`his oath is not the warrant of a man, but the man is warrant of his oath"
In this sentence, why are ὅρκοι and ὅρκων in the plural? Could they have been in the sg. as well? What would have changed if they were in the singular?
Now for the next batch of questions, I’ll quote the relevant part in full:
"Thus, τί δεῖ σε ἰέναι . . .; ἀλλὰ ἄλλους πέμψον what’s the need of your going? Nay rather send others X. A. 4.6.19. Here ἀλλ᾽ ου᾽ (μή) has the force of and not rather (2781 b) as τί δεῖ ἐμβαλεῖν λόγον περὶ τούτου, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ προειπεῖν ὅτι οὕτω ποιήσεις; why is i<*> necessary to propose a discussion about this and not rather announce that you will have it so? X. C. 2.2.19.
Which sentence is referred with the word “here?” Is it the first or the second? The first one doesn’t have ου so I’m guessing the second. If it’s the second, why does it say ου when the example has οὐχὶ? What is οὐχὶ in the first place? I know about ουχ but I never heard of οὐχὶ. And lastly, what is meant by (μή)? Does it mean that μή can also occur with Αλλ’ ου without any change in meaning?Why is it in parentheses?
Since the phrase οὐκ ἀνδρὸς ὅρκοι πίστις, ἀλλ᾽ ὅρκων ἀνήρ doesn’t have any articles, the use of singular and plural rumber marks what is linked together. Here ἀνδρὸς needs to be linked with πίστις, because it’s the object πίστις since the meaning is “the confidence (or trust) in a man” and not " a man’s confidence (or trust), see 1330 and 1331 of Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges for the explanations on the Objective and Subjunctive Genetive. The “problem” here is that ἀνδρὸς and πίστις are separated from each other by ὅρκοι, but since ὅρκoi is plural while ἀνδρὸς and πίστις are singular we can feel that they match with eachother and that ὅρκοι is subject. If ὅρκοι would be singular confusion would arose as to which is the subject who would be more probablly be in that case πίστις and the translation would be something like " Faith is not an oath of a man…
Which sentence is referred with the word “here?” Is it the first or the second? - The first one but the conjuction ‘as’ tells us that both of them have the force of and not rather:
"Thus, τί δεῖ σε ἰέναι . . .; ἀλλὰ ἄλλους πέμψον. Here (the phrase τί δεῖ σε ἰέναι . . .; ἀλλὰ ἄλλους πέμψον.) ἀλλ᾽ ου᾽ (μή) has the force of and not rather (2781 b) AS τί δεῖ ἐμβαλεῖν λόγον περὶ τούτου, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ προειπεῖν ὅτι οὕτω ποιήσεις (does). οὐχί is just the emphatic form of οὐ just as οὑτωσῑ́ is the one of οὑτως. μη is between () because it would appear in instances where it does or can appear and would thus alter the meaning in most cases.
I don’t think that plural and singular tell you anything.
You could theoretically parse this: “oaths of a man are not a guarantee but a man of oaths is a guarantee”, but I don’t think a native would have ever done that.
The things that make the other way more natural, even before considering the much better meaning of “oaths are not a guarantee of a man…” are 1) the word order of ἀνδρὸς ὅρκοι, which isn’t quite neutral if it means “oaths of a man”, 2) the common usage pattern of πίστις with gen., 3) the phrase-final position of πίστις, being a natural relocation from neutral location πίστις ἀνδρός meaning “guarantee of a man”.
“οὐκ ἀνδρὸς ὅρκοι πίστις, ἀλλ᾽ ὅρκων ἀνήρ”
“his oath is not the warrant of a man, but the man is warrant of his oath”
The first question was Why are ὅρκοι and ὅρκων in the plural, and what difference would it make if they were in the singular?
The answer is that the meaning would be just about the same, because it’s the only meaning that makes sense of the words. That said, there are a few other points to note. First, there’s the way the words are organized: (αλλ’) ὅρκων ἀνήρ in the second half reverses (ουκ) ἀνδρὸς ὅρκοι in the first, so we should take each in relation to the other. Then, the only way to make sense of the residual πίστις is to take it as belonging to the predicate rather than to the subject. (In the absence of articles any nominative could in principle be the subject of each half.)
What’s more—and this is the giveaway—the line is an iambic trimeter, and ὅρκου in the second half would make it unmetrical. If we didn’t recognize that the line is metrical, shame on us!
I read everyone’s reply, the only thing I did not understand is, if that’s the case, why is Smyth saying “Here,ἀλλ᾽ ου᾽…” there when there is no ου in the first sentence?
Smyth’s “Here” applies to 2776a and particularly to the quote that follows. That’s the only αλλ’ου hereabouts, and it exemplifies the point, cf. 2781b. He’s not differentiating between oὐ and οὐχί, which differ only metrically. That said, Smyth’s treatment of particles in general is outmoded and leaves much to be desired, though on αλλα (2775-86) it’s not bad and anyone can study it with profit..
Another small clarification on onomatoychos’ post: the -ί of ουχί (common in tragedy) is not long but short, unlike the demonstrative -ί of οὕτωσί (common in comedy), which is long.
Yes, more or less. The precise import of the difference between ου and ουχι is a bit tricky but as far as this paragraph of Smyth’s is concerned they’re effectively identical in sense (“not”) and differ only in form.