των υιων των δουλων. If you reply that that’s ambiguous, I shall scream.
In Greek it’s not the case that “Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod.”
To allow you no excuse for screaming I will rather ask whether it should be translated as “(of) the slaves’ sons” or as “(of) the sons’ slaves” and why. Is the word order determinative?
Since you are on the other side of the planet, I’m ready to take the risk that you might scream.
If you use τῶν δούλων τῶν νεανιῶν for “of the young men’s slaves”, haven’t you basically dropped the article of νεανιων, and made it indefinite? Basically, the construction is analogous to των δουλων των Κροισου, right?
Dickey, Chapter II, Preliminary Exercise 1(f) (p. 18): Translate into Greek “the young men’s slaves (gen.)” Her answer (p. 217): “not translatable this way because it would require two identical articles in succession”.
In other words, if you should ever encounter this situation in your Greek composition efforts, she’s telling you that you need to find another way to express the idea in context. Simple as that. This particular exercise is just a warning to avoid two identical articles in succession.
No doubt you can find exceptions somewhere in the corpus of ancient Greek literature.
Is there a way in Greek (like it is in English) to phrase it so that it would mean “of the young men’s slaves” in every (=regardless of the) context?
No.
Thanks! In the case of this particular phrase, “τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων” falsifies your answer. But I take you to mean that using dative might not automatically eliminate ambiguity in all cases.
In the case of this particular phrase, “τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων” falsifies your answer.
What makes you think that’s Greek?
My ignorance of any rules that it violates.
Lack of a rule doesn’t make a usage idiomatic, and I don’t claim to be able to recognize idiomatic Greek as well as Hylander or mwh. I don’t even claim that I get the rules right very often.
But, as all of us know, there is a Greek dative of the possessor. Did I use it correctly? Here is the sort of usage that I was trying to parallel:
Thuc. 2.1:
ἄρχεται δὲ ὁ πόλεμος ἐνθένδε ἤδη Ἀθηναίων καὶ Πελοποννησίων καὶ τῶν ἑκατέροις ξυμμάχων, ἐν ᾧ οὔτε ἐπεμείγνυντο ἔτι ἀκηρυκτεὶ παρ᾽ ἀλλήλους καταστάντες τε ξυνεχῶς ἐπολέμουν…
However, looking at Smyth 1480:
The dative of the possessor denotes that something is at the disposal of a person or has fallen to his share temporarily. The genitive of possession lays stress on the person who owns something. The dative answers the question what is it that he has?, the genitive answers the question who is it that has something? The uses of the two cases are often parallel, but not interchangeable. Thus, in Κῦρος, οὗ σὺ ἔσει τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦδε Cyrus, to whom you will henceforth belong X. C. 5.1.6, ᾧ would be inappropriate.
I think that this says that the dative of the possessor would be appropriate in cases where the emphasis is on the slaves, but not if it’s on the sons.
τῶν ἑκατέροις ξυμμάχων – not really a dative of “possession”. Usually the dative of possession is with ειναι/εστι, in a construction that means “have”. The dative with συμμαχος is parallel to the dative with συμμαχομαι. Just as συμμαχομαι naturally takes the dative, συμμαχος regularly takes the dative, giving effect to the implicit verbal idea implicit of “fighting together with”. In any case, allies do not literally “possess” one another; they don’t own one another. It’s a different kind of relationship, and it usually takes the dative.
LSJ:
σύμμαχος , ον, A.fighting along with, leagued or allied with, > τινι > A.Ch.2,19, Hdt.1.22, etc.: freq. abs. as Subst., ally, Sapph. 1.28 (fem.), etc.; and in pl. allies, Hdt.1.102, al., IG12.76.14, etc.; “ς. ἐπί τινα” X.An.5.5.22. 2. as a real Adj., of things, places, circumstances, “συμμάχῳ δορί” A.Eu.773; “αὐτὴ γὰρ ἡ γῆ ξ. κείνοις πέλει” Id.Pers.792; συντυχίη ἐπεγένετό τινι ς. Hdt.5.65; “νόμον ς. τῷ θέλοντι” Id.3.31; “τὸ εἰκὸς ς. μοί ἐστιν” Antipho 5.43; “τοῦ χωρίου τὸ δυσέμβατον ξύμμαχον γίγνεται” Th.4.10, cf. Hdt.4.129; “πολλά ἐστι τὰ σύμμαχα” X.An.2.4.7; “ς. ἔχειν τὸ δίκαιον” Lys.2.10; ὅρκοι καὶ ξυνθῆκαι ib. 62; “τάχος ς. εἰς τὸ πραχθῆναι” X.Cyr.3.2.4: c. gen. rei, “ἀρετὴ τῶν ἐν πολέμῳ ς. ἔργων” Id.Mem.2.1.32.
