Hi! Could somebody help me understand how this sentence works in Greek and Latin?
I came across this phrase from Xenophon. ἀπεκρίνατο Κλεἀνωρ, ὅτι πρόσθεν ἄν ἀποθάνοιεν, ἤ τὰ ὅπλα παραδοίησαν. - Cleanor answered that they would sooner die than surrender their weapons. (By the way, can I translate it as “rather die than”?)
Would it be in Greek direct speech the same optative aorist? Is it “modus potentialis" or “modus irrealis”? So I imagine Cleanor saying: “πρόσθεν ἄν ἀποθάνοιμεν, ἤ τὰ ὅπλα παραδοίμεν”.
How would this phrase, as indirect and direct speech, look in Latin?
a) For indirect, I used acc.+inf., but I’m not sure about the pronoun:
Cleander respondit eos (or “se” if he includes himself in this “we”) potius moriturus esse quam arma tradituros?
b) And how should it look in direct speech? Is it correct to use present subjuntive, as for expressing potentiality?
Yes your direct speech version is fine, except it should be παραδοῖμεν (accent).
The Latin equivalent to Greek opt. + ἄν would be present or perfect subjunctive. But Potius moriamur quam arma tradamus is awkwardly ambiguous (“Let’s die …”), so maybe better to use indic., fut. or fut.perf. And since the Greek uses πρόσθεν, which is strictly temporal (like Eng. “sooner”), you’d best use antequam in the Latin. The illogic is rhetorical.
In indirect speech se rather than eos, and you meant morituros.
Latin
Indirect: Cleander respondit se potius moriturus esse quam arma tradituros?
Direct: Mortui erimus antequam arma trademus. (fut. perf. ind. - antequam - fut. ind.)
Thank you for this clarification! I probably didn’t understand well your previous commentary.
In these sentences “Moriemur priusquam arma tradimus” is fut. (Moriemur) priusquam praes (tradimus). I thought dying was preceeding to surrendering the arms. I’m a bit puzzled.
As for the second option, I think, I understand. Velimus - subjunctive and two infinitives. We would prefer to die before surrendering arms.
Did I get it?
In indirect speech, your first option is clear to me, accusative with infinitive of volo and another infinitive depending on it.
But I don’t understand the second option “se morituros priusquam arma tradant”, “future infinitive priusquam present subjunctive”. Shouldn’t it be two infinitives? Or is it because “arma tradant” is regarded as an independent clause?
I’m sorry for having so many silly questions and making such clumsy translations. Thank you very much for your patience and help!
Yes their dying would precede their handing over their arms! (That’s the whole point, of course.) In the first sentence I meant to write not tradimus but tradamus. It has to be subjunctive (indefinite or potential), would be indic. only if they do in fact hand them over. Thanks for catching that.
As to “se morituros priusquam arma tradant,” priusquam introduces a clause (finite verb), so an infinitive won’t do, and subjunctive is called for. (With “Mori velimus priusquam arma tradere” velimus is understood with the second infinitive, as I think you realized.)
And your questions are far from silly, they’re right on point.