The Little Prince...in Ancient Greek

Greek Learning Greek
1

The Little Prince…in Ancient Greek by Juan Coderch
Translation of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s original text, with vocabulary help.
[EDIT: PDF download (hosted by the author)]

I have just received the book and have only read the first chapter and introduction so far. Coderch’s translation is very pleasant Greek. I haven’t read the story in many years, but the author’s style and voice comes through wonderfully. The introduction discusses Coderch’s translation decisions. The most interesting of these is that he has provided language help in the margins. For example:

διήγημα, -ατος = μῦθος

These are very useful, but he might want to consider an index of these marginal helps, since they don’t repeat. I also thought that his symbols “=”, “:”, “<”, “<->”, should have been replaced by Greek text, following scholia examples. The symbols aren’t quite self-explanatory unless you read the introduction, and that could have explained scholia language just as easily.

The vocabulary help combined with this being a translation of a very well-known children’s story makes this a good example of comprehensible input, I would think. If help is needed, you can always refer to the English (or French or whatever language you’d like) version of the story.

I noticed two typos, one in the marginal material “ἀνερεύετος” and one in the first post-chapter question “ἀνένγω.” I saw these though I wasn’t looking very hard for errors. In my opinion though, these typos aren’t frequent enough to detract from the text.

I’ve made an audio recording of the first chapter. I’m hoping that this will make good bedtime reading for my daughter in a year or so:
https://youtu.be/s2ijxjWKCSg

2

Image of page 1

3

Awesome! Would you please share a fuller bibliographic info? Thanks.

4

The page for the book on Amazon.

(There is a preview there that contains the Introduction.)

Paperback: 102 pages
Publisher: Juan Coderch; 1 edition (May 3, 2017)
ISBN-10: 0957138741
ISBN-13: 978-0957138742

Juan Coderch writes the news in Classical Greek at http://www.akwn.net. Here is his faculty page at University of St. Andrews, where he is listed as Senior Language Tutor in Greek and Latin. His other published translation project is Don Camillo and Sherlock Holmes in Classical Greek, which I read some time ago and enjoyed.

I emailed him with the above typos, and he emailed to let me know that he has already corrected the source PDF.

5

Thanks, will go for it!

6

χαίρετε πάντες,

Thanks, Joel, for finding this. Where did you learn about it?

Coderich’s edition uses three staples of the Direct Method:

  1. Monolingual helps.
  2. Pictures, so as to stay in the target language.
  3. L2 discussion questions for L2 comp practice.

These happen to be the same three things rmedinap has called for:

εἰς Μάρκου χρῆσιν? :laughing:

I’ve been struggling with this question myself as to how it would apply to a Direct Method thread. Jonah, I think,

http://discourse.textkit.com/t/jonah-reading-thread-greek-notes/14861/1

turned out to be a bad choice for such a thread. τὸ Βασιλείδιον, which I have just ordered, might be better.

ἔρρωσθε.

7

That sort of thread sounds good. I got distracted by a couple of software projects from the Jonah thread, which turned out to be too much work in addition.

I discovered The Little Prince from an Amazon recommendation. However, here is the book site with a free PDF download (you should still buy the book from Amazon, as it’s available at a more than reasonable price):

PDF download (hosted by the author) of The Little Prince in Ancient Greek.

8

It’s likely that the typos in the printed version have already been fixed as well.

9

On p. 12 in the PDF, Coderch has: “ηρομην ποτερον το εμον διαγραμμα αυτους φοβοιη η ου.” I am wondering how this might square with de Strycker’s note on Plato’s Apology 18 a4-5 which I have coincidentally come across: “ει … η μη: in disjunctive indirect questions, the negative of the second member may always be μη, and this is regularly the case when the second member contains only the negative (Lat. necne).”

