Junya,
Please don’t be sorry, I am glad for the opportunity to discuss Greek with people who are interested. My comments about metalanguage come from experiences on other ancient language forums where people using different frameworks talk past each other.
I agree that “… lest it does not beseem me to give an account” looks like translation English. Don’t recall every seeing anything that awkward in anything except a interlinear Bible.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Wait, why is ‘not’ in Smyth rendering is redundant? Or in yours?
If you want someone to make sure you don’t get stuck with doing something you’re not too keen on
doing, wouldn’t removing ‘don’t’ relay a contrary message?
Smyth in these sections emphasized that μὴ is untranslatable but merely introduces the object
clause of apprehension/caution, and the verb inside that clause is negated by οὐ. (§2221a.)
If it’s relating to the future, we use subj., and opt. (or subj. for vividness) after secondary tenses.
If it’s relating to the present or past, fear/caution that something actually is or isn’t
(was or wasn’t), we use indicative.
ὁρᾶτε here is strictly a verb of effort and would normally admits to such construction, that is,
it would take fut. ind. with ὅωπς (rarely fut. opt. after secondary tenses). The negative is μὴ.
But in negative clauses only, it sometimes takes by analogy the construction of verbs of fear. (§2210b.)
I just don’t understand why μὴ οὐκ ἐμοὶ . . . προσήκει λόγον δοῦναι is considered a present caution.
It clearly looks to the future, and if so, and the subj. is too conditional, why didn’t he use fut. ind.?
The Dictionary.com site as well as Thefreedictionary.com, wrote that “after verbs or phrases expressing
fear, worry, anxiety, etc” lest means “for fear that; in case: he was alarmed lest she should find
out.”
Nate,
I not sure how to parse Smyth’s sentence. The way I was reading it “lest” renderers “not” redundant. “lest it does not beseem me” sounds like an exercise in from early-Chomsky.
Smyth in these sections emphasized that μὴ is untranslatable but merely introduces the object
clause of apprehension/caution, and the verb inside that clause is negated by οὐ. (§2221a.)
OK, after looked a #2221 I see what Smyth is doing, I was miss reading the Greek μὴ οὐκ in this passage. The object to be feared is that some scenario might NOT take place. I had it reversed. Never the less, that isn’t a good way to say in English.
thanks for clarification,
C. Stirling Bartholomew
I completely agree. Your rendering is much better. 
ὁρᾶτε μὴ οὐκ ἐμοὶ μάλιστα τῶν πολιτῶν
προσήκει λόγον δοῦναι
I was reading ὁρᾶτε as imperative to DO something, not as verb of fearing.
see to, ἴδε πῶμα Od.8.443 ; look out for, provide, τινί τι S.Aj. 1165 (anap.), Theoc.15.2 ; πρόβατον εἰς ὁλοκάρπωσιν LXX Ge.22.8.
I see now that ὁράω with μὴ is an idiom for apprehension, found it in LSJ and Grimm-Thayer under ὁράω, and that is the scenario that Smyth addresses in #2233. I think that μὴ οὐ in other contexts functions as a single constituent, remember Cooper talking about it, how in some places the μὴ has an independent function and other places μὴ οὐ behave like a single word.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
The way Nate is talking is diificult for me, but, in the end have you (two) agreed to translate this sentence as
Beware !
+
O that my having to give an account may happen ! (not “may not happen !”)
?
(for clarification I made it two independent sentences.)
