I have a passage to read. It is adapted from Herodotus’s Histores 2.20 - 2.25. I think I will have a number of questions from it, so I will start with pasting the text and then ask questions as I go along:
I already have questions from the first phrase, “ἀλλ’ Ἑλλήνων μέν τινες,.”
Is it legal for μέν to come between a noun and its enclitic? How far can an enclitic be from its noun? Should τινες have an accent on the last syllable? Is it legal to translate this with an English definite article: “Some of the Greeks”?
Is σοφία an internal accusative?
I am having a lot of trouble translating the phrase, "ὧν τὰς μὲν δύο οὐκ ἄξιον εἰπεῖν εἰ μὴ διὰ
βραχέων. τὰς is an accusative plural definite article, but I cannot find a noun that it is modifying. Is it an articular infinitive and modifying εἰπεῖν?
I can’t quote you chapter and verse, but I can tell you it’s not at all unusual to have μέν in that position, although here μἐν may actually have the sense of ἀλλά… μἠν (“but yet”) There is no need for an accent on τινες, because it is indeed an enclitic. Remember, there is τις and then there is τίς. Also note that there is no definite article with Ἑλλήνων, so how would that affect your translation of ‘ἀλλ’ Ἑλλήνων μέν τινες’ ?
I believe this is an accusative of respect. ‘ἐπίσημοι … σοφίαν’ Another famous example of the accusative of respect is 'πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς
This is a somewhat compressed clause and has been adapted from the original.
ὧν τὰς is referring to a word in the preceding clause-can you find it? I think εἰπεῖν is being used as an explanatory infinitive limiting ἄξιον, here in the sense of “it’s not worth mentioning”.
Dr. Mastronard’es book states, "b. A word accented with an acute on P is unchanged in accent before an enclitic. But
a disyllabic enclitic following such a word receives an accent on its second syllable,
usually an acute (in isolation or before punctuation) or a grave . . .
Since Ἑλλήνων has an accent on the penult, shouldn’t τινες have an accent on the second syllable?
For the phrase, “'ἀλλ’ Ἑλλήνων μέν τινες,” would I translate it, “but some of Greeks”?
I am having a lot of trouble translating the phrase, "ὧν τὰς μὲν δύο οὐκ ἄξιον εἰπεῖν εἰ μὴ διὰ
βραχέων. τὰς is an accusative plural definite article, but I cannot find a noun that it is modifying. Is it an articular infinitive and modifying εἰπεῖν?
This is a somewhat compressed clause and has been adapted from the original.
ὧν τὰς is referring to a word in the preceding clause-can you find it? I think εἰπεῖν is being used as an explanatory infinitive limiting ἄξιον, here in the sense of “it’s not worth mentioning”.
Got it in one! Yes, ὁδούς is the antecedent. Now have you figured out what kind of ὁδός Herodotus is talking about?
Sorry, I didn’t scroll up! As to the enclitic, In this sentence, τινες is following μέν, not Ἑλλήνων, so I don’t think the rule applies here.
Again, sorry I’m out of sequence, but:
“For the phrase, “'ἀλλ’ Ἑλλήνων μέν τινες,” would I translate it, “but some of Greeks”?” Literally, yes, but in English we would simply say “But some Greeks…”, even though in Greek it’s done with an indefinite pronoun and a partitive genitive.
I was not understanding that an enclitic could lean on a particle.
Definite articles can be frustrating, as they can refer to an unwritten “things” or "person(s), or they can modify a noun, or they can begin an articular infinitive phrase.
I am also having trouble with the phrase, “τούτων ἡ ἑτέρα μὲν τοὺς ἐτησίας ἀνέμους φησὶν εἶναι αἰτίους τοῦ
πληθύειν τὸν ποταμόν.”
Does ἡ ἑτέρα also refer back to the singular of ὁδούς, “of each explanation”?
I was also wondering if “τοῦ πληθύειν” is an articular infinitive? So far, I am translating the phrase like this,
" Of these, the each of one explanation, these North-to-South winds saying that to be responsible (for) the river of being full."
For the phrase in parentheses, ((κωλύειν γὰρ τοὺς ἀνέμους εἰς θάλατταν ἐκρεῖν τὸν Νεῖλον), I have,
“for the winds are preventing the flowing of the Nile to the sea.”
ἕτερος, ἑτέρα, ἕτερον --------------------- one of two, the other of two
ἑκάτερος, ἑκατέρα, ἑκάτερον --------------------- each (of two)
ἕκαστος, ἑκάστη, ἕκαστον -------------------------each (of more than two)
Yes “τοῦ πληθύειν” is an articular infinitive.
Do try in your translations to produce English that makes sense. " the each of one explanation" doesnt mean anything, this must give you a clue that your literal attempt is not right? (incidentally “these North-to-South winds saying that to be responsible (for) the river of being full.” also makes no sense)
I can see that you are trying to crawl through the text crab wise attempting to translate as you go. This is not the best approach. With a text as rhetorical as this you have to first understand how it is structured. I have often in the past counselled that you should not translate as a first step but only as a last step. The first step is just to understand what you can about the syntax and leave the English meaning to one side.
