I need to write, “We believe the foreigner, although he is reporting many terrible things.”
I wrote, “τῷ βαρβάρῳ πείθόμεθα, καίπερ πολλα δείνα ἀγγέλλων.”
The answer book wrote, “τῷ βαρβάρῳ πειθόμεθα, καίπερ πολλὰ καὶ δεινὰ ἀγγέλλοντι..”
Two questions:
Is the καὶ necessary?
Why is ἀγγέλλοντι in the dative? I know πείθόμεθα takes a dative, but πείθόμεθα is in the first phrase, not the latter phrase.
- Is the καὶ necessary?
Greek abounds in connective particles where we have none in English. Think of all those μὲν…δέ.
Thanks for including a picture of the sentence because you have not accurately transcribed it. You need to be more careful. its “πολλὰ καὶ δεινὰ” not “πολλα δείνα καὶ”. Careful with your cutting and pasting!
- Why is ἀγγέλλοντι in the dative?
You wrote “ἀγγέλλων” which is nominative but what does that agree with in the first part of the sentence “τῷ βαρβάρῳ πείθόμεθα”? The foreigner is in the dative, so when you describe what the foreigner reported you have to connect it grammatically.
Circumstantial participles have to agree with the finite verb in a sentence if they are grammatically connected.
So in “We believe the foreigner, although he is reporting many terrible things.” the “foreigner” and “he” are the same individual and therefore are linked grammatically, ie have the same case. The foreigner is in the dative because it is required by the verb “We believe” so the “he is reporting” must agree with it and also be in the dative.
If you had the sentence “We believe the foreigner, although his friend is reporting many terrible things.” The “foreigner” and “his friend” are different people so the circumstantial participle does not agree grammatically. What case would you use for the circumstantial participle “his friend is reporting” ?
This is confusing. Usually I go phrase by phrase to figure out nominative, dative, accusative, & etc. I know that it is the foreigner in both phrases, but I thought that the foreigner was the subject in the second phrase, even if he was in the dative in the first. It seems like the second phrase has the foreigner (subject) reporting (verb) many terrible things (object) /shrug.
I thought that the foreigner was the subject in the second phrase, even if he was in the dative in the first.
The foreigner in the first clause is an indirect object and those who believe him are the subject. The second phrase is a circumstantial participle, it tells us further information about the foreigner. If we are to connect grammatically the foreigner in the first part of the sentence with the circumstantial participle in the second they have to agree with each other.
When you wrote “τῷ βαρβάρῳ πείθόμεθα, καίπερ … ἀγγέλλων.” we have no idea who is the subject of ἀγγέλλων. "ἀγγέλλων " doesnt agree with “τῷ βαρβάρῳ” so it can’t be the foreigner. Thats when we shrug! .
I know that it is the foreigner in both phrases, but I thought that the foreigner was the subject in the second phrase, even if he was in the dative in the first. It seems like the second phrase has the foreigner (subject) reporting (verb) many terrible things (object)
I think you are confused because you are looking at the English and trying to be literal and ignoring how the construction works in Greek.
If a circumstantial participle describes either a subject or an object in the first clause then it has to agree with it in number case and gender.
I am not sure I can add anything other than suggesting you re-read the section on p 227:
Circumstantial Participle. > In the other two main uses of the participle it is in predicate position, outside the article-noun group. In this position, > the participle asserts something additional about the noun it modifies and is therefore equivalent to a subordinate clause containing a finite-verb predicate. > The main predicative use of the participle is called circumstantial, because in modifying its noun the participle describes the circumstances under which that noun is involved in the action of the main verb of the sentence. > The circumstantial participle may agree with the subject, the direct or indirect object, the object of a preposition, or any other noun or pronoun expressed or implied in the sentence.
In English it is often more idiomatic to use a dependent clause (temporal, concessive, causal, conditional, etc.) or a prepositional phrase with a gerund (verbal noun in -ing) than to use a circumstantial participle, but Greek idiom often favors the circumstantial participle over an equivalent subordinate clause.
Did you try to answer my question at the end of the previous post?
Yes, I tried to answer your question from the previous post.
