Page 2 of 2

Re: Help for a translation

Posted: June 17th, 2019, 9:53 am
by Barry Hofstetter
Jason Hare wrote:
June 17th, 2019, 9:46 am
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
June 17th, 2019, 9:38 am
I would render something like "Child, we are under great obligation to our parents even for you to be mindful that the one who sins against his parents sins twice."
I took both χάριν and ενθυμεῖσθαι as objects of ὀφείλομεν. That is, we owe our parents thanks and we also owe them to look after you.
Right, the difference is that I took σέ as the subject of the infinitive rather than the object, which I thought made better sense out of the ὅτι clause, but I'm also annoyed at having to exegete this sentence, since I'm getting older and grumpier. Your reading is also possible, and I think preferable.

Re: Help for a translation

Posted: June 17th, 2019, 9:55 am
by Jason Hare
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
June 17th, 2019, 9:53 am
Right, the difference is that I took σέ as the subject of the infinitive rather than the object, which I think makes better sense out of the ὅτι clause, but I'm also annoyed at having to exegete this sentence, since I'm getting older and grumpier. Your reading is also possible.
I'm about to hit forty (in six months), and I can feel your pain. LOL

Re: Help for a translation

Posted: June 17th, 2019, 11:05 am
by Daniel Semler
I was thinking about this one and I wondered if σε argues against such a translation where were υμας it might be support that translation. The reason I was thinking so, is that it seems odd to switch from the plural ομεν to the singular σε if one is still discussing the debt "we" owe rather than moving on to the admonition "to be mindful" that ....

I grant that this isn't especially strong an argument perhaps and that absent more context for the fragment a firm conclusion is likely impossible but ... any thoughts on/reactions to this ?

Thx
D

Re: Help for a translation

Posted: June 17th, 2019, 11:17 am
by Jason Hare
Peng Huiguo wrote:
June 17th, 2019, 9:44 am
I have notified a mod regarding my name long before. twice. I was wondering why it remains.
All fixed. :)

Re: Help for a translation

Posted: June 17th, 2019, 11:57 am
by Peng Huiguo
I concede to the χαρὶν ὀφείλειν point as well now, but Barry, surely I wasn't mostly wrong? I mean you and I came almost to the same translation. I try to steer away from interpreting every unfamiliar text like it's scripture though. Btw possibly to add to your irk, I don't think deponents exist :-p

And Daniel, the writer could mean he himself was already mindful of the latter principle and just needed to remind the child of it.

Re: Help for a translation

Posted: June 17th, 2019, 5:18 pm
by Barry Hofstetter
Peng Huiguo wrote:
June 17th, 2019, 11:57 am
I concede to the χαρὶν ὀφείλειν point as well now, but Barry, surely I wasn't mostly wrong? I mean you and I came almost to the same translation. I try to steer away from interpreting every unfamiliar text like it's scripture though. Btw possibly to add to your irk, I don't think deponents exist :-p

And Daniel, the writer could mean he himself was already mindful of the latter principle and just needed to remind the child of it.
I didn't measure the percentage of wrongness. Perhaps it was less than my subjective impression. Yes, we don't have deponents in the 21st century. We have words marked for self-affectedness that don't have an agent and often have an accusative direct object or the equivalent. But that's a lot to write, so old-fashioned me, on the duck principle, still calls them deponents.