RE: ὁρᾶτε μὴ οὐκ ἐμοὶ μάλιστα τῶν πολιτῶν προσήκει λόγον δοῦναι
Much to my surprise, Perseus has this author with an English Translation,
Andoc. 1 103
ἀλλὰ γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες, τὴν μὲν ἔνδειξιν ἐποιήσαντό μου κατὰ νόμον κείμενον, τὴν δὲ κατηγορίαν κατὰ τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ πρότερον γεγενημένον περὶ ἑτέρων. εἰ οὖν ἐμοῦ καταψηφιεῖσθε, ὁρᾶτε μὴ οὐκ ἐμοὶ μάλιστα τῶν πολιτῶν προσήκει λόγον δοῦναι τῶν γεγενημένων, ἀλλὰ πολλοῖς ἑτέροις μᾶλλον, τοῦτο μὲν οἷς ὑμεῖς ἐναντία μαχεσάμενοι διηλλάγητε καὶ ὅρκους ὠμόσατε, τοῦτο δὲ οὓς φεύγοντας κατηγάγετε, τοῦτο δὲ οὓς ἀτίμους ὄντας ἐπιτίμους ἐποιήσατε: ὧν ἕνεκα καὶ στήλας ἀνείλετε καὶ νόμους ἀκύρους ἐποιήσατε καὶ ψηφίσματα ἐξηλείψατε: οἳ νυνὶ μένουσιν ἐν τῇ πόλει πιστεύοντες ὑμῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες.
The truth is, gentlemen, that although the prosecution may have availed themselves of a perfectly valid law in lodging their information against me, they based their charge upon that old decree which is concerned with an entirely different matter. So if you condemn me, beware: you will find that a host of others ought to be answering for their past conduct with far more reason than I. First there are the men who fought you, with whom you swore oaths of reconciliation: then there are the exiles whom you restored: and finally there are the citizens whose rights you gave back to them. For their sakes you removed stones of record, annulled laws, and cancelled decrees; and it is because they trust you that they are still in Athens, gentlemen.
Andocides. Minor Attic Orators in two volumes 1, Antiphon Andocides, with an English translation by K. J. Maidment, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1968.
Really helps to see some context. Smyth’s citation omits εἰ οὖν ἐμοῦ καταψηφιεῖσθε “So if you condemn me” which is essential for understanding what follows. ὁρᾶτε μὴ … introduces a warning (imperative) “beware that the greatest obligation to given an account does not fall on me (τῶν πολιτῶν …τῶν γεγενημένων ?), but [it falls] more so on many others …”
Yes, this is really rough but an attempt to keep the clause order closer to the original. I am not sure where to attach τῶν πολιτῶν. It might be joined with the participle τῶν γεγενημένων.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
I think it’s a genitive partitive to ἐμοί, that I, most of all citizens, and the participle with the article
modifies them, according to the translation supplied above, by contrasting their (graver, at least from
the orator’s view) past actions (almost like a neuter, as if it said “the things which have occurred during
their time”) with his misdemeanor (what was the charge?).
This commentary restores the reading of Stephens, that it should be the subj. προσήκῃ, and he
referenced Goodwin’s Moods and Tenses, p.83, but I can’t find anything on that page
remotely related to this type of sentence. Maybe he had a different edition.
P.S., I’ve been reading this book by Gavin Hamilton (1866) concerning what he believes to be
the true theory as to the meaning of μή. He does not hesitates to send his prickly thorns on the
Germans philologists of the time and his fellow British scholars who have willingly followed them,
including Liddell-Scott in their Lexicon, and Thomas Arnold’s Greek Prose Composition, to name a few.
My favorite quote so far:
It is neither necessary nor desirable to say more. After all, the best way to refute such
arguments is to state them; then they refute themselves.
This translation?
So if you condemn me, beware: you will find that a host of others ought to be answering for their past conduct with far more reason than I.
Not quite sure what you mean.
CSB
I mean the translation you’ve posted from Perseus.
εἰ οὖν ἐμοῦ καταψηφιεῖσθε, ὁρᾶτε μὴ οὐκ ἐμοὶ μάλιστα τῶν πολιτῶν προσήκει λόγον δοῦναι τῶν
γεγενημένων, ἀλλὰ πολλοῖς ἑτέροις μᾶλλον,…
So if you condemn me, beware: you will find that a host of others ought to be answering for their past
conduct with far more reason than I.
Here, the translator just turned the phrase to suit his style. οὐκ ἐμοὶ τῶν πολιτῶν προσήκει,
ἀλλὰ πολλοῖς ἑτέροις μᾶλλον: ἐμοὶ is the part and τῶν πολιτῶν is the group.
