Hi all,
In the below sentance, am I correct in thinking that σημαίνει is being used copulatively?
χρόας δὲ κάλλος ἡ κατ᾽ ἄνθη δίαιτα τοῦ θεοῦ σημαίνει
Grammatically it appears to be doing so (κάλλος and ἡ δίαιτα both being in the nominative) but the reason I’m doubting myself is that the dictionaries I’ve consulted don’t explicitly state that σημαίνει can be used as a copulative …though having said that, from the examples of other verbs which I know can be copulatives (i.e. δοκέω) I’m not sure that dictionaries generally do go out of their way to indicate whether a verb is used as such…
Anyway, anything to assuage my doubt or disperse my confusion would be most welcome.
What is the context? I mean, you can’t tell that κάλλος is nominative here just by form, since it’s neuter.
I don’t know if it fits the context, but why can’t you assume “ἡ κατ᾽ ἄνθη δίαιτα” as the subject, and the thing signified an acc. + inf.: “χρόας κάλλος [εἶναι] τοῦ θεοῦ”.
Something like (not knowing the context): “The diet of flowers signifies the skin’s beauty is of the god.”
Well, I don’t know now. I’d want it in this context to mean: “Physical beauty signifies the god’s way of living at peak bloom,” nicely leading to the next part. I don’t really get κάλλος as an object: “The god’s way of living at peak bloom means physical beauty” seems like nonsense here.
Thinking was not enough, I’m afraid. I had to look up some more context. He’s praising Eros’s beauty here, and Eros’s lifestyle “signals/indicates” his outward beauty.