3. assistant (esp. messenger), POxy.1223.10 (iv A.D.), 904.4 (pl., v A.D.), etc.συμμαχ-ομαι , fut. A.“-οῦμαι” X.An.5.4.10: aor. “συνεμαχεσάμην” Aeschin.2.169:—fight along with others, to be an ally, auxiliary, Th.4.44, 8.26, Pl.Lg.699a, X.HG 3.2.13: > c. dat., > Id.An.5.4.10, 6.1.13; τὸ οἰκὸς ἐμοὶ συμμάχεται probability is on my side, Hdt.7.239; ς. πρὸς τὸν δῆμον against . ., Arist. Pol.1300a18; “ς. τὴν μάχην” Aeschin. l.c.—Prose word, συμμαχέω being used by Poets.
συμμαχέω , aor. A.“συνεμάχησα” IG22.10A7 (v B.C.): pf. “συμμεμάχηκα” SIG588.61 (Milet., ii B.C.):—to be an ally, to be in alliance, A.Pers. 793, Th.1.35, 7.50, etc.: c. acc. cogn., ς. τὴν μάχην IG l.c.: c. dat., SIG366.8 (Delph., iii B.C.), etc.; οὐ ξ., ἀλλὰ ξυναδικεῖν join not in war but in doing wrong, Th.1.39: generally, help, succour, “> ς. τινί> ” S.Ant.740, Ph.1368, Pl.R.440c, Phlb.14b, etc.; “τοῖσιν εὖ φρονοῦσι συμμαχεῖ τύχη” Critias 21; ς. ὥστε . . assist towards . ., Hdt.1.98:— Med., pf. part. συμμεμαχημένος in act. sense, Luc. Tyr.7:—Pass., “συμμαχοῦμαι ὑπό τινος” Id.Cal.22. Cf.συμμάχομαι.
I think Smyth’s explanation of the dative of possession is confused, except to the extent he recognizes that the dative of possession and the genitive are not interchangeable. I think that usually what passes for the dative of possession (other than with ειναι can be explained by an implicit verbal idea that takes the dative as indirect object or in some other way. But it can never be used as a substitute for the genitive to indicate possession. The genitive is the case that indicates the relationship of possession with nouns.
τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων isn’t Greek.
I think that the following is a proper dative of the possessor involving ξύμμαχοι, using εἶναι. Thuc. 1.86.3: ἄλλοις μὲν γὰρ χρήματά ἐστι πολλὰ καὶ νῆες καὶ ἵπποι, ἡμῖν δὲ ξύμμαχοι ἀγαθοί
And Smyth puts forward two examples where the dative of the possessor and the genitive of possession are interchanged. Thuc. 2.1, which I quoted above, τῶν ἑκατέροις ξυμμάχων, and Thuc. 1. 18 τοῖς ἑαυτῶν ξυμμάχοις.
However, I feel that I am missing something here. I don’t doubt that you and mwh are right about my suggestion not being Greek. I searched Kühner’s section on the dative for something about the dative of the possessor, but didn’t find it (I’m sure that it’s in there somewhere).
It is in Bd 1 of the two-volume edition section 423, Anmerk. 18 (S. 416). I am reading it right now.
Thanks, I got your point (I think). Is, then, “τῶν δούλων οἱ (εἰσιν) τοῖς νεανίαις” Greek? And if so, could εἰσιν be omitted?
Is, then, “τῶν δούλων οἱ (εἰσιν) τοῖς νεανίαις” Greek? And if so, could εἰσιν be omitted?
