LSJ, sv. ἄν, say that, “when κἂν εἰ ( = καὶ ἂν εἰ) has either no Verb in the apod. or one to which ἄν cannot belong,” there is an “ellipsis of verb”, i.e., “the Verb to which ἄν belongs must be supplied.” I’m wondering what verb is to be supplied in the following case:
φρόνιμα μὲν ἄνευ τοῦ μανθάνειν ὅσα μὴ δύναται τῶν ψόφων ἀκούειν (οἷον μέλιττα κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστι),.. (Aristotle, Metaph., 980 b22ff)
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
But here there is a verb: ἔστι.
But what has ἂν to do with it?
Mmm, maybe οἷον μέλιττα ἔστι, κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ᾖ 
Then I’m not sure what εἴ is doing here. Maybe “οἷον μέλιττα καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστι, ἐὰν ᾖ”? Even so, the last part looks a bit redundant to me.
Hi, I think what might be confusing you is trying to analyse this according to the LSJ reference you give at the beginning of this thread. However, there’s a particular construction of κἄν that Aristotle is using here: see e.g. Goodwin’s Moods and Tenses sec. 195:
This is covered elsewhere in LSJ: see the separate entry for κἄν, para 2:
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/κἄν
Also note that the εἴ τι … ἄλλο here is a common construction. See e.g. pp. 55–6 of Donovan’s Advanced Greek Prose:
https://archive.org/details/theoryofadvanced11donouoft/page/55/mode/1up
I hope this clarifies a little the Metaphysics quote above. Cheers, Chad
Thanks, Chad! The references are precious yet I’m still a bit in the dark as regards the semantic force of this construction. Would it be correct to infer from Goodwin that κἂν εἰ in Plato and Aristotle means just καὶ εἰ? LSJ say that κἂν of itself means “and if” but do not explain what difference the addition of εἰ makes.
Hi, it might help to read … εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο … together, and please see the Donovan reference I gave above: hopefully this clarifies. You’ll see this construction often in Aristotle.
Cheers, Chad
Got it, thanks! “and some other such kind, if there is one” (ᾖ, with ἐὰν, implied)
Great to hear, although I wouldn’t imply those extra words. I’d also recommend using Ross’ commentaries when reading Aristotle - you’ll see that Aristotle does contemplate at least one other type of animal in this class (the ant). There are sometimes copies on archive.org if you can’t get a hard copy.
Cheers, Chad
Thanks! If you have Ross handy, would you be so kind as to tell what he makes of κἄν in terms of meaning (if ᾖ is not to be implied)?
Not a problem! On your last question below, this is not covered at that point in the commentary (it’s a common idiom in Aristotle - see instead the references I gave above), but you can infer Ross’ reading from his translation, generally available online I think.
Cheers, Chad
There are a few different constructions with κἂν and καὶ εἰ being mixed up in this discussion. Here’s one way to think of it:
(1) καὶ εἰ/εἰ καὶ is often concessive (even if, although, etc), e.g.:
καὶ εἰ τὸν ἀγῶνα νικήσειας τοῦτον, οὐχ ὑφ’ ἁπάντων ἄν τιμῷο.
(Even if you should win this contest, you would not be honored by all).
Note καὶ εἰ in the protasis + ἄν in the apodosis.
(2a) Sometimes, the ἄν in καὶ εἰ…ἄν will adhere to the καί (i.e. κἄν). So the same sentence could be written:
κἂν εἰ τὸν ἀγῶνα νικήσειας τοῦτον, οὐχ ὑφ’ ἁπάντων τιμῷο.
Note that there is no ἄν in the apodosis with τιμῷο, where you might expect one. This type of κἄν is sometimes analyzed with the καί applying to the protasis and the ἄν to the apodosis. More accurately κἄν applies to the whole sentence, ἄν following it’s normal tendency to appear early.
Another example, from the LSJ section you mentioned:
The following condition (in indirect discourse)–
*νῦν δέ μοι δοκεῖ, καὶ εἴ τις ἀσέβειαν καταγιγνώσκοι, τὰ προσήκοντα ἂν ποιεῖν
(But at any rate, I think that, even if someone should condemn his impiety, he would be doing what’s right)—
is written with κἄν by Demosthenes:
νῦν δέ μοι δοκεῖ, κἂν ἀσέβειαν εἰ καταγιγνώσκοι, τὰ προσήκοντα ποιεῖν
(2b) Sometimes (esp. in Plato and Aristotle), however, there is no verb in the apodosis (unlike τιμῷο or ποιεῖν above) to which ἄν could apply.
