Nouns without the definite article

Greek Learning Greek
1

Hi all,
In chapter 25 of Athenaze, the following sentence has me somewhat puzzled:

ὅρκοις κατείχοντο χρήσεσθαι νόμοις οὕς ἂν σφίσι Σόλων θῆται
The translation given is " they were constrained by oaths to use “whatever” laws Solon laid down for them

The Italian Athenaze translates as “all laws”. Neither “whatever” nor “all” appears in the original text; are they implied by virtue of the fact that there is no definite article preceding laws"?

What does the forum think?

Regards, Victor

2

It’s because of the subjunctive θῆται with ἄν - they swore to obey the laws which he might set down (without knowing what they would be, or even if there would be any) so in English either “all” or “whatever” would work as a translation

3

I wanted to add that it can be useful to recognize that this indefinite ἄν +subj. construction is used in temporal, conditional, and relative clauses, and they are often nearly synonymous but with different emphases. For example, οὕς ἂν σφίσι Σόλων θῆται here is very similar to ἐὰν νόμους σφίσι Σόλων θῆται or even ὅταν νόμους σφίσι Σόλων θῆται, but we assume that Solon will make laws soon, and the relative focuses on their indefinite content.

The moods and tenses work the same in all three types, so a present in the main clause usually indicates habitual action and a future, as here, prospective action.

The particle ἄν is closely attached to the subordinating word, so it is almost always right after the relative pronoun, and in temporal and conditional clauses can even merge with the conjunction by crasis to form ἐπάν/ἐπειδάν/ὅταν and ἐάν. Since ἄν +subj. is already indefinite, and the particle is nearly attached to the relative pronoun, the simple relative serves as the unmarked form, and the indefinite relative is usually reserved for emphasis, so οὕστινας ἂν σφίσι Σόλων θῆται might mean no matter what laws Solon laid down for them.

4

Hi Swiftnicholas,

Thanks for your reply. I should have paid closer attention to the text, both the original and the Athenaze simplified. Further up the text, line 7, chapter 25 a, we read “τινα τῶν νόμων”, which of course translates as “any of the laws”. Both George Macaulay and George Rawlinson translate the above as “any of the laws” and the later “νόμοις” as simply “the laws”. The Athenaze authors have simply used the first “any of the laws” and applied it to the second. I thought there might be some significance in leaving out the definite article, there doesn’t seem to be, at least according to Macaulay and Rawlinson.

Thanks once again,

Uccio