Trial translation: . . . which I also explained to others, that things should be done like this. . . .
This selection is a relative clause, introduced by the relative pronoun ὃ.
The relative clause contains a clause in indirect discourse, introduced by ὅτι .
ταῦτα is nominative plural, but being neuter it takes a singular verb, εἴη.
After much thought, ISTM that γιγνόμενα, a neuter plural present participle in agreement with ταῦτα, is working as an adjective here. I’m wondering if I got this right, if there is something I need to study.
Can we take the γιγνόμενα to be an indefinite attributive, that is, classify γιγνόμενα as attributive used substantively but without the definite article?
Predicate adverbs with εἶναι are a thing in Greek. I would understand this (the finite verb version) as something like “these things are right, happening thus” or “these things happen rightly, happening thus.” The happening is further described by “οὕτως ἔχει” and “μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν τῷ ἀσεβοῦντι”.
I noticed that the trial translation dropped ἤδη.
Despite indirect speech, ἂν εἴη isn’t a transformed subjunctive (otherwise the ἄν would have dropped).
Joel, your explanation I think solves my problem. If οὕτω γιγνόμενα is additional information tacked on, then the participle is circumstantial (in predicate position).
ταῦτα, οὕτω γιγνόμενα, …
Thanks for pointing out the predicate adverb with εἰμί thing!
Hugh, You seem to have understood the grammar but I don’t know why you think the participle is “working as an adjective”—especially when you don’t translate it as one.
Joel was right to say the adverb is important but not that predicative adverbs with ειναι “are a thing.” (Perhaps he was thinking of εχειν, or γιγνεσθαι.) ταῦτα ὀρθῶς ἂν εἴη is not a statement “complete in itself.” It’s rather as katalogon originally had it, “these things correctly would be happening thus,” or more precisely “these things, happening thus, would be (happening) correctly.” The syntax is a little elliptical but readily intelligible. (The participle would indeed be classified as circumstantial, and perhaps even conditional, though ἂν εἴη is of course a potential optative and virtually tantamount to εστιν.)
I was thinking of εἶναι. Nobody has take my word for it, though. Here is the LSJ:
εἶναι with Advbs., where the Adv. often merely represents a Noun and stands as the predicate, ἅλις δέ οἱ ἦσαν ἄρουραι Il.14.122, etc.; ἀκέων, ἀκήν εἶναι, to be silent, 4.22, Od.2.82; σῖγα πᾶς ἔστω λεώς E.Hec.532; διαγνῶναι χαλεπῶς ἦν ἄνδρα ἕκαστον Il.7.424; ἀσφαλέως ἡ κομιδὴ ἔσται will go on safely, Hdt.4.134; ἐγγύς, πόρρω εἶναι, Th.6.88, Pl.Prt.356e: freq. impers. with words implying good or ill fortune, Κουρήτεσσι κακῶς ἦν it fared ill with them, Il.9.551; εὖ γὰρ ἔσται E.Med.89, cf. Ar.Pl.1188, etc.; ἡδέως ἂν αὐτοῖς εἴη D.59.30.
I think that yours is possible as well, and that’s why I offered it as a second alternative in my first post.
EDIT: Here is an eerily similar phrasing from Laws
The present with πάλαι is normal enough. The LSJ mentions this, and gives the example of πάλαι λέγει in Meno. It says “freq. with pres. of an act lasting to the pres.”
I suppose that we’re deciding between these two:
τὸ ἡμέτερόν ἐστιν ὀρθῶς καὶ πάλαι τιθέμενον – τιθέμενον is complement of the copula and πάλαι is as important as ὀρθῶς here
τὸ ἡμέτερόν τὸ πάλαι τιθέμενον ὀρθῶς ἐστιν – πάλαι τιθέμενον servers as a mere specifier for ἡμέτερον
I think the context decides between them:
Complement: “Hasn’t τὸ ἡμέτερον, stranger, been correctly set down for some time now?”
Specifier: “Wouldn’t τὸ ἡμέτερον be ὀρθῶς, stranger, the one we set down some time ago?”
You can be your own judge, but I think that the complement version seems too prissy for the context. It’s a way of saying “why didn’t you just listen to us at first?” So I think that πάλαι τιθέμενον is what you’d normally expect of it in that position with its own adverb: a specifier, not central to the sentence. This in turn would inform us about the Euthyphro sentence.
This parallel reinforces what I said on the Euthyphro passage, above. παλαι τιθεμενον is integral, not something tacked on.
(Joel’s interpretation would require the article, το παλ. τιθ.)
Hardly. Just a normal circumstantial participle, taking no article. English it as “being set down some time ago” instead if you like the gloss better (though it still munges the tense, of course). I was only trying to make the distinction easy to see with the article version. It does not affect the argument at all.
I’ve been looking through the CGCG for clues which might shed light on Hugh’s original question - “participle used as adjective.”
What about section 26.26, “Predicative Modifiers”, could this be helpful?
“Some constituents simultaneously serve as adverbial modifier and to modify the head of a noun phrase. Such constituents are called predicative modifiers: they occur in the form of adjectives and especially participles, which agree with their noun in case, number and gender.”
See also section 52.31, “Connected (Circumstantial) Participles,” which references section 26.26.