Indirect Reflexive?

Χαίρετε!


I forgot to ask about one part of Unit 25, the indirect reflexive.

At the bottom of page 209, Dr. Mastronarde explains it this way:

  1. Indirect Reflexive Pronoun. A reflexive pronoun within an indirect statement or
    subordinate clause that refers back to the subject of the main clause of the complex
    sentence is termed an indirect reflexive. In such a situation, English simply uses the
    plain personal pronoun:
    They thought that the general would give them the prizes.
    Attic Greek has three ways to deal with indirect reflexive usage: sometimes the direct
    reflexive is used; sometimes the plain personal pronoun is used; or sometimes a
    separate indirect reflexive of the third person is used. This latter function is filled by
    an old personal pronoun of the third person that survived as such in other dialects
    and in poetry but was replaced by oblique cases of αὐτός in classical Attic. The forms
    are as follows (enclitic forms in parentheses):
    sing. plur. masc./fem. plur. neuter
    gen. οὗ (οὑ) σφῶν σφῶν
    dat. οἷ (οἱ) σφίσι(ν) (σφισι[ν]) σφίσι(ν) (σφισι[ν])
    acc. ἕ (ἑ) σφᾶς (σφας) σφέα (σφεα)

Ex. ὁ Δαρεῖος ἐβούλετό οἱ τοὺς παῖδας παρεῖναι.
Darius wanted his sons to be with him(self ).

I do not see yet what the difference is between a direct and indirect reflexive is. From the example, it is not indirect discourse. I think τοὺς is the pronoun referring to Δαρεῖος, but I do not see what the difference is between the direct and indirect. Is it the sentence structure? Is it a matter of using τοὺς instead of ἑαυτούς?

no difference; but for tous/ eautous not sure.

How do you explain “παρεῖναι”?

I think you should take a look at 7. p. 167 Greek Indirect Discourse with the Infinitive.

Postscript what case do you think “οἱ” is?

ὁ Δαρεῖος ἐβούλετό οἱ τοὺς παῖδας παρεῖναι.
τους is the definite article with παιδας, not a pronoun at all. (τους functions as a pronoun in Homer but not in prose.)
The reflexive pronoun here is οἱ (enclitic), dative of acc. ἑ, (him/her)self.” (Dative because of παρεῖναι, to present to him.)

“He hit himself” εαυτον ετυψεν is a direct reflexive pronoun.
“He said she hit him” εφη αυτήν τυψαι (lit. “he said her to have hit him”, acc.&inf. construction). Here ἑ is an indirect reflexive pronoun, referring to the subject of the sentence (“He”). Contrast “He said she hit them” εφη αυτην αυτους τυψαι (acc.&inf., αυτοὺς direct object of τύψαι).

οἱ is a masculine nominative plural, is it not?

If it is indirect discourse, where is the “that”?

I wrote too quickly. Indirect statements can be introduced by verbs of "thinking, believing, hoping, swearing, and promising " and so I thought wishing fitted this.



So dative οἱ refers back to ὁ Δαρεῖος.

In any event Michael has given you a comprehensive answer. Moral for me I should not try to answer questions when I am thinking of bed.

So a reflexive pronoun is indirect if a pronoun is the antecedent?

No, nothing like that. I should have left you in seneca’s good hands.

Too much crossing here. And I too wrote too quickly. For “to present to him” (… οἱ παρεῖναι) read “to be present to him.”

And Lukas, you asked “If it is indirect discourse, where is the “that”?” You must surely know that in English “that” is not necessary to introduce indirect discourse? Consider “Does he think I’m an idiot?”

Apologies to seneca for barging in so uselessly.

So word for word, would I translate ὁ Δαρεῖος ἐβούλετό οἱ τοὺς παῖδας παρεῖναι as:

Darius wanted for “himself” the children to be present?

Lukas if you are going to make progress you have to abandon this practice. Try analysing the sentence without translating.

ὁ Δαρεῖος : The subject

ἐβούλετό : verb 3rd person singular

οἱ : pronoun dative, look at the accentuation on ἐβούλετό do you see that the accent on οἷ has been thrown back on the verb. Look carefully at the table on p 209.

τοὺς παῖδας παρεῖναι: accusative and infinitive construction see page 167.

If you have understood the syntax of the sentence then the translation isn’t really necessary, especially as M. gives you a translation: “Darius wanted his sons to be with him(self ).” Understanding the syntax is the important step not translating.

As has been said on many occasions Greek and English express things differently. The absence of “that” in an English translation does not mean a Greek sentence is not indirect. Apart from the example quoted by Michael, on p. 167 you will see:

direct: “He will come.”
indirect: They believed he would come.

πάρειμι takes the dative and has the meaning “to be by or near one, c. dat”. So “near by him” = “with him”.

Its really hard learning Greek on your own without a teacher making sure you have understood the material before you go to the next section. Thats why you need to develop strong analytical skills, asking yourself what is the function of each element of a sentence. If you thought “οἱ” was a nominative plural how would that fit into the sentence? who would the
“οἱ” be? When you are unable to make sense of it as a nominative plural ask yourself what else it could be? Look for information that’s to hand ie the table on p. 209. Ask yourself what are enclitics? etc etc.

On a separate issue were you have happy with the answer on your previous post on the articular infinitive.

Making mistakes is normal its how we all learn. I make lots of them!

Michael as you know your interventions are always welcome and helpful. Please barge in as much as you like especially to correct me.

Εὐχαριστῶ!

I sympathize with any learner reading section 4 on page 209 of unit 25.

The section is in my view written poorly, and trips up the careful reader.
It caused me a lot of grief when I first studied unit 25.

First, Mastronarde states that reflexive pronouns occurring within:

  • indirect statements,
  • subordinate clauses,

that refer back to the subject of the main clause are termed indirect reflexive.

He then presents only one example which falls into neither of the two classes given.

The example is not one of indirect speech and contains no subordinate clause.
(the example uses an object infinitive of will or desire.)