So we have three explanations, two are not worthy of being described except briefly of these one is… the second is… The third is…
If you start off with something wrong as in your understanding of ἑτέρα you are going to find the rest very hard. Trying to understand a text in a more general way before committing yourself to a specific translation makes life a little easier.
Hi Lukas,
As always, Seneca has given you some very good advice and an excellent answer. Dr. Mastronarde has also written a brief guide to reading continuous text, which is available on his website: http://atticgreek.org/downloads/Transitioning.pdf
A couple questions I should have asked yesterday about the phrase, “τούτων ἡ ἑτέρα μὲν τοὺς ἐτησίας ἀνέμους φησὶν εἶναι αἰτίους τοῦ πληθύειν τὸν ποταμόν.”
It looks to me like “φησὶν εἶναι αἰτίους τοῦ πληθύειν τὸν ποταμόν” is indirect discourse. If it is, I am having trouble because there are two infinitives in this phrase plus two infinitives in the phrase in parentheses right after. I am guessing that I should treat the phrase in parentheses as a separate phrase.
That leaves me to think that πληθύειν is normally the infinitive that I would translate as a finite verb in English, but an articular infinitive is translated as a gerund; therefore, I do not understand if I should translate it as a gerund or as a finite verb.
I also wanted to ask about the phrase in the parentheses. Is that a phrase that is called a “Parenthesis,” a phrase that explains the main phrase or is a side-comment?
It looks to me like “φησὶν εἶναι αἰτίους τοῦ πληθύειν τὸν ποταμόν” is indirect discourse.
We do have indirect discourse but where does it begin?
τούτων ἡ ἑτέρα μὲν τοὺς ἐτησίας ἀνέμουςφησὶνεἶναι αἰτίους τοῦ πληθύειν τὸν ποταμόν. Can you work out what the sentence would be in direct discourse from this hint.
τοῦ πληθύειν is in the genitive because it is governed by αἰτίους. I dont understand your difficulty here. You can’t translate it literally word for word here and expect it to make sense. You have to understand the Greek and then express it as best as you can in English. (Maybe you should revise the articular infinitive on p. 79) Edit: you need to take “αἰτίους τοῦ πληθύειν τὸν ποταμόν” together and translate “αἰτίους” as something like "responsible for {the fact that}.
I am guessing that I should treat the phrase in parentheses as a separate phrase.
it is still in indirect speech. You have to read φησὶν (or something like it) with “κωλύειν γὰρ τοὺς ἀνέμους εἰς θάλατταν ἐκρεῖν τὸν Νεῖλον.”
I also wanted to ask about the phrase in the parentheses. Is that a phrase that is called a “Parenthesis,” a phrase that explains the main phrase or is a side-comment?
I am asking if an articular infinitive within an indirect phrase should still be translated as a finite verb or with an “ing” that page 79 mentions. I am trying to figure out if τὸν ποταμόν is the last verb in the phrase that I should translate as f finite verb without the article?
τὸν ποταμόν Is not a verb. An articular infinitive remains an articular infinitive even if it is in indirect discourse. I am not sure I understand fully what you are getting at.
Edit: τὸν ποταμόν is the subject of “τοῦ πληθύειν”. It has its own accusative and infinitive construction.
φησὶν introduces the indirect discourse and τοὺς ἐτησίας ἀνέμους εἶναι αἰτίους τοῦ πληθύειν τὸν ποταμόν is an accusative and infinitive construction. αἰτίους τοῦ πληθύειν τὸν ποταμόν is an articular infinitive construction within the accusative and infinitive. τοῦ πληθύειν is in the genitive because it is governed by αἰτίους (which agrees with τοὺς ἐτησίας ἀνέμους) and αἴτιος takes the genitive. τὸν ποταμόν is the subject of the articular infinitive and is in the accusative case.
I think it is an indirect discourse. ἣ is a pronoun referring to one of the explanations. ἀπὸ τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ is a prepositional phrase. φησ is “saying.” ῥεῖν is an infinitive which is the verb of the indirect discourse, the verb that I would translate as a finite verb in English. I also believe that it is acting as a neuter subject. αὐτό would be an intensifier such as “the river itself.” However, “αὐτό” has more than one use, so I am uncertain of my explanation of it.
I wonder if you really understand indirect statements.
Direct statement:
it (the Nile) flows from the Ocean
ἀπὸ τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ ῥεῖ
Edit (I have deleted αὐτός as this is only used in oblique cases)
Indirect statement:
He says that it (the Nile) flows from the Ocean
φησι ἀπὸ τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ ῥεῖν αὐτόν
so ῥεῖ (3rd person verb plus subject ) ------------->
ῥεῖν αὐτόν (infinitive plus subject αὐτόν (accusative of αὐτός)
See p. 167 “In this construction the subject–finite verb unit of the direct form is converted into an infinitive phrase with the subject either unexpressed or else expressed in the accusative case.”