Tugodum: I see what you were thinking, but και ει in (α) does introduce a protasis. In English you’d say, e.g., “the barbarians and some others,” but Greek sometimes likes to use a conditional clause where English would not (οἱ βάρβαροι καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι). Similarly for “the bee and any other similar type of animal” (μέλιττα κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστι). Greek uses a conditional clause here where it would be awkward in English (“the bee and, if there is any other similar type of animal, [then also that one]”). If you wanted to “fill in” the apodosis, which Greek wouldn’t do, you can try, e.g., μέλιττα καὶ ὅτι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστιν, εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστιν (as I mentioned a few times above). But it’s still a conditional clause. Is that clearer on (α)?
phalakros – Thanks. I see now what you meant by “filling in the apodosis.” I, however, intended not this (i.e., “filling in” the apodosis of the “εἴ τι…” clause) but, rather, “unpacking” the implied force of ἄν. As I understand you, my construction in [α] is ungrammatical because the “εἴ τι…” clause is a protasis (with an implied apodosis, which you helpfully explicated), and there cannot be two protases in one sentence, both related to the same apodosis. Is this what you meant? (Perhaps I’m having a memory glitch, yet I think I’ve seen this more than once in Attic prose.) And the second question (related to [α]), which I addressed to you earlier but you probably missed, so I am copying and pasting: “I have never spoken of αν “having no force,” though you and Joel keep repeating this.” – Sorry, I’ve misunderstood you … So, you believe that ἄν does has some force in my Aristotle passage? And if so, what force exactly?
NB: I’ve just edited substantially my last comment.
Yes, it’s possible to have two protases related to the same main clause. But καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστι, ἐὰν ᾖ doesn’t make sense. I think I see how you could have gotten there. You saw a reference to an “ellipsis of verb” in the LSJ (for an entirely different construction—see my 1-2b), saying “sometimes the Verb to which ἄν belongs must be supplied…when κἂν εἰ ( = καὶ ἂν εἰ) has either no Verb in the apodosis or one to which ἄν cannot belong.” You then supplied not an apodosis but rather ἐὰν ᾖ. I think your interpretation of the LSJ entry set you on the wrong path, conflating a few different constructions.
What is the force of αν in your Aristotle passage? It depends what you mean by “force.” I wouldn’t translate it differently. You will much more frequently find this construction with και ει; it’s mainly Aristotle who favors καν here. Why does he do so? That’s harder to say, but I think there are a few relevant historical developments to consider: καν ει in a concessive sense where you would expect και ει (as in the Plato passage above) becomes more frequent in the 4th c.; καν (without ει) is used as a strengthened form of και in post-classical Gk (NT, papyri, Lucian, etc), perhaps under the influence of formulations such as the Sophocles example (…καν σμικρον ειπειν) and perhaps functioning to disambiguate conjunctive and adverbial και. This is all hypothetical though. A good diachronic study of conditional particles (and particles in general) extending into Byzantine Gk is a desideratum. But before getting into such topics, it really is necessary to have a good grasp of the syntax (see my α-δ above).
Thanks, I now understand better your position on the force of αν. As to what, in your view, an evidence of my ignorance of conditionals in [α] is, I’m still in the dark. You said previously that it is the construction having two protases. Now you acknowledge that this is not, of itself, objectionable, and say only that “it makes no sense.” This is not very informative. Even granting that I misapplied what LSJ say about the implications of αν, I fail to see how to infer from this what exactly it is that I miss about conditionals.
Similarly with your [β]. Of course I meant αν as equivalent to εαν. Which brings us to you [γ]. As I understand you, my mistake is precisely this: not knowing that κἄν is never καὶ + ἐάν/ᾱν but can only be καὶ + ᾰν. Sure, I did not know this. But what does it have to do with an ignorance of conditionals? Besides, I have a question here, namely: how does this square with Jebb’s statement that there is a whole class of cases in which “κἄν can be resolved in καὶ ἐάν with a subjunctive verb understood”?
And now your [δ]: “you have mixed up concessive uses of και ει/καν ει (to which the LSJ entry applies; see my 1-2b) and conjunctive uses (the Metaphysics example; see my 3a-b).” This is true in the sense that I had not known that ᾰν may jump from apodosis to protasis. This is indeed something I was missing about the conditionals, and I’m grateful to you for bringing this to light. However, Dickey does not mention this, nor does any other textbook that I know.
NB: I’ve just edited my last posting.
You’re making progress, but I think you’re missing a few opportunities to learn by focusing on defending your first sentence and your general knowledge of conditionals.
There is no law against two if-clauses depending on the same main clause, which you were wondering about before. What do I mean by “it makes no sense?” You were saying that in the phrase κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστι, αν “implies” an apodosis plus another protasis ἐὰν ᾖ, giving: καὶ ὅτι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστιν, εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστιν, ἐὰν ᾖ. It’s not wrong because it violates some rule against two protases; it’s just not what the αν implies and there is no need for ἐὰν ᾖ. In Greek it would be called λῆρος. You got here ultimately by misunderstanding the LSJ entry and the construction it was talking about.
