This is a snip from the Corinthians’ oration before the Lacedaemonians. The Corinthians have just before warned that if Sparta does not come to their aid against Athens, then the Corinthians will have to go elsewhere for allies.
Translation effort: But with your zealous support, we will stay [in the alliance with Sparta]: for unholy-things we would doing by changing sides, and no more agreeable [allies] we would find.
The second clause is what concerns me: οὔτε γὰρ ὅσια ἂν ποιοῖμεν μεταβαλλόμενοι
What is negated by the first οὔτε? I’m don’t have a general view the scope of negation of the various negative words.
The first οὔτε negates ὅσια ἂν ποιοῖμεν μεταβαλλομένοι. οὔτε . . . οὔτε links the two coordinate clauses – the scope of each οὔτε is the whole clause. Your translation, making the negative “not” applicable to “holy,” doesn’t necessarily yield a wrong result in this instance, but in the the Greek text, οὔτε technically applies to the whole clause. Focus on what elements of the sentence are linked by οὐτε . . . οὔτε. If Thucydides had written, for example, οὔτε ὅσια οὐτε δίκαια ἂν ποιοῖμεν μεταβαλλόμενοι . . . , then οὔτε . . . οὔτε would negate ὅσια and δίκαια.
βουλομένων δὲ ὑμῶν προθύμων εἶναι – I’d construe this genitive absolute as a conditional, something like “as long as you are willing to be ready/eager/zealous,” we will continue to adhere to the treaty.
That was to be my next query: how to explain the grammatical relationship of the genitive absolute + the infinitive?