"[That] Aristophanes said, “And indeed, O Eryximachus, I intend [have in mind] to speak in a different vain than in which both you and Pausanias spoke. For it seems to me that men [men seem to me to] have altogether not perceived the power of love [Eros], since if they [at any rate] did perceive him, they’d have built very great temples of him and altars, and would make very great sacrifices [to him], not as now [when] none of these things happens in respect to him, even though of all things they need especially to happen.”
Am I right in assuming that the present tense of a participle, being (usually) imperfective in aspect, represents what would normally be an imperfect indicative protasis of a contrary-to-fact conditional, seeing as there is no imperfect participle? And on that same basis, does the present infinitive of the apodosis also stand in for what would normally be the imperfect indicative of a present contrary-to-fact conditional? The aorist participle and infinitive would seem to naturally replace an aorist indicative finite verb, but I’m less sure about the imperfect indicative.
Any corrections and/or comments on the rest of my translation would also be appreciated. I tried to make it as literal as possible, so I realize it sounds rather stilted. My aim was to represent the grammar of the Greek as faithfully as possible in English, for the sake of my own understanding, rather than to make an elegant translation.
I can’t comment on the conditionals (it sure seems to be your way), but I think, looking in LSJ, that κατασκευάζω & ποιῶ here take double accusative:
make/render his temples and altars the grandest, and make his sacrifices the greatest.
perhaps that is why the superlative is used here: to show that had human-beings
truly perceived the extent of Eros’ power, they would have honored him the most.
I think that you are correct. The phrase “οὐχ ὥσπερ νῦν γίγνεται” shows clearly that the condition is the unreal. The protasis is equal to “εἴ γε ἤισθοντο”, and the apodosis’, two in number, are equal to “(ἐπεὶ) μέγιστ’ ἂν αὐτού ἱερὰ κατεσκεύασαν καὶ βωμούς, καὶ θυσίας ἂν ἐποίουν μεγίστας”. Smyth describes that sometimes the imperfect refers to past (see in H.W.Smyth 2302-2310). But in my opinion, the aorist with ἂν here could denote that the building of temples and altars is prior, and somehow the cause, while the sacrifice making posterior, somehow again a consequence (see the comma before καὶ, if you agree with this punctuation). See for example in Smyth 2874.
I agree that the object is generally definite and the predicate indefinite (Smyth §1614). just thought that within this context it sounded more powerful as double acc.;it seems I was wrong.
Belated thanks for everyone’s help. I may post some other passages from the Symposion that I’m having a little difficulty with soon. Should I just continue in this thread or start a new one?