****M Unit 27.II.5
The answer key provides the following English rendition: “The fools among mankind let go of what is at hand and pursue what is absent”. I have two questions.
a) Why does the Greek use “τα παροντα” for “what is at hand” when there is a Greek word, “το παρον”, that means exactly “what is at hand” (see vocabulary on p.231). On the same page I see that “τα παροντα” is translated as “the present circumstances, the present state of affairs”, which seems to me rather far fetched for “what is at hand”. OR, could it be that “τα παροντα” is the acc. pl. neuter present active ppl of παρειμι, and therefore can be rendered as “the being present” in translationese, better rendered in English as “what is at hand”? If so, when would one use “present circumstances, the present state of affairs” as the English rendition of “τα παροντα”?
b)αφεντες is the nom. pl. m/n pres. act. ppl or αφιημι. The vocabulary of p. 194, translates it, among other meanings, as “release, set free”. I suppose that can be understood to mean “let go” as per the key, but why couldn’t the Greek have used “ιημι” or “εφιημι” instead, both of which do have a vocabulary meaning of “let go”?
I think you are inferring from the English translation that τὰ παρόντα and τὸ παρόν mean the same thing. τὰ παρόντα is of course neuter plural and neuter plurals are often used to indicate “states of affairs” as opposed to the singular which refers to a specific thing. Think of Ἀφροδίσια “the things of Aphrodite” ie sex. or κακά “bad things” “adverse circumstances” -and the like.
So if in your example you had used τὸ παρόν it would refer to a specific thing which was at hand whilst τὰ παρόντα being plural points to more than thing ie a state “of affairs”. A fuller translation might have been “those things which are at hand” but “what is at hand” is more idiomatic.
The gloss in M. for ἵημι is let go, hurl. So this is rather different from ἀφίημι, send forth; release; leave alone. If you look at a dictionary you will see examples of how these words are used which illustrate the difference. ἐφίημι , send against; set free; (mid.) command; aim at, long for (+ gen.) seems to me quite different.
I have put this together quickly so apologies if its not clear. If I am wrong of course one of the experts will put us both right. My Greek is getting rustier and rustier.
Just to say seneca’s replies are excellent. Remember the given translations are only an approximation, and they don’t necessarily apply across the board.
The difference between τὸ παρόν and τὰ παρόντα is the difference between singular and plural. A set of circumstances will naturally be plural, τὰ παρόντα, while τὸ παρόν will refer to just one particular thing. And the difference between τὰ ἀπόντα and τὰ παρόντα is naturally the difference between things that are absent and things that are present or as we might say “at hand.” Don’t allow the English translations to delimit your understanding of the meaning inherent in the Greek.
And the difference between ἀφίημι and plain ἵημι is defined by the presence or absence of the ἀφ- prefix. ἀφ-=ἀπο-=ἀπ- (as in τὰ ἀπόντα) carries the idea of “away” or “away from,” so ἀφίημι is less indeterminate than uncompounded ἵημι, and will mean something like “let go” or “send off.” Similarly with ἐφίημι (ἐφ-= ἐπ-=ἐπι-): ἐπί often means “against,” and ἐφίημι often means “send against.” So ἀφίημι may be used of releasing someone (letting them go) or discharging something (sending it off), while ἐφίημι may be used of targeting someone (shooting an arrow at them, for instance). Etc. etc. etc.
The sample sentence is οι αφρονες των ανθρωπων τα παροντα αφεντες τα αποντα διωκουσιν. You can see that here ἀφέντες is a more appropriate compound than ἐφέντες would be, and more appropriate than plain ἕντες too.
Most verbs also have middle uses. And some compound verbs have a variety of more or less specialized applications, depending on the prefix and the syntax. The more attentively you read, the more accurately you’ll be able to understand. You’re off to a good start.
I agree with everything that has been said about the translations. I wouldn’t worry too much about M’s translations versus the vocabulary items but instead I would focus more on the use of participles in this example.
My reading of M. on page 219 is that the aorist active participle of ἵημι only exists for compounds of ἵημι. So we can have ἀφέντες, but not ἕντες. So I am a little concerned about mwh’s “more appropriate than plain ἕντες too.”
(Also, the original statement “αφεντες is the nom. pl. m/n pres. act. ppl of αφιημι” I believe should be “nom. pl. masc. aor. act. ppl.”)
katalogon quite rightly points out that the participle αφέντες is exclusively masculine and is aorist, not present as Asterisk took it to be (that would be αφιέντες, retaining the iota). As to uncompounded ἕντες, there is no objection to it in principle but as I intimated it would be unacceptably vague and it would not be in accordance with normal usage. ἵημι is a verb that likes to have a prepositional prefix to give it some specificity, especially in prose, and it has peculiarities that lie beyond the scope of this thread.
