ὁ δὲ Σωκράτης διαιτῶν τῷ λόγῳ ἔλεγεν φύσει εἴναι τὰ ὀνόματα.
Judging by reason, Socrates said that names are by nature. Or is there another meaning?
I would have thought: “But Socrates, arbitrating the discussion, was saying that ονοματα are by nature.” Have you read Kratylus? Socrates is called in at the beginning to settle their dispute.
the problem is that this verb must take an acc in the sense you mentioned.
Maybe. But here’s another one of these late commentators using it in the same way, but this time leaving no doubt about it:
Philoponus, In Aristotelis physicorum libros commentaria:
εἰ τοίνυν, φησί, καὶ οἱ ἀνασκευάζοντες τὸ ἄπειρον λόγοι καὶ οἱ εἰσάγοντες ἀληθεῖς, διαιτητοῦ χρεία τοῦ διαιτήσοντος ἐναντίοις λόγοις καὶ δείξοντος κατὰ τί μὲν ἀληθεῖς εἰσι κατὰ τί δὲ οὔ· εἰ γὰρ μὴ κατά τι μὲν ὑπῆρχε τὸ ἄπειρον, κατά τι δὲ οὐχ ὑπῆρχεν, οὐκ ἂν ἔδοξεν ἑκάτερος τῶν λόγων ἀληθὴς εἶναι. ταῦτα εἰπών, ἐφεξῆς διαιτᾷ τῷ λόγῳ διαίρεσιν τῶν ὄντων ποιούμενος.
I translate (no doubt with blunders, I have no idea what the context is): “If therefore, he says, both the arguments disproving the infinite and the ones making the case for it are true, there is a need of an umpire who will be arbitrating between the opposed arguments and showing by what they are true and by what not. For if it was not that the infinite was existing according to something and not existing according to something, each of the arguments would not have appeared true. Saying that, he decides the discussion point by point, making a division of the real.”
Νομίζω ότι έχεις δίκιο.