Plato, R. 349a

Greek Learning Greek
1

Ἀλλ’ οὐ μέντοι, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, ἀποκνητέον γε τῷ λόγῳ ἐπεξελθεῖν σκοπούμενον, ἕως ἄν σε ὑπολαμβάνω λέγειν ἅπερ διανοῇ.
Do I understand it correctly that τῷ λόγῳ is an indirect object of ἐπεξελθεῖν, which is the object of ἀποκνητέον, so that the meaning is: "One should not, while examining, shrink from attacking the argument, until… "?

2

I think it’s right more or less. Maybe pursue rather than attack? Also, from the context, I’d say you should not, while examining etc.

3

Thanks! And yes, actually “I should not…” (in view of ὑπολαμβάνω).

4

But now I’ve another question on this: does ἕως here really mean “until” (as I initially thought) or, rather, “while” (given that ὑπολαμβάνω is not an aorist but a present subjunctive)?

5

I think so.

while, so long as

b. ἕ. ἄν c.subj., when the whole action is future, “οὔ μοι . . ἐλπίς, ἕ. ἂν αἴθῃ πῦρ” A.Ag. 1435; “λέγειν τε χρὴ καὶ ἐρωτᾶν, ἕως ἂν ἐῶσιν” Pl.Phd.85b; “οὐδὲν ἔστ᾽ αὐτῷ βεβαίως ἔχειν ἕ. ἂν ὑμεῖς δημοκρατῆσθε” D.10.13.

6

Thanks, I did see this in LSJ, yet it does not bring in the aorist vs. present subjunctive distinction as a criterion, so my question is, how to decide.

7

Good question—temporal clauses are pleasant. You’re right that here ἕως is “as long as” instead of “until,” as the context suggests. The latter meaning (until) is naturally more more common with the aorist subjunctive + ἄν. You do sometimes find it with the present subj.

Here, with the pres subj + ἄν, it’s just an indefinite clause (“present general” or “future more vivid” in older terminology). Does that distinction make sense? E.g.

περὶ γὰρ τοῦ δικαίου ὁποῖόν τί ἐστι τῷ ὄντι αὐτοῦ μάλιστά γ’ ἡδέως τῷ Σωκράτει διαλέξομαι, ἕως ἂν ἀποθάνῃ δημοσίᾳ [it will stop as soon as he’s executed, hence aorist]

vs.

ἥδιστ’ οὖν διαλέγομαι τούτῳ, ἕως ἂν Ἀθήνησι διατρίβῃ. (as long as; ἄν + subj. for habitual action)

8

Yes, this makes perfect sense. Thanks!

9

Dear Phalakros, may I also ask your opinion on this one? http://discourse.textkit.com/t/aristotle-en-1107a2-6/17574/1
And, in conjunction with it, on the passage a little further ibid:
οὐ πᾶσα δ᾽ ἐπιδέχεται πρᾶξις οὐδὲ πᾶν πάθος τὴν μεσότητα· ἔνια γὰρ εὐθὺς ὠνόμασται συνειλημμένα μετὰ τῆς φαυλότητος, οἷον ἐπιχαιρεκακία ἀναισχυντία φθόνος, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πράξεων μοιχεία κλοπὴ ἀνδροφονία· πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγεται τῷ αὐτὰ φαῦλα εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ αἱ ὑπερβολαὶ αὐτῶν οὐδ᾽ αἱ ἐλλείψεις.
Am I getting it right that the phrase in bold is an articular infinitive with the force of the dative of respect or cause?