On p. 15, he has “αγνον” instead of “αμνον”, apparently with Lat. “agnus” in mind.
I failed, however, to make sense of this “αι τω σε” (standing for the “S’il vous plaît…” of the original).
αἰτῶ σε
Wow… Thanks a lot!
κεφ. 17: …εἶπεν ὁ ὄφις…- ὅντινα ἂν ψαύω, τοῦτον πέμπω αὖθις ἐκεῖσε ὄθεν ἥκε.
νομίζω ἔγωγε τὸ βασιλείδιον ἐκ Θεοῦ γενόμενον. ό οὖν ὄφις πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν αὐτὸν πέμπει. σύμφητε?
Hmm… He consistently writes αγνος (pp. 17-18)…
p. 21
“– Bien sûr. Et si tu es gentil,…” is translated as: “- δηλον εστιν. και δη και, εαν αγαθος παις ης,..”
What is the force of “και δη και” here? Why would not a “και” alone do the job?
The original continues “… je te donnerai aussi une corde pour l’attacher pendant le jour. Et un piquet.”
This part is translated as: “… δωσω σοι πεισμα ινα της ημερας αυτον συνδειν δυνη, σκολοπα δε.”
If I understand correctly, “δε” is here for emphasis. But how come is “και” omitted? The closest example I’ve found in the LSJ does have it: " in a climax, πᾶν γύναιον καὶ παιδίον καὶ θηρίον δέ nay even beast" (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=de&la=greek#lexicon).
From LSJ:
- καὶ δή and what is more, adding an emphatic statement, Il.1.161, 15.251, Hdt.5.67, Lys.13.4; in Prose, freq. “καὶ δὴ καί . ., ἐς Αἴγυπτον ἀπίκετο . ., καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐς Σάρδις” Hdt.1.30, etc.; καὶ δὴ καὶ νῦν τί φῄς; and now what do you say? Pl.Tht.187c; καὶ δὴ μὲν οὖν παρόντα yes, and actually here present, S.OC31; esp. in a series, ὑγίεια καὶ ἰσχὺς καὶ κάλλος καὶ πλοῦτος δή and of course riches, Pl.Men.87e, cf. Tht.159c, R.367d; εἴτ᾽ . . εἴτ᾽ . . εἴτεδή ib.493d.
This much I understand. I just fail to see this “and now…” in the original. So, I thought perhaps it would be a bad style in Greek without it. Yet it seems to me that I encountered sentences starting with “και” alone.
λέγουσι τινὲς ὅτι ἡ ἀνθεμίς ἐστι ἀλληγορία τῆς τοῦ de Saint-Exupery γυναικός. λέγω δὲ τὴν ἀνθεμίδα τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀλληγορουμένην εἶναι.
κεφ. 9: σύγε πόρρω ἔσται.
I would say that you needn’t try to pinpoint an exact English equivalent to these idioms, but rather take note of them in their context as you see them, and when you encounter them again, little by little you’ll develop a feeling for what is natural in Greek. I haven’t read this translation of Le Petit prince, and probably my Greek isn’t good enough anyway to tell how good the translation is, but I know I have seen both these idioms many times and I they seem a perfectly normal way to express these ideas in Greek to me.
For “Et si tu es gentil”, something slightly more emphatic than simply και seems to be in order, or that’s my take on it. As for σκολοπα δε, the idea is that it’s an afterthought, and I think it’s a very good translation for “Et un piquet”. Δε is something midway between English “and” and a weak “but”.
I encountered “και δη και” countless number of times, and I’ve no doubt that it is natural in Greek. My question was why it is preferable as a translation to “και” alone (which seem just as natural to me).
As for “σκολοπα δε,” I would like to see analogous examples from authentic texts, as I’ve never encountered such usage (the semantics of which, however, is quite clear to me).
On p. 24, he translates “elles hausseront les épaules” as “ουδενος μεν ποιησονται”. Does ποιέομαι take genitive? Could not find such a case in the LSJ s.v.
I would guess this is the genitive of “value”, but the usual idiom is περι + gen. ποιεισθαι. See Smyth sec. 1373:
To value highly and lightly is περὶ πολλοῦ (πλείονος, πλείστου) and περὶ ὀλίγου (ἐλά_ττονος, ἐλαχίστου) τι_μᾶσθαι or ποιεῖσθαι: ““τὰ πλείστου ἄξια περὶ ἐλαχίστου ποιεῖται, τὰ δὲ φαυλότερα περὶ πλείονος” he makes least account of what is most important, and sets higher what is less estimable” P. A. 30a. The genitive of value, without περί, is rare: ““πολλοῦ ποιοῦμαι ἀκηκοέναι ἃ ἀκήκοα Πρωταγόρου” I esteem it greatly to have heard what I did from Protagoras” P. Pr. 328d.
“They will consider it of no importance.”
I’m not sure whether shrugging the shoulders was an ancient Greek gesture. If it wasn’t the translator would have to find a way somehow to convey the idea.
“I encountered “και δη και” countless number of times, and I’ve no doubt that it is natural in Greek. My question was why it is preferable as a translation to “και” alone (which seem just as natural to me).”
You’re asking why the translator made the choices he made. To me και seems colorless, while και δη και seems a little more emphatic and insistent, but I’m not prepared to defend that ad infinitum. You had best ask the translator – this is, after all, a translation of a modern text by someone who is probably not a native speaker of ancient Greek – but you might just as well ask Plato or Herodotus why they wrote και δη και instead of just και in specific sentences.
And if και and και δη και are more or less equivalent here, what reason is there to prefer και over και δη και?
Thanks, the explanation about the genitive of value without περί is very helpful.
This I find for the most part sufficiently explained in running commentaries to their texts.
Somebody who, like me, is learning a language, is not entitled, I believe, to address such question to somebody who has mastered but not volunteered to teach it.
The premise, implying that two extra words might be used that add nothing to meaning, seems highly implausible to me on general grounds. I believe that a mark of good style is economy of means.
Plato or Herodotus were writing for native speakers. The readers of Coderch are all going to be non native speakers though a very very few have a comparable command of Greek ( Coderch I assume is one of those few).
Further as he is translating a children’s book it is a very natural expectation that the Greek version will be simple Greek and as such ideal for learners.
To be fair Coderch never claims to be writing for learners. It may be that for him to write simple Greek would be tedious for him to write. In which case fair enough.
και δη και is a bit harder than plain και. Only a bit but every time there is a choice Coderch invariably goes for the option that makes the resulting Greek harder.
I used to think that plain και at the beginning of a sentence (unless that sentence begins an interlocutor’s response) is a mere connective, just as it is in English or French; whereas “και δη και” has normally other functions on top of that, depending on the context. I fail to see how the force of a mere connective can possibly vary in “hardness.”
It is only very mildly harder but the longer a sentence the harder it gets. So an extra two words does make it slightly harder. On top of that plain και occurs far more often than και δη και.
It would not be worth remarking on if that were an isolated example but it isn’t.
David–Please forgive my being somewhat slow, as I am a novice: when you say “harder”–do you mean “harder to read”? Or you mean adding emphatic aspect to meaning? If the latter, then what precisely is emphasized in this particular context?
p.s. As I said, I do not see plain και in such a position as emphatic at all. Its only function is to make a connection between two parts of a phrase smoother.