10

Smyth thinks that either is ok, citing Plato’s Republic for an instance of ου. See sec. 2676e in particular (but it’s worthwhile reading the whole section, and especially subsection f):

  1. The negative of the direct form is usually preserved in indirect questions.
    ““εἴσομαι . . . πότερον ὁ ἔχων αὐτὸ οὐκ εὐδαίμων ἐστὶν ἢ εὐδαίμων” I shall know whether its possessor is happy or not” P. R. 354c, ““οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως φῶ τοῦτο καὶ μὴ φῶ” I know not how I am to say this and not to say it” E. I. A. 643 ( = πῶς μὴ φῶ;).

a. Indirect single questions introduced by interrogative pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs, usually have οὐ.

b. μή appears after verbs of seeing, considering and the like (σκοπῶ, ὁρῶ, ἐννοοῦμαι, ἐνθυ_μοῦμαι) when there is an idea of purpose or desire to prevent something. Thus, ὁρᾶτε . . . ὅτῳ τρόπῳ κάλλιστα ἀμυνεῖσθε αὐτοὺς καὶ μήτε καταφρονήσαντες ἄφαρκτοι ληφθήσεσθε κτλ. consider how you may best defend yourselves and may neither be caught off your guard through contempt, etc. T. 6.33. So also with the potential optative with ἄν; as τί οὖν οὐ σκοποῦμεν πῶς ἂν αὐτῶν μὴ διαμαρτάνοιμεν; why then do we not consider how we may avoid mistaking them? X. M. 3.1.10. Indirect questions with μή thus belong under μή with verbs of fear and apprehension, where μή is the negative of the will. Cp. 2674.

c. Indirect questions introduced by εἰ have οὐ or μή. Thus, ““ἤρετο τὸν δῆμον εἰ οὐκ αἰσχύ_νοιντο” he asked the people whether they were not ashamed” Aes. 1.84, ἤρετό με . . . εἰ μὴ μέμνημαι he asked me whether I did not remember 2. 36.

d. In relative clauses joined by καί and standing in an indirect question (what . . . and what not), μή must be used when the verb is to be supplied with the second clause; but when the verb is repeated, either μή, or οὐ if the antecedent is definite, may be used. Thus, ““διαγιγνώσκουσιν ἅ τε δύνανται καὶ ἃ μή” they distinguish between what they can do and what they cannot” X. M. 4.2.26, οἶσθα . . . ὁπόσοι τε φρουροὶ ἱκανοί εἰσι καὶ ὁπόσοι μή εἰσιν you know how many garrisons are advantageously situated and how many are not 3. 6. 10. The antecedent is definite in ““ἀπέδειξεν οὓς χρὴ δημηγορεῖν καὶ οὓς οὐ δεῖ λέγειν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ” he showed who must speak in the assembly and who must not speak before the people” Aes. 1.27.

e. As the second member of an alternative question introduced by εἰ, or not is either ἢ οὐ or ἢ μή. Thus, ““σκοπῶμεν εἰ ἡμῖν πρέπει ἢ οὔ” let us consider whether it is proper for us or not” P. R. 451d, νῦν ἔμαθον δ̀ λέγεις: εἰ δὲ ἀληθὲς ἢ μή, πειρά_σομαι μαθεῖν now I have made out what you mean; and I will try to make out whether it is true or not 339 a.

f. A shift from μή to οὐ in sequent alternative indirect questions appears to be due to the desire to attain variety. Thus, ““οὐ δεῖ ὑ_μᾶς ἐκ τῶν τοῦ κατηγόρου λόγων τοὺς νόμους καταμανθάνειν, εἰ καλῶς ὑ_μῖν κεῖνται ἢ μή, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν νόμων τοὺς τοῦ κατηγόρου λόγους, εἰ ὀρθῶς καὶ νομίμως ὑ_μᾶς διδάσκουσι τὸ πρᾶγμα ἢ οὔ” you must not start from the pleas of the accuser to learn whether your laws have been established well or not, but you must start from the laws to learn whether his pleas set forth the case fairly and legally or not” Ant. 5.14. Cp. Ant. 6.2, Is. 8.9, D. 20.83. Some scholars hold that οὐ here lays stress on a negative fact or on something conceived as a negative fact, and that μή puts the question abstractly as a mere conception.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+2676&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007

De Strycker doesn’t say μη is obligatory, only that it’s permissible and it’s “regularly the case when the second member contains only the negative.”

