ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Discussion of Greek texts that do not fall into the other categories, including texts in other dialects or texts from other periods.
Forum rules
This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Wes Wood wrote:Ah. Mayhaps I understand you now. I haven't considered how the initial action of a perfect might relate to other...*gulp*...tenses :?: in a sentence. Am I on the right track?
The term tense is a like a "manoeuvre" in driving such as parking nose-first at a shopping centre, or a three-point u-turn. There are a generally recognised set of component actions that most drivers will follow in most instances. Turning the wheel or engaging a forward or reverse gear. (In some older streets, or places where there is some obstacle, the things we do might need to be modified a little.) While it might be theoretically possible to combine all manner of movements of the steering wheel with uses of the accelerator, clutch and break, they will probably not result in getting the vehicle to a desired location intact. Saying the name of a tense, is a shorthand way of saying the steps to get through a driving-manoeuvre.

On to your point... Yes, tenses do not work in isolation. Syntax is much harder than accidence.

Saying "the perfect" in Greek is something I'm never really comfortable with. There seem to be a number of different perfects. I mean to say here that this perfect seems to be one like the one used for stand or wear. I dream of searching LSJ for the entries of verbs where the perfect has it's own sense, i.e. a different English definition, but haven't quite worked out how to do that yet. The TLG site that Stephen Carlson mentioned seems to have a search capability to do that perhaps. I already have my impressions but have not yet climbed up the mountain to see my impressions in hind-sight from a better vantage point.
Wes Wood wrote:I believe I remember reading something a greek grammarian wrote about students of greek who begin to read the aspect of the greek perfect into the English perfect. This exchange has stirred that memory.
Cross-linguistic interference is a two-way street.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Sorry, I wasn't clear in one point.

κεκτημένοις is the verb which is said was significant in respect if its perfect aspect. Think about when the aquisition took place... The acquisition took place before the possible selling.

If it helps further then think about it in terms of clothing or standing. I can't type Greek because I'm on the phone, but oi gar mh kaqezomenoi alla esthkomenoi has more of the sense of continue to stand because the action of standing up took place before the time that others sold (hypothetically).
I hesitate to interject myself into this discussion and am somewhat fearful of not being very helpful with this comment, but it helped me once to read (sorry, I don't remember where) that verbs such as κτᾶσθαι, ἱστάναι/ἵστασθαι,ἐνδύειν/ἐνδύεσθαι might be understood in terms of the Aristotelian notion of "entelechy": the present tense refers to the process, the perfect tense to the fulfillment or completion of the process, when, as Aristotle puts it, the process ἔσχε τὸ τέλος. ἵστασθαι is "getting on one's feet" or "coming to a halt" while ἑστηκέναι is "be standing" or "be at a standstill"; κτᾶσθαι is "procure" or "acquire" while κεκτῆσθαι is "own" or "hold as property."
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Something about the sitting and (still / continue) standing
Chapter 1, section 11 wrote:ἀποδιδομένοις μὲν οἱ αὐλοὶ χρήματα, μὴ ἀποδιδομένοις δὲ ἀλλὰ κεκτημένοις οὔ
Stephen Hughes wrote:κεκτημένοις is the verb which is said was significant in respect if its perfect aspect. Think about when the aquisition took place... The acquisition took place before the possible selling.

If it helps further then think about it in terms of clothing or standing. ... oi gar mh kaqezomenoi alla esthkomenoi has more of the sense of continue to stand because the action of standing up took place before the time that others sold (hypothetically).
I'm sorry, I had the voice wrong in the Greek there. For the sake of an example just of this type of passive, it would better to put them into the dative too, I think.

Here is a similar composition using his reasoning and based on the idea of sitting on a chair...
Stephen Hughes wrote:καθεζομένοις μὲν αἱ καθέδρα χρήματά ἐστι, μὴ καθεζομένοις δὲ ἀλλὰ ἑστηκόσι οὔ
(I'm suspicious of the number of ἐστι in my composition).