To all participants: I think I may have accidentally lost the post of one participant. In any case, I did review all replies, agreed with all the comments posted, and learned a lot. So, again, thanks to all.
Yes, I agree, the vocabulary entries are very limited, as they must be to keep the size of the book manageable. And of course you are right about the tense being the aorist and the gender being masc only.
OK, I get it. Thank you
Thank you Seneca for your reply.
Now then, I am not inferring that τὰ παρόντα means the same as τὸ παρόν, simply that τὸ παρόν, in my view, seemed a better translation for “what is at hand”, since it is prominently presented as meaning just that in the vocabulary of the textbook unit 27. But your explanation is enlightening as usual and I can appreciate what you’re saying, about neuter plural vs neuter singular. I will review the meanings of both words.
Precisely: M wants “let go” in the English answer, εφιημι would not have been good, but ἀφίημι is not good either it seems to me. Why not use “ιεντες” (from ιημι)which does mean “let go”? Νο? But again, I will review εφιημι and ἀφίημι in CGL
Thanks very much, your support is greatly appreciated.
To all participants: I think I may have accidentally lost the post of one participant. In any case, I did review all replies, agreed with all the comments posted, and learned a lot. So, again, thanks to all.
Yes, I agree, the vocabulary entries are very limited, as they must be to keep the size of the book manageable. And of course you are right about the tense being the aorist and the gender being masc only.
OK, I get it. Thank you
Thank you Seneca for your reply.
Now then, I am not inferring that τὰ παρόντα means the same as τὸ παρόν, simply that τὸ παρόν, in my view, seemed a better translation for “what is at hand”, since it is prominently presented as meaning just that in the vocabulary of the textbook unit 27. But your explanation is enlightening as usual and I can appreciate what you’re saying, about neuter plural vs neuter singular. I will review the meanings of both words.
Precisely: M wants “let go” in the English answer, εφιημι would not have been good, but ἀφίημι is not good either it seems to me. Why not use “ιεντες” (from ιημι)which does mean “let go”? Νο? But again, I will review εφιημι and ἀφίημι in CGL
Thanks very much, your support is greatly appreciated.
It wasn’t quite stated explicitly by any of your respondents, and I can’t quite tell from your response if you noticed it: παρόν isn’t a separate word. παρόν and παρόντα are both the neuter participle of πάρειμι. They are the same word, declined differently. One plural, one singular. They both mean “what is at hand.” One a singular thing at hand and one plural things at hand.
Precisely: M wants “let go” in the English answer, εφιημι would not have been good, but ἀφίημι is not good either it seems to me. Why not use “ιεντες” (from ιημι)which does mean “let go”? Νο? But again, I will review εφιημι and ἀφίημι in CGL
Putting aside the question of which verb is more appropriate (ἀφίημι or ἵημι) for “let go”, your suggestion above to use ἱέντες as the circumstancial participle would mean that you have changed the verbal aspect of the circumstancial participle from aorist-stem to present-stem.
Would that be ok in this case? How would the change in verbal aspect change the meaning? On page 230, Note on Idiom, M. has a bit of a discussion of this example, but I found it somewhat unclear.
I think your initial remarks about the meaning of ἀφίημι were not based on looking at usage as recorded in a lexicon which is why I suggested you look in one. I am sure you will find CGL helpful.
We all skated over the question of the tense of αφέντες, now picked up by katalogon. The present participle, (αφ)ιέντες, would have asserted that the two actions, the letting go of τα παρόντα and the pursuit of τα απόντα, are simultaneous: foolish folk while they’re releasing the bird in the hand go chasing after the bird in the bush. The aorist participle, (αφ)έντες, suggesting the two actions are sequential, is much more natural, much more in accordance with Greek habits of thought and expression. — And as should be clear from the earlier posts, it’s the αφ- compound that’s called for.
Boy! I’m getting a whole course in ancient Greek here! I will digest all that over the next few days while consulting the CGL, and I will get back in the thread if and when I have further questions or comments.
Meanwhile I really appreciate everybody’s participation and interest in my education, and I thank you all very much.
You can ignore Joel’s post (and this one), but if you want to pursue it see https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2016/06/21/aesop-fable-iv-the-hawk-and-the-nightingale/
and note the aorist participle (παρείς, from παρίημι) in the hawk’s «Ἀλλ’ ἔγωγε ἀπόπληκτος ἂν εἴην, εἰ τὴν ἐν χερσὶν ἑτοίμην βορὰν παρεὶς τὰ μηδέπω φαινόμενα διώκοιμι.» Cf. ἀφέντες in our Mastronarde sentence.