The same problem applies to (β) if you meant it as ᾱν [long alpha]. Joel’s sentence you commented on, καὶ ἂν ἦν I think it was, meant the other αν [short alpha]. Distinguishing these two αν’s is essential to reading Greek.
(γ-δ). Νο, Ι did not say that καν never is και + ᾱν [long alpha]. I said that it’s και + ᾰν [short alpha] in the concessive construction you were talking about (the one in the LSJ entry, the section from Goodwin, my 2a-2b, the example from Plato). Jebb is talking about a different construction entirely (the καν σμικρον ειπειν example). It is important to separate these various uses of αν, εαν, καν, και ει, κτλ. You started down this rabbit hole by conflating them. If you read my longer post carefully and understood the different points of syntax there (asking any questions to clarify), this should have been clear. The syntax explained there is not covered in Dickey or other elementary composition books or textbooks. They are not elementary topics. You can find them in Smyth, Goodwin, and other advanced books. I tried to lay them out more simply for the purposes of the “Learning Greek” forum.
Thank you very much. Since I’ve now learned that κἄν may imply either a long or a short αν (and I’m really happy about it), may I ask, which of the two is implied in “conjunctive” cases, like my Aristotle passage?
Also ᾰν [short alpha]
Thanks! That’s where I should have started.
Yes, if I meant καὶ ἂν remote condition, I should have gone with εἴη, I guess? I am sorry that I can never remember these things. I continue to expect that it will get better with more reading.
Still I do think that there is some leveling that was being claimed for κἂν εἰ and καὶ εἰ.
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.
Out of everything you’ve written in my thread, this is what surprised me. To my ear, the κἂν εἰ there is soft and playful, while καὶ εἰ would only be spoken by a man in denial about his looks. They do “mean” the same thing, I guess.
καὶ εἴ τι instead of κἄν εἴ τι wouldn’t make a big difference.
This later statement is applied to the Aristotle passage, and made me ask my “no force” question. Which you’ve now replied to saying that it may simply be a feature of later Greek, or that perhaps it may not. To my ear, I would have thought that the καὶ εἰ would be a simple statement of fact, with the κἂν softening that, indicating that it’s a deductive chain of logic instead perhaps. But I haven’t read much Greek later than Plato – certainly no Aristotle in English or Greek – so maybe it’s just diachronic change, as you say.
re: conditionals, I think the best way to really get them down is to build up an active command—producing various conditionals (along with, e.g., temporal clauses and conditional relative clauses, all of which are closely related) both in writing and, ideally, orally without depending on resources as you compose. This will help anyone become a closer reader of Greek. Dickey, North & Hillard, or other elementary composition books will help with this. I am willing to offer corrections or additional exercises (English to Greek and Greek to Greek) on another thread if anyone would like the practice. (Though my participation would have to be sporadic).
While I don’t care much at all about my being unable to translate to English – and I really can’t, not even as well as a first year Greek student – I would like to be much more expressive in Greek than I am. And it is coming too slowly with my current methods. So at some point soon, I have planned to take Sidgwick’s advice and begin doing a lot of composition from my reading, but I am still considering what the process for that will be. I’m not convinced that it’s as important as reading, and time is always a limitation of course.
I have thought that practice with a book of syntax rules meshed with a most common words vocabulary would improve my correctness. But I generally worry that it would hurt my sensitivity. (Dickey is basically this, and she doesn’t bother to avoid the grotesque in her sentences. Educating horses? And that’s not even what παιδεύειν would mean applied to an animal.) Leveling seems to me the big danger with too much English to Greek and Greek to English work. That’s my theory anyway. I’ve read a fair amount of composed Greek, and it often just feels off to me, especially in the frequencies of certain syntaxes, though the good stuff can be a lot of fun.
Denniston has discussion of καὶ εἰ and καὶ ἂν εἰ. He “provisionally”, but not confidently, puts καὶ εἰ in the category “extreme climax” compared to εἰ καί. Not that this means much, as he gives examples where it seems not to have this force. However, he also has an example from Phaedo where κἂν used as “and if” instead of the Platonic ‘even if’:
κἂν εἰ συγκρίνοιτο μὲν πάντα, διακρίνοιτο δὲ μή, ταχὺ ἂν τὸ τοῦ Ἀναξαγόρου γεγονὸς εἴη, ‘ὁμοῦ πάντα χρήματα.’
Which seems to weaken Jebb’s argument that the Platonic usage is always “even if”.
Yep, the και in καν ει is conjunctive there. αν asserts itself twice; once proleptically at the beginning of the sentence right before the protasis and then again in the main clause. A regular and neat construction (even if καν ει is usually “even if” in Plato)