So now I am wondering if I have been translating wrong since page 1.
From page 1 to relative pronouns, I translated each phrase as subject, object, and verb.
Then relative pronouns told me to get the number and gender from the antecedent but case from the phrase that the relative pronoun is in.
Now do I look for subject and the main verb and see how many participles I have in between?
If yes, this is going to get tricky when I have more than 2 phrases (or clauses).
Dont despair, there is a lot to learn.
Simple sentences are tackled in the way you have indicated with subject object verb. Relative clauses work as you have described. Now you have a different way of expressing the connection between two actions.
Read carefully what M. says on p. 230:
“9. Note on Idiom. Except in simple styles or styles that affect such simplicity, Greek narrative texts tend not to coordinate a series of actions with καί but instead use a rhetorically more complex structure in which the connected actions are organized as one or more circumstantial participles (agreeing with the subject, or absolute, or both kinds) capped by a single finite verb for the ultimate or climactic action. This will be observed in future readings and applies also when there are only two actions. In Exercise I.8 below, for instance, the coordinated English expression “burned the tents and seized the horses” is more likely to be expressed τὰς σκηνὰς καύσαντες τοὺς ἵππους ἥρπασαν than τὰς σκηνὰς ἔκαυσαν καὶ τοὺς ἵππους ἥρπασαν. In Exercise II.5 below, τὰ παρόντα ἀφέντες τὰ ἀπόντα διώκουσιν is more usual than τὰ παρόντα ἀφιᾶσι καὶ τὰ ἀπόντα διώκουσιν, although it is legitimate to translate even the for- mer version into English with a coordinated expression (let go of . . . and pursue . . . ).”
You will come across this a great deal in reading Greek. It stands in great contrast to how we expresses ideas in English.
Yes, I tried to answer your question from the previous post.
And what was your answer?
At the time, I could not figure out how to apply a genitive absolute. It was after I wrote and posted the answer that I read the part again about genitive absolutes and saw that they can combine with other elements. I am going to have to read MWH’s answer again at another thread, Unit 29, Exercise 8. He wrote it this morning,. I read it once and will read it again in order to digest it.
Thanks for telling me not to despair. At least I know now that it was OK to translate phrase by phrase up to a point.
Note: I corrected the transcription of the answer book.
καιπερ and περ are a little special, as they do not introduce a new finite verb, and so preserve the subject of the previous section.
καιπερ and περ are particles that accompany participles. From that point of view there is nothing at all special about them. It’s only in English translation that they may seem special, but we shouldn’t confuse English with Greek. Participles are participles, regardless of how we translate them. I refer back to what I wrote on Ex.8.
There are some words that introduce new finite verbs and others that are just adverbial to the participles. If you look at Lukas’s first attempt, you’ll see that he is treating καιπερ like a και or καιτοι, introducing a new clause unconnected grammatically to the original verb (as if it had its own finite verb). Yes, that’s not “special” to you, but it is “special” to someone who is seeing this for the first time.
The point is that there’s nothing special about καίπερ in Greek. I repeat part of what I wrote on Ex.8, distinguishing between participles and subordinate clauses.
The force of a participle (as conditional, concessive, causal, temporal, or merely circumstantial) is not built in to the participle. It depends on the reader’s understanding of the context. But introductory particles (e.g. καίπερ), grammatically optional, sometimes help to narrow it down, as in your ex.9 sentence.
In addition to participles, there are subordinate clauses, introduced by conjunctions such as επει, εἰ, ὄτε etc.—like English “although,” “while,” etc. These have finite verbs, just like main clauses. But where English uses subordinate clauses, Greek often uses a participle instead. “Although he is reporting many things” may be expressed > either > by a subordinate clause (ει και πολλα αγγελλει) > or > by a participle with or without καίπερ. If the latter, the form of the participle (nom., gen., whatever) depends on its relation to the verb of the main sentence.
Lukas, I’ll now pass you back into seneca’s good hands, and hope neither jeidsath nor I will intervene further. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
πολλῶν ὄντων μαγείρων ὁ ζωμὸς διαφθαρήσεται… 
Sorry, couldn’t resist…