Ὦ Φαῖδρε, εἰ ἐγὼ Φαῖδρον ἀγνοῶ, καὶ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπιλέλησμαι. ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐδέτερά ἐστι τούτων·
Why οὐδέτερά here is plural?
Knowing Phaedrus and forgetting himself are not conceived of as single things. There are several things involved in both.
Hmm… Will try to fathom which things exactly these might be… Thanks.
Two more from Plato.
Euthyphro 9d:
ἀλλ’ ἆρα τοῦτο ὃ νῦν ἐπανορθούμεθα ἐν τῷ λόγῳ—ὡς ὃ μὲν ἂν πάντες οἱ θεοὶ μισῶσιν ἀνόσιόν ἐστιν, ὃ δ’ ἂν φιλῶσιν, ὅσιον· ὃ δ’ ἂν οἱ μὲν φιλῶσιν οἱ δὲ μισῶσιν, οὐδέτερα ἢ ἀμφότερα—ἆρ’ οὕτω βούλει ἡμῖν ὡρίσθαι νῦν περὶ τοῦ ὁσίου καὶ τοῦ ἀνοσίου;
Lysis 219a:
Οὐκοῦν διὰ νόσον ἕνεκα ὑγιείας τοῦ ἰατροῦ φίλος; — Ναί. — Ἡ δέ γε νόσος κακόν; — Πῶς δ’ οὔ; — Τί δὲ ὑγίεια; ἦν δ’ ἐγώ· ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακὸν ἢ οὐδέτερα; — Ἀγαθόν, ἔφη.
To me, it sure looks like Plato sometimes refers to singular things by this adjective in plural form. I wonder if the grammar police respect any sort of statute of limitations?
Thanks, Joel! Makes me curious if this peculiarity had passed unnoticed by scholars
Another at Republic 349:
Ἔστιν δέ γε, ἔφην, φρόνιμός τε καὶ ἀγαθὸς ὁ ἄδικος, ὁ δὲ δίκαιος οὐδέτερα;
This one is obviously not meant to be in agreement with masculine δικαιος, but the number still needs to be explained somehow.
What seems to be in common with all the examples is that they are predicate and neuter, and they work like αμφοτερα would. Looking at this last one especially, makes me think “adverbial.”
ουδετερα functions as the negative counterpart of αμφοτερα, much as you say Joel. I’m not comfortable calling it adverbial myself, but that’s what LSJ does in its old-fashioned way. They cite two Plato examples “etc.” I think of it as Platonic idiom, but it may not be exclusive to Plato, and I’d be grateful if you’d let us know if your searches turn up non-Platonic instances. You’re fonder of computerized searches than I am.