καὶ μὴν καλοί γ’ εἰσὶ τῷ ὄντι, κἂν εἰ μή δοκεῖ [/δοκοῦσι] μηδενί, οἱ φαλακροί.
(Furthermore, even if no one thinks so, people who look like Larry David are actually quite handsome).
κἂν εἰ could be καὶ εἰ without a real difference in meaning.
(3a) Sometimes καὶ εἰ isn’t concessive. This is true in the common idiom καὶ εἴ τις. E.g.,:
ἆρα καὶ τῷ Σωκράτει ἐντεύξομαι καὶ τῷ Πλάτωνι καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν πάλαι τὸν βίον τελευτήσας;
(Will I meet Socrates, Plato, and any other of the ancients when I die?)
οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τοὺς Μηλίους διέφθειραν καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι μὴ ἤθελον φόρον ὑποτελεῖν. [εἴ τινες ἄλλοι=οἵτινες ἄλλοι]
(The Athenians massacred the Melians and anyone else who didn’t want to voluntarily pay tribute)
(3b) Your Aristotle passage fits in here, but with κἄν εἴ τι instead of καὶ (cf. 2b).
φρόνιμα μὲν ἄνευ τοῦ μανθάνειν ὅσα μὴ δύναται τῶν ψόφων ἀκούειν (οἷον μέλιττα κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστι)
(Animals that aren’t capable of hearing sounds are intelligent without being able to learn, for example the bee and any other such type of animal).
καὶ εἴ τι instead of κἄν εἴ τι wouldn’t make a big difference. If you wanted to “fill in” the parenthetical clause, you could say μέλιττα κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστιν οὐ δύναται τῶν ψόφων ἀκούειν.
I hope this helps.
[Corrections or comments on my compositions or grammar are always most welcome.]
To me it looks like εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστι is an independent protasis with an unexpressed apodosis. Goodwin 195 seems to cover the same usage, but the example Pl. Men. 72 includes the entire apodosis.
If I had to write an apodosis to explicate what I think it means, it would be something like:
οἷον μέλιττά <ἐστι> καὶ ὰν <ἄλλο ἦν> εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστι
I seem to cross-posted with phalakros, but he seems to take it a bit more concretely anyway, equivalent to καὶ εἰ.
Hi, I read this in the same way as falakros above, and my references to Goodwin and Donovan were meant to each bring out part of this common idiom in Aristotle.
Cheers, Chad
Joel, is “καὶ ὰν <ἄλλο ἦν>” counterfactual? Given that, as indicated, Aristotle believed there was, in fact, “another kind” (namely, ants), would not “καὶ ὰν <ἄλλο ᾖ>” perhaps fit better?
Ha, you’re right. I wrote ἄλλο ᾗ, and then changed it to ἦν after looking at the stickied thread which made me doubt myself.
“would be saying” = impf.indic.+ἄν"
But that’s counterfactual “would be” and I meant for it to be remote “would be”.
Thanks for the Donovan reference. His comp books are always such a delight. Yes, his οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι is on point. It would be especially Aristotelian to substitute κἂν for καὶ here: οἱ Λ. κἂν εἴ τινες ἄλλοι (εἰσίν). The material from Goodwin and the LSJ on concessive και/κἂν εἰ is a little different, as I tried to show above.
Tugodum, there’s nothing counterfactual about it and καὶ ὰν <ἄλλο ᾖ> doesn’t work.
phalakros – You don’t have to explain it if you cannot but I have to admit that I still don’t understand why the citation from LSJ in my initial posting doesn’t apply here.
Hi phalakros, yes that’s true but the substitution of κἄν for καί in this way (i.e. where the construction does not require ἄν) does not, as far as I know (and as per Goodwin sec. 195), occur except where εἰ follows, even if εἰ here really should be read as part of the group εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο, as I noted above, rather than used in a concessive construction with καί, which is clearly not the case here.
I think therefore the Goodwin and Donovan references are both relevant, but each explaining only a part of the overall idiomatic construction (which is not just the sum of both parts, but an idiom by itself). I think we are saying the same thing: you more clearly.
Cheers, Chad