I got through book four of the Anabasis and want to try some lighter stuff before moving on to the Campbell readers. This is from Dialogi Mortuorm X, which I chose because of I have some supporting materials. The help they offer leaves me with some puzzles. I have three questions, but I will ask the most vexing one first.
τραπῇ
The intermediate reader by Hayes and Nimis (2015) calls this an aorist subjunctive and glosses it “if you turn.” Second person singular active? That seems to clash with the second person plural forms in the rest of this sentence. I guess “you” might be in the sense of “one,” but is that common usage in Greek? And wouldn’t the form be τράπῃς?
A library book I picked up, Manuel Pratique de Grec Ancien by Jean Humbert (1962), explains τραπῇ
as third singular of the aorist subjunctive middle. Wouldn’t that be τράπηται?
Finally, it looks to me like τραπῇ (with that accentuation) can only be the third person singular of the passive.
ἐτράπην is the 2nd aorist passive of τρέπω, and from it, I believe that τραπῇ would be the aor. pass. subj. 3rd person singular. The LSJ article seems to indicate that the passive and middle get used with what we would probably call an active meaning in English, “turn one’s steps, turn in a certain direction.”
Charon is describing his ferry-boat, which is in bad shape. The verbs are all 3rd person. He says it’s small, rotting and very leaky, and if it turns the wrong way it’ll capsize.
ἢν τραπῇ lit. if it’s turned (ἢν = εαν, of course). Nimis’s “If you turn” is a loose but acceptable translation in context though possibly misleading for an outright beginner.
οἰχήσεται περιτραπέν it’ll end up capsized, turned upside down, again aor.pass.
Thanks again mwh. I did understand the sentence perfectly well; it was just that I couldn’t make out the morphology, or was confused by the different explanations in the books.
Here’s another puzzle, though one that worried me less. ὑποσαθρός is explained as ‘kind of rotten,’ and I understand that ὑπο- as a prefix can add that ‘kind of’ meaning. But I see that σαθρός means ‘unsound, cracked.’ LSJ and other dictionaries agree on the ‘rottenish’ definition for ὑποσαθρός, but they all cite exactly this line from Lucian. How did they arrive at that meaning?
That’s funny. It struck me a bit differently at several points, though I wouldn’t argue one way or the other. I await mwh’s fury.
Hear how matters stand with us: As you can see, our raft is tiny, and it is rotten beneath, and it is swamped by every wave, and should it rock to one side, it will overturn and be lost.
Zembel, Not quite sure what your question is here. σαθρός means rotten, often of decayed or unsound things. Decomposing corpses, for example, distressingly much in the news lately.
ὑπο- is a prefix that often softens a verb or adjective—“ish” or “kind of” can be a good equivalent. Such words are readily coined and very common, and typical of Lucian.
ὑπο- can also connote secrecy or sneakiness, but obviously not here. Its basic meaning of course is “under,” and that gives rise to the others.
[Joel’s “it will overturn and be lost” is good (I was drawing attention to the echoing τραπῇ … περιτραπέν aor.passives), the rest rather less so.]
I always try to ask clearly, but this time I failed somehow. What was confusing me is that I couldm’t see σαθρός defined as ‘rotten’, only as ‘unsound’ or ‘cracked’ or even ‘impotent’. I was looking at LSJ. I should have looked beyond the English, to see ‘morsch’ and ‘pourri’ and even ‘гнилой’.
I already knew about prefixal ὑπο- with meanings of ‘sneaky’ and ‘somewhat’. It’s fascinating to me that Russian под, which is primarily ‘under’, has exactly these meanings in its prefixal uses.
I seldom think about how to translate texts, although sometimes a translation helps me locate a mistake in my understanding. After all, there will always be multiple ways to translate anything beyond the most elementary sentences. I just want to understand the Greek as it was written, or as close as I can since I don’t belong to that time or culture.
Yes, no need to translate if one understands just what it means! I think the moral is to look at the context rather than going by one-word definitions (which are largely context-dependent, of course, and only approximations). We can see σαθρός is opposed to ὑγιής. The σαθρός entry in the Middle Liddell does well to start with “rotten, decayed”; hence “somewhat rotten” for the ὑπο- compound. rightly (not “rotten beneath”). It’s a word which there’s really no need to look up.
υπο does mean “somewhat” in composition, but why not σαθρόν in that case? He’s not trying to understate anything or speak ironically. In reference a wooden boat, the connotation of rot hidden or admixed just below the surface seemed more reasonable to me.
It’s just Lucian’s way. I suggest you take a look at all the other ὑπο- compounds in Lucian. You are over-interpreting the prefix, which in such compounds does not mean “beneath.” You can’t go by local context alone, you have to take into account how such compounds are characteristically used.
And I thought you said you weren’t going to argue!
I thought that I was clearly taking it as “concealed”, not “beneath.” But if Lucian really doesn’t ever use υπο to mean hidden in compounds of adjectives that have no clear sense of extent, I’ll take your word for it until I get the chance to read him in quantity.
Можете торжествовать – без знания греческого нет образования.
Л.Н. Толстой в письме к А.Фету
“You can celebrate – without the knowledge of Greek there is no education.”
Letter from L.. N. Tolstoy to A. Fet (or Foeth), a major Russian poet who was steeped in the Classics and translated Horace and the Aeneid, in particular.
(@Zembel, my wife still remembers the story of how Tolstoy took up Greek late in life and learned it fairly well, despite his wife’s early forecast that he would give it up like his other enthusiasms, saying “remember the bee-keeping!”)
I wonder if there had been some kind of bet, and Tolstoy’s letter was informing Fet that he’d won. Here’s the complete quotation:
Л.Н. Толстой в письме к А.Фету, сравнивая язык переводов Гомера и подлинника, так отозвался о древнегреческом языке и его значении для образования: «Пошлое, но невольное сравнение – отварная и дистиллированная теплая вода и вода из ключа, ломящая зубы – с блеском и солнцем, и даже со щепками и соринками, от которых она еще чище и свежее. Можете торжествовать – без знания греческого нет образования».
(Толстой Л.Н. Собрание сочинений в 22-х томах. – М., 1984. Т. 17 –18. – С. 693 – 694).
Л.Н. Толстой в письме к А.Фету, сравнивая язык переводов Гомера и подлинника, так отозвался о древнегреческом языке и его значении для образования: «Пошлое, но невольное сравнение – отварная и дистиллированная теплая вода и вода из ключа, ломящая зубы – с блеском и солнцем, и даже со щепками и соринками, от которых она еще чище и свежее. Можете торжествовать – без знания греческого нет образования».
Tolstoy in a letter to Fet, comparing the language of translations of Homer with the original, pronounced as follows on the ancient Greek language and its significance for education: “A trite comparison but one that can’t be helped [literally, ‘involuntary’]: boiled and distilled warm water and water straight from a spring, tingling [literally ‘breaking’] the teeth with sparkle and sun, and even with splinters and vegetation, from which it’s still purer and fresher. You can triumphantly celebrate – without knowledge of Greek there’s no education.”
Tolstoy’s relationship with his wife was, well, complicated.