11

Thanks! I have to admit, though, that I am now puzzled as to what de Strycker could possibly mean (BTW, he refers to K.-G. ii 191-192, a reference tool that I am not familiar with) as, per my imperfect English, the line between “obligatory” and “is regularly the case” is too thin for me to grasp, given that nulla regula sine exceptione, i.e., nothing is “obligatory” sensu stricto.

12

K-G is Kuhner-Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, a 19th century German grammar. The English language grammars, Smyth and Goodwin, are based on this and other German works. K-G, particularly Part II (syntax) is still very useful for the large number of examples it provides.

K-G at the place cited in your message says that either ου or μη is found in disjunctive indirect questions, but goes on to say that in “so-called nominal questions (introduced by who, how, etc.),” μή is used if the predicate of the first member isn’t repeated, but must be understood, but either ου or μη if the predicate is repeated.
That doesn’t seem to be exactly what de Strycker wrote, and some of the examples run counter to de Strycker. It’s worth looking at the examples (I’ve bolded ἢ οὔ, where the predicate isn’t repeated).

In dem zweiten Gliede einer abhängigen disjunktiven Satzfrage (ob . . oder nicht) steht sowohl οὔ als μή. > S. Ai. 7 ὅπως ἴδῃς, εἴ τ᾽ ἔνδον εἴ τ᾽ οὐκ ἔνδον. Pl. civ. 387, d σκόπει δή, εἰ ὀρθῶς ἐξαιρήσομεν > ἢ οὔ. > Vgl. 394, d. 451, d. 452, e. Phaed. 70, c σκεψώμεθα, εἴτ᾽ ἄρα ἐν ᾄδου εἰσὶν αἱ ψυχαὶ τελευτησάντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων > εἴτε καὶ οὔ> . Crit. 46, c. 48, b σκόπει, εἰ ἔτι μένει ἡμῖν > ἢ οὔ> , dann: σκεπτέον, πότερον δίκαιον ἐμὲ ἐνθένδε πειρᾶσθαι ἐξιέναι μὴ ἀφιέντων Ἀθηναίων ἢ οὐ δίκαιον. X. C. 2.1.7 εἰ μὲν ἀνδρῶν προσδεῖ ἡμῖν εἴτε καὶ μή, αὖθις συμβουλευσόμεθα. Pl. ap. 18, a ὑμῶν δέομαι . . τοῦτο σκοπεῖν, εἰ δίκαια λέγω ἢ μή. Civ. 339, a εἰ ἀληθὲς (ὃ λέγεις) ἢ μή, πειράσομαι μαθεῖν. Phil. 21, b τοῦτ᾽ αὐτό, εἰ χαίρεις ἢ μὴ χαίρεις, ἀνάγκη δήπου σε ἀγνοεῖν, κενόν γε ὄντα πάσης φρονήσεως. Andoc. 1.7 εἰ μὲν γὰρ δεινὰ κατηγόρηται ἢ μή, οἶόν τε γνῶναι ἐκ τῶν τοῦ κατηγόρου λόγων. Antiph. 5.14 οὐ δεῖ ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῶν τοῦ κατηγόρου λόγων τοὺς νόμους καταμανθάνειν, εἰ καλῶς ὑμῖν κεῖνται ἢ μή, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν νόμων τοὺς τῶν κατηγόρων λόγους, εἰ ὀρθῶς ὑμᾶς διδάσκουσι τὸ πρᾶγμα > ἢ οὔ> , ubi v. Maetzner; derselbe Wechsel 6, 2. P. Prot. 313b. Isae. 8.9. Dem. 20.83.
In abhängigen sogenannten Nominalfragen (eingeleitet durch wer, wie u. a.) steht μή, wenn das Prädikat des ersten Gliedes nicht wiederholt wird, sondern ergänzt werden muss, aber sowohl οὔ als μή, wenn es wiederholt wird. > Eur. Hipp. 927 χρῆν βροτοῖσι τῶν φίλων τεκμήριον | σαφές τι κεῖσθαι καὶ διάγνωσιν φρενῶν, | ὅστις τ᾽ ἀληθής ἐστιν ὅς τε μὴ φίλος. X. Comm. 3. 6, 10 οἶσθα, ὁπόσαι τε φυλακαὶ ἐπίκαιροί εἰσι καὶ ὁπόσαι μή, καὶ ὁπόσοι τε φρουροὶ ἱκανοί εἰσι καὶ ὁπόσοι μή εἰσι. Vgl. 4. 2, 26. Oec. 16, 3 γνῶναι, ὅ τι τε δύναται φέρειν καὶ ὅ τι μὴ δύναται. P. Gorg. 472d ἀγνοεῖν ὅστις τε εὐδαίμων ἐστὶ καὶ ὅστις μή. Dem. 20.163 λογίσασθε πρὸς ὑμᾶς αὐτούς, τί συμβήσεται καταψηφισαμένοις ὑμῖν τοῦ νόμου καὶ τί μή. Aeschin. 1.27 ὁ νομοθέτης διαρρήδην ἀπέδειξεν, οὓς χρὴ δημηγορεῖν καὶ οὓς οὐ δεῖ λέγειν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ. — In anderen Verbindungen und ausserhalb der Frage steht in dem ersten Falle sowohl μή als οὔ. Pl. Menex. 237, e γυνὴ τεκοῦσά τε ἀληθως καὶ μή, ubi v. Stallb. Civ. 486, b ψυχὴν σκοπῶν φιλόσοφον καὶ μή. Crit. 46, c ἐλέγετο, ὅτι ταῖς μὲν δεῖ τῶν δοξῶν προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν, ταῖς δὲ οὔ. d ἐλέγετο, ὅτι τῶν δοξῶν . . δέοι τὰς μὲν περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθαι, τὰς δὲ μή. 47, a οὐχ ἱκανῶς δοκεῖ σοι λέγεσθαι, ὅτι οὐ πάσας χρὴ τὰς δόξας τῶν ἀνθρώπων τιμᾶν, ἀλλὰ τὰς μέν, τὰς δ̓ οὔ, οὐδὲ πάντων, ἀλλὰ τῶν μέν, τῶν δ̓ οὔ; . . Οὐκοῦν (καλῶς ἐλέγετο, ὅτι χρὴ) τὰς μὲν χρηστὰς τιμᾶν, τὰς δὲ πονηρὰς μή; Lys. 218, b ἐξηυρήκαμεν, ὅ ἐστι τὸ φίλον καὶ οὔ = ἐξ. τοῦτο, ὅ κτλ.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0021%3Asmythp%3D511