Possibly, but it would emphatically stress the ownership of the slaves in question by the young men, as opposed to someone else’s slaves or some other slaves. It wouldn’t be neutral, unlike Dickey’s context-less exercise ([“of] the slaves of the young men”).
As I read K-G, they’re skeptical of the dependence of a dative on a noun, where there is no verbal idea implicit in the noun that would ordinarily require the dative (as in the case of συμμαχος. They don’t discuss the so-called “dative of possession” at all as a separate category of dative, other than in an ειναι construction, which is an idiom.
Thuc. 1.86.3: ἄλλοις μὲν γὰρ χρήματά ἐστι πολλὰ καὶ νῆες καὶ ἵπποι, ἡμῖν δὲ ξύμμαχοι ἀγαθοί – The εἶναι + dative idiom, not a dative modifying a noun.
τοῖς ἑαυτῶν ξυμμάχοις – he has used the genitive instead of the dative avoid confusion, but the normal case with συμμαχος is dative, as LSJ shows. But that doesn’t mean you can do the reverse – substitute the dative for the genitive – to avoid the same sort of confusion arising from a genitive modifying a genitive with the same article. The genitive is the default case for a noun that modifies another noun, so it can be used instead of the dative in τοῖς ἑαυτῶν ξυμμάχοις to avoid τοῖς ἑαυτοῖς ξυμμάχοις. But again, here the relationship is not one of literal possession or ownership. The relationship between allies is one that LSJ shows is normally expressed by the dative.
Honestly, can anyone show me a parallel to τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων, where simple possession/ownership is meant?
Dickey discusses the dative of possession on p. 39.
Looking at Dickey and Smyth again, I think Dickey’s “rule” only applies where two articles of the same form are immediately juxtaposed, not necessarily where two genitives follow one another. Here is what Smyth says (1162):
- The order bringing together the same forms of the article (περὶ τοῦ τ<*> πατρὸς βιβλίου) is avoided, but two or three articles of different form may stand together: ““τὸ τῆς τοῦ ξαίνοντος τέχνης ἔργον” the work of the art of the wool-carder” P. Pol. 281a.
Dickey’s formulation of the rule (Ch. II, B) 3) b)) applies where one genitive nests within another.
Smyth lists the following positions for attributive genitives (1161):
- The genitive of a substantive limiting the meaning of another substantive may take any one of four positions:—
a. τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς βιβλίον the father’s book (very common). Thus, ἡ <*> τεθνεώτων ἀρετή the valour of the dead L. 12.36.
b. τὸ βιβλίον τὸ τοῦ πατρός (less common). Thus, ““ἡ οἰκία_ ἡ Σίμωνος” the house of Simon” L. 3.32.
c. τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ βιβλίον (to emphasize the genitive or when a genitive has just preceded). Thus, ““τῆς ϝί_κης τὸ μέγεθος” the greatness of the victory” X. H. 6.4.19.
d. τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ πατρός (very common). Thus, ““ἡ τόλμα τῶν λεγόντων” the effrontery of the speakers” L. 12.41. The genitive of the divided whole (1306) is so placed or as in c.
N. 1.—A substantive with no article is sometimes followed by the article and the attributive genitive: ἐπὶ σκηνὴν ἰόντες τὴν Ξενοφῶντος going to the ten<*> (namely, that) of Xenophon X. A. 6.4.19. Cp. 1159.
Dickey doesn’t seem to mention Smyth’s position d in her discussion, and her answer to “the young men’s slaves (gen.)” suggests it isn’t possible to translate using the nested construction (Smyth’s a), but apparently doesn’t address Smyth’s d. So των δουλων των νεανιων is a possibility, as Markos and mwh wrote above, though perhaps somewhat confusing.
τῶν τοῖς νεανίαις δούλων is not a possibility.
Yes, she explicitly indicates this.
Yes, she doesn’t, and I find it a bit strange, as this is as simple and, per Smyth, common as the options she introduces. My question was motivated by the issue of ambiguity (which I do not see Smyth dealing with). It was a surprise for me to learn that it is not resolvable as uniformly in Greek as is in modern European languages.