That sort of sums up what I was trying to say about this type of perfect.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Chapter 1, section 12 - Observations and talk through (pre-hints)
Rather than throw you in at the deep end again, let's first chat about what guidance might be needed in this section, and then throw ....
Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, Section 12 wrote:πρὸς ταῦτα δ᾽ ὁ Σωκράτης εἶπεν: ἂν ἐπίστηταί γε πωλεῖν. εἰ δὲ πωλοίη αὖ πρὸς τοῦτο ᾧ μὴ ἐπίσταιτο χρῆσθαι, οὐδὲ πωλούμενοί εἰσι χρήματα κατά γε τὸν σὸν λόγον. λέγειν ἔοικας, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸ ἀργύριόν ἐστι χρήματα, εἰ μή τις ἐπίσταιτο χρῆσθαι αὐτῷ.
  • This is another snippet of the dialogue, and there are two speakers. The optatives are always a good thing to bring up in conjunction with the fact that it is a dialogue. Do you know what mood Socrates would have used in his speech before he was changed into indirect speech?
  • The position of αὖ could do with an explanation (as could its meaning).
  • The meaning of πολεῖν something πρός something will probably need to be explained. It may be beneficial to note difference between πολεῖν something (+gen. - the measure of price) and πολεῖν something πρός (+acc.) reducing sale for coinage into a barter system of exchanging one thing for another, or then again it might not... Up to you.
  • Some people might be benefited by the suggestion to consider the οὐ and δὲ separately in both instances of οὐδὲ.
  • I suspect that most readers will substantivise (reify / objectivise) the πωλούμενοί, rather than take it verbally - as you would take the participle with any other verb (if I've lost you I mean that the action of the present participle happens at the same time as the finite verb, and you could explain how that works here).
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Chapter 1, section 13 - Observations and talk through (pre-hints)
Be careful of the prepositions here.
Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, Section 13 wrote: καὶ σὺ δέ μοι δοκεῖς οὕτω συνομολογεῖν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν τις ὠφελεῖσθαι δύναται, χρήματα εἶναι. εἰ γοῦν τις χρῷτο τῷ ἀργυρίῳ ὥστε πριάμενος οἷον ἑταίραν διὰ ταύτην κάκιον μὲν τὸ σῶμα ἔχοι, κάκιον δὲ τὴν ψυχήν, κάκιον δὲ τὸν οἶκον, πῶς ἂν ἔτι τὸ ἀργύριον αὐτῷ ὠφέλιμον εἴη; οὐδαμῶς, εἰ μή πέρ γε καὶ τὸν ὑοσκύαμον καλούμενον χρήματα εἶναι φήσομεν, ὑφ᾽ οὗ οἱ φαγόντες παραπλῆγες γίγνονται.
  • ὠφελεῖσθαι ἀπό (+gen.) could be explained because some people might be expecting an ὑπό (+gen.) or a dative. Before you fall into a possible conjecture, you, yourself could look ahead to section 14, where people are expressed in the same way.
  • You may need to explain the implied demonstrative here. Bringing out the idea case to ἀφ᾽ ὧν is another way of explaining this syntactic structure
    ἑταίρα - could receive comment both as a euphemism and in terms of how the nature of the financial transaction.
  • ὑοσκύαμον also needs to be looked at.
  • παραπλήξ needs to be looked at a bit too.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes »

βραχεία παρατήρησις περὶ τοῦ <<ταὐτὰ ... ὄντα ... αὐτῶν ἑκάστοις>>

ἐπίτρεψόν μοι σχολιάζειν ὀλίγως εἰς τὸ <<ταὐτὰ ... ὄντα ... αὐτῶν ἑκάστοις>>.
ὁ τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος Οἰκονομικὸς α΄.ι΄ (τὸ πρῶτον μέρος) ἔγραψε: wrote: ταὐτὰ ἄρα ὄντα τῷ μὲν ἐπισταμένῳ χρῆσθαι αὐτῶν ἑκάστοις χρήματά ἐστι, τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐπισταμένῳ οὐ χρήματα:
Ἐν τῇ Καινῇ Διαθήκῃ γοῦν ἀκριβοῦς οὐ τυγχάνομεν συντακτικοῦ παραλληλισμοῦ, ὅμως Ἰάκωβος γ΄,β΄ μὲν ἔχει τὸ <<Ἰδού, καὶ τὰ πλοῖα, τηλικαῦτα ὄντα, καὶ ὑπὸ σκληρῶν ἀνέμων ἐλαυνόμενα, κ.τ.λ.>>. τοῦ στίχου μὴ μὴν τὸ ἕκαστος ἔχοντος, ὁμολογητέον ἀτελὴ εἶναι τὸν παραλληλισμόν.

διὸ παραδειγματίζωμεν μέντοι καὶ ἄλλον στίχον, ὅς ἔχει τὸ ἕκαστος, δηλ. Λούκας δ΄,μ΄ <<Δύνοντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου, πάντες ὅσοι εἶχον ἀσθενοῦντας νόσοις ποικίλαις ἤγαγον αὐτοὺς πρὸς αὐτόν· ὁ δὲ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιθεὶς ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτούς.>> ὅπου εὐρισκομεν τὸ <<ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν>> τε καὶ τὸ <<πάντες ὅσοι>>, ὅ δοκεῖ μοι σχεδόν νόημα ἔχειν ὁμοῖον τῷ <<ταὐτὰ ... ὄντα>>. αὐτά λοῖπον.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Wes Wood
Posts: 693
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Wes Wood »

Chapter 1, section 12 Translation and Response

πρὸς ταῦτα δ᾽ ὁ Σωκράτης εἶπεν: ἂν ἐπίστηταί γε πωλεῖν. εἰ δὲ πωλοίη αὖ πρὸς τοῦτο ᾧ μὴ ἐπίσταιτο χρῆσθαι, οὐδὲ πωλούμενοί εἰσι χρήματα κατά γε τὸν σὸν λόγον. λέγειν ἔοικας, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸ ἀργύριόν ἐστι χρήματα, εἰ μή τις ἐπίσταιτο χρῆσθαι αὐτῷ.