13

Thanks a lot! Now it seems to me that de Strycker is plainly wrong both in his over-generalization and in his appeal to K.-G. (which, to be fair, he qualified with “cf.”). Let alone that Apol. 18 a4-5 is not a case of “Nominalfrage,” if I got the concept right.

14

On p. 14, he uses the word “κυλεια”, explaining it in his marginal gloss as meaning any card game. I did not find it in either the LSJ or Modern Greek, so am wondering where he got it from (or how he coined it).

15

First off this is clearly easier than the extant texts so to that extent Juan Coderch has done learners of Greek a great service.

This is especially so as the pdf is available free so a learner is able to try it out to see if it is the right level for them.

I have for long especially regretted that, though there is a Latin translation, there is none for Ancient Greek. Hence, now that it has become available, I could hardly not give it a try.

I have read the first page. I spent the whole morning attempting to read it without looking up words or looking at the English version. At that point I gave up and started looking up words and when that wasn’t enough I consulted the English version and even then it was only after a struggle the lasted the whole afternoon that I understood the Greek.

Hence it was not for me comprehensible input. Of course that does not detract from its value. To say that we need graded readers implies there is a need not just for easy Geek but texts that are at a high level but not as hard as the extant texts. So clearly this fills a niche.

But it does seem that Coderch rules out ever producing anything simpler.

The vocabulary is quite hard. On the first page there are six words that are unranked by Logeion (http://logeion.uchicago.edu/) due to frequency. To be fair, most of those words do have in margin explanations. But, even if the words are explained, a lot of unfamiliar words is going to make a text much harder.

