Ἀλλ’ οὐχ οὕτως, ἦ δ’ ὃς ὁ Πολέμαρχος, ἐλέγετο.
I take it that the subject of ἦ is ὁ Πολέμαρχος, and the subject of ἐλέγετο is ὃς.
Assuming this is correct, I’m wondering whether there are any indications for the reader, as he goes through this line word by word (or perceives it by ear, as, I assume, was often the case in Antiquity) and comes from ἦ to ὃς, to not misconstrue the latter as the subject of the former before he comes to ὁ Πολέμαρχος, which would then give him a pause. And if there are none, I’m wondering what might be a rationale for such stylistic arrangement.
I think it simply means “Polemarchos said.” See example in ἠμί from the same work:
OIC. You must be right. Thanks!
I’ve never fully understood what’s going on in “ἦ δ’ ὃς”. The ἦ is from ἠμί, per the LSJ, but I’ve always taken the idiom for granted and don’t know that I’ve run across anything else like it.
It seems I didn’t post this reply to Tugodum.
No, ἦ δ’ ὃς is a stock Platonic phrase meaning “he said,” here with ὁ Πολέμαρχος as its subject.
“No,” said P, “that’s not how it was stated.”
A reader would have had no problem understanding this.
Michael, thanks! But why would “he said” need a subject, given that it already has one, namely, “he”?
ἦ δ’ ὃς doesn’t need the subject to be identified in regular two-way dialogue, but here it does. (Consider the situation.) ἦ δ’ ὃς is a fossilized expression, and the originally pronominal force of ὃς has faded into oblivion.
Got it. Thanks.
Any reason why the ἐλέγετο is used instead of ἐλέχθη? Should I think that there is something continuous about “how it was being stated”?
Perhaps, mimicking the ἐτίθετο with which the opponent’s remark ends. And yes, the reference is not to a particular statement but to the course of the argument.