According to the translation from Perseus, I see now τῶν γεγενημένων is a neuter going with
λόγον δοῦναι, to give account for x, and not the way I initially presented it, as modifying the
gen. part. τῶν πολιτῶν.
It also seems that οὐκ doesn’t negate the verb, but the object of it, contrasting himself
with the other citizens, whose past actions, in his opinion, require scrutiny far more than his own.
Still, another commentary by E.C. Merchant criticizes the reading of subj. here instead of the
indicative referencing Appendix A of Shilleto’s edition of Demosthenes’ De falsa legatione, and Kuhner’s
Greek Grammar (though his version is different than the one on archive.org so I can’t link) where
he says the indicative with μή and μὴ οὐ is used for vividness after verbs of apprehension.
So this me^ ouk has turned out to be not me^ ou, but the ouk is a part of the construction ou…, alla… separately from me^.
Then there is no problem for me in this sentence.
But I wonder if the sentence and that English translation in Smyth were right for that section.
Nate,
Looking at this again this morning, I agree that τῶν γεγενημένων limits λόγον, a vague reference to whatever actions were taken by πολλοῖς ἑτέροις which would bring them under condemnation. The translation is more concrete than the original. It mines out implicit meaning and makes it explicit which is appropriate for readers not familiar with the original (ancient) scenario.
On question of reading προσήκει, it is perhaps preferable to retain the difficult reading.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
I think you may be right. It does sound more vivid with the indicative, though I still believe it to be
relating to the future.
This is another translation and quite an expanded one, with many details not present in the original.
Junya,
The right section in Smyth? Not sure what you are asking. In Smyth it is under Object Clauses with Verbs of Fear. If we are willing to take ὁρᾶτε μὴ as an idiom of fear then it is where it belongs. Again, I’m up in air about the intend of your question.
CSB
Junya,
The right section in Smyth? Not sure what you are asking. In Smyth it is under Object Clauses with Verbs of Fear. If we are willing to take ὁρᾶτε μὴ as an idiom of fear then it is where it belongs.
CSB
Yes, what I said was vague. I mean… the section goes like this.
1368 (the section number in my version)
Fear relating to the present or past is expressed by > me^ > with the indicative (negative > me^ ou> )
Though now I am cleared, I was unclear about the expression “negative me^ ou” here.
Now I understand this means with the negatived verb of fear, like ouk horao^. The subordinate clause takes me^ ou then.
But before, I thought that sentence hora^te me^ ouk emoi prose^kei logon dounai was the example of this “negative me^ ou”.
Wouldn’t there be an unclearness in the expression “negative me^ ou” for others, too ?
What Smyth means, Junya, is that when the verb inside a clause of fear/apprehension is negated,
it is with an οὐ, while μή merely introduces the apprehension clause, untranslatable in English.
You seem to be confusing between verbs of fear and semantically negative verbs.
Hi.
Hate wrote :
when the verb inside a clause of fear/apprehension is negated,
it is with an οὐ, while μή merely introduces the apprehension clause, untranslatable in English.
Though this was said from the first time you posted in this sled, somehow it is difficult for me to understand.
I understood what you were saying, but that didn’t lead me to the understanding of…
hora^te me^ ouk emoi prose^kei logon dounai
have a care lest it does not beseem me to give an account
…to the understanding of that English translation, and the English construction lest … not.
(Now the problem about this has been cleared, as you see my post above.
I wrote :
So this me^ ouk has turned out to be not me^ ou, but the ouk is a part of the construction ou…, alla… separately from me^.
Having known it like that, I can understand that sentence well, without the help, or obstacle, of that English translation.)
Smyth says :
1368 (the section number in my version)
Fear relating to the present or past is expressed by > me^ > with the indicative (negative > me^ ou> )
Nate wrote :
What Smyth means, Junya, is that when > the verb > inside a clause of fear/apprehension is negated,
it is with an οὐ, while μή merely introduces the apprehension clause, untranslatable in English.
But in this sample sentence (quoted above), ouk negates not the verb prose^kei, but the noun emoi, as the context shown in Perseus is showing.
So even now I’m somewhat unclear about the saying negative me^ ou by Smyth.
I’m at a loss, Junya. 