The other reason is that the sentences are quite long and complex. This concerns me more because of Juan Coderch’s reasons. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, he explains, used very simple syntax with few sub-clauses and that to use such simple syntax in the Ancient Greek version would create something that did not “sound Greek”. The quotes are Coderch’s so he doesn’t explicitly say that simple Greek is bad Greek but I don’t think I a wrong to read that implication. The idea that the complexity of the extant sentences is the essence of Ancient Greek has a long history eg http://kart-hadasht.co.uk/anc/greeklang/greekcomp.php#sec2. However, it is a feature of all languages that sentences can be built up with clauses being added to clauses ad infinitum so that the maximum possible sentence is infinite. If Ancient Greek writers tended to favor long complex sentences that is because of the choice of the writers whose work survived not because of the syntactical nature of Ancient Greek.

I have long hoped to see a translation of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s book because of his simple text so I am a little disheartened that Coderch should rule out producing something in Ancient Greek that is for him so simple.

I am aware that what I have just written will be dismissed because I have said it too many times before.
However, could it just be that I always say that the texts that are available for me to read are too difficult simply because they are too difficult given my current ability for me to progress?

16

I wanted to post the bit from the introduction that you referred to.

The author of the original French text makes usage of a very simple syntax: we hardly find subordinate sentences and, on the contrary, we find lots of simple sentences, sometimes not even connected between them, but just juxtaposed after a full stop. For instance, accumulations of short simple sentences like

The well that we had come to was not like the wells of the Sahara. The wells of the Sahara are mere holes dug in the sand. This one was like a well in a village.

are normal, and we know that in Greek it would be more normal to find these three sentences linked by some type of subordination, something that could sound like

The well that we had come to was not like the wells of the Sahara, that happen to be mere holes dug in the sand, while this one was like a well in a village.

And this leaves us with a double choice:

  • a/ Do we keep in the Greek version this simple juxtaposed style?
  • Advantage: The result looks closer to the original text.
    • Disadvantage: It does not “sound Greek.”
  • b/ Do we rephrase the text to produce something more Greek-sounding?
  • Advantage: It sounds nearer to what Greek language was.
    • Disadvantage: We go away from what the author wrote.

So, if an author wrote > He opened the door. He went in > should the Greek translation say ἀνέῳξε τὴν θύραν. εἰσέβη something that would be understood by a native Ancient Greek speaker but would not sound natural, or should we rephrase the first sentence into the usual aorist participle and say something like > Having opened the door, he went in > ἀνοίξας τὴν θύραν, εἰσέβη something that would sound more natural but that would not be what the author wrote?

I have tried to reach a medium term: keeping what the author wrote but, wherever I consider that reflecting the author’s syntax would produce something excessively unnatural, I have produced some subordination between juxtaposed simple sentences.

17

ὦ χαῖρε, φίλε Δαυίδ.

κεφ. 21:ὁ χρόνος ᾧ σὺ πρὸς τὴν σὴν ῥοδωνιὰν ἐχρήσω, τοῦτό ἐστιν ὃ αὐτὴν πολλοῦ ἀξίαν ποιεῖ.

ἐγὼ φιλῶ τὸ ῥόδον μου. τὸ γὰρ ῥόδον μου κλέπτει τὸν χρόνον μου. ἡ δὲ Ἑλληνικὴ γλῶσσά ἐστιν τὸ ῥόδον μου.

μὴ γένοιτο. ὁ γὰρ Δαυὶδ τὸ ῥόδον ἡμῶν ἐστιν. :slight_smile:

Does this mean that you have access to a version of the Greek text from which we can cut and paste?

18

I would think that he means κυβεία. EDIT: More likely, it’s meant to be derived from something, as κυβεία is from κύβος. But I can’t guess what.

19

jeidsath–κυβεία does not seem to make sense, as cards are all but cubic. I’m wondering why he even needed a generic name for card games, given that nothing corresponds to it in the original French.

20

“Alors je ne lui parlais ni de serpents boas, ni de forêts vierges, ni d’étoiles. Je me mettais à sa portée. Je lui parlais de bridge, de golf, de politique et de cravates.”
http://www.cmls.polytechnique.fr/perso/tringali/documents/st_exupery_le_petit_prince.pdf