὐ τὶς οὐδὲ ὅλως εἴρηται ἢ ἐν ἑλληνικῇ χρήσει κεῖται* τὸ δὲ οὔτις ποιητικόν.
And ‘not some’ is not spoken at all; otherwise, ‘outis’/not some is poetical in Greek usage.
Well I’m not sure either, but it would make sense of a kind if οὐδὲ ὅλως is read as applying to both εἴρηται and ἐν ἑλληνικῇ χρήσει κεῖται as alternative formulations, i.e. “οὐ τὶς (as two words) is not said at all—or doesn’t exist at all in Greek usage—while οὔτις (as one word, ‘no-one’) is poetic.” But the text seems very dodgy.
That’s how I read it as well, at least without more context. The negation has to apply to ἐν ἑλληνικῇ χρήσει κεῖται. “‘οὐ τὶς’ has not been spoken at all or isn’t Greek usage. But ‘οὔτις’ is poetic.” He’s contrasting the accents and word divisions “οὐ τὶς” vs. “οὔτις”—note the μέν…δέ. The idea of the μέν clause would then probably be: either (1) οὐ τίς is something that could, theoretically, be spoken but hasn’t been or (2) it’s not Greek (and can’t be spoken). More context would tell. This is a Byzantine text, yes?
Ἑλληνικόν often = κοινόν/οὐκ Ἀττικόν in ancient grammatical texts, but that’s not the sense here.
I read it as: And so “οὐ τὶς” is not generally spoken, if there even exists an example in Greek usage, but “οὔτις” is poesy.
i accept ὅλως as generally but i cannot see how ἤ can mean even if.
But maybe thus: ‘not some’ is not actually spoken, otherwise, it is in Greek usage.
Joel, You’re reading ἢ as εἰ? But I don’t think that helps much, and I don’t think ουδε ολως can mean “not generally."
I wouldn’t change ἤ to εἰ.
“not actually” —> “not at all” (=οὐδόλως)
“it is in Greek usage”: grammatically possible but very unlikely. Either the negation applies to this clause or emend to ἢ <οὐκ>. Can you copy and paste the rest of the passage?
Yes, it has to be “not at all”. That makes it easier:
“οὐ τὶς” is [either] not spoken at all or occurs [only] in Koine examples.
Here’s the text (p. 27), Stephanus’s comm. on Arist’s De interp. The meaning is straightforward with the context. I 'd maybe insert another οὐ, as I suggested above (note also the missing οὐχ at the bottom of p.26). Nothing about Koine vs Attic usage here (see my post above). The point is that οὐ τίς isn’t used in the language.
He’s discussing two types of propositions, affirmative and negative (καταφατικοί and ἀποφατικοί). Both of these types of statements can have two quantitative applications (προσδιορισμοί): general (καθόλου) and partial (μερικοί). E.g. πᾶς ἄνθρωπος βαδίζει (affirmative statement with general application=καθόλου καταφατικός). The four forms are:
καθόλου: πᾶς, οὐδείς
μερικοί: τὶς, οὐ πᾶς
Why οὐδείς and not οὐ τίς? E.g. why is the negative version of “τὶς [sic] ἄνθρωπος βαδίζει” “οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος βαδίζει” rather than *οὐ τὶς ἄνθρωπος βαδίζει? Out of the three conceivable options (οὐθείς, οὐδείς, *οὐ τίς), οὐθείς (=οὔτε εἷς) can’t work, and “οὐ τίς” isn’t ever pronounced that way. If it’s uttered at all, it’s οὔτις, which is poetic. Thus οὐδείς is the only option left.
The edition cites Ammonius’s commentary as a parallel/source about οὐ τὶς. One would want to look there if they want to pursue this further (which I don’t; Stephanus is clear enough).