But to these things Socrates said, “If indeed he is able to sell it. But if, on the other hand, he sells for this which he does not know how to use, neither are the things which are sold wealth according indeed to your word."

“You seem to be saying, O Socrates, that not even silver is wealth, if a person does not know how to use it."

Many of the things you have pointed out are what I am uncertain about myself, most especially concerning the text in red. Please, don't help me here, yet. I will respond tomorrow. Knock on "Wood" :roll:
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ
Wes Wood
Posts: 693
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Wes Wood »

Stephen Hughes wrote:This is another snippet of the dialogue, and there are two speakers. The optatives are always a good thing to bring up in conjunction with the fact that it is a dialogue. Do you know what mood Socrates would have used in his speech before he was changed into indirect speech?
If you would, please help me through any misunderstandings that I may have about this point. Since this is indirect discourse following a secondary tense, the optative might represent the indicative or the subjunctive. However, since Xenophon favors the indirect discourse (Smyth 2613), it seems to me that the subjunctive “ἐπίστηταί” reflects the mood of the original utterance and the optatives (πωλοίη and ἐπίσταιτο) reflect the present indicative. However, I am unsure why that part would change when this (πωλούμενοί εἰσι) does not. Unless it is to keep the relationship between the participle and the verb. Obviously, the bowels of my ignorance are bursting forth here.
Stephen Hughes wrote:The position of αὖ could do with an explanation (as could its meaning).
αὖ is a postpositive. When coupled with δὲ it makes a stronger contrast. It could be translated here as “on the other hand.”
Stephen Hughes wrote:The meaning of πολεῖν something πρός something will probably need to be explained. It may be beneficial to note difference between πολεῖν something (+gen. - the measure of price) and πολεῖν something πρός (+acc.) reducing sale for coinage into a barter system of exchanging one thing for another, or then again it might not... Up to you.
I am definitely going to have to look at this. I had no clue how to take this, but have run out of time tonight to dig into it. I shall return to this a.s.a.p. (Hopefully, late tomorrow night after the festivities.) Thanks for your preemptive suggestions here.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Some people might be benefited by the suggestion to consider the οὐ and δὲ separately in both instances of οὐδὲ.
Would it be better to discuss the second οὐδέ in terms of the structure οὐδέ... εἰ?
Stephen Hughes wrote:I suspect that most readers will substantivise (reify / objectivise) the πωλούμενοί, rather than take it verbally - as you would take the participle with any other verb (if I've lost you I mean that the action of the present participle happens at the same time as the finite verb, and you could explain how that works here).
Is this better? “neither are the things wealth when they are sold...” I should have considered my options more carefully here. I was troubled by the lack of the article.
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Even given the differences in time-zones, I think I've waited long enough to be able to answer your points here.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:This is another snippet of the dialogue, and there are two speakers. The optatives are always a good thing to bring up in conjunction with the fact that it is a dialogue. Do you know what mood Socrates would have used in his speech before he was changed into indirect speech?
If you would, please help me through any misunderstandings that I may have about this point. Since this is indirect discourse following a secondary tense, the optative might represent the indicative or the subjunctive. However, since Xenophon favors the indirect discourse (Smyth 2613), it seems to me that the subjunctive “ἐπίστηταί” reflects the mood of the original utterance and the optatives (πωλοίη and ἐπίσταιτο) reflect the present indicative. However, I am unsure why that part would change when this (πωλούμενοί εἰσι) does not. Unless it is to keep the relationship between the participle and the verb. Obviously, the bowels of my ignorance are bursting forth here.
Chapter 1, section 12 wrote:πρὸς ταῦτα δ᾽ ὁ Σωκράτης εἶπεν: ἂν ἐπίστηταί γε πωλεῖν. εἰ δὲ πωλοίη αὖ πρὸς τοῦτο ᾧ μὴ ἐπίσταιτο χρῆσθαι, οὐδὲ πωλούμενοί εἰσι χρήματα κατά γε τὸν σὸν λόγον. λέγειν ἔοικας, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸ ἀργύριόν ἐστι χρήματα, εἰ μή τις ἐπίσταιτο χρῆσθαι αὐτῷ.
Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges, 2613 wrote:The retention of the mood of direct discourse, where either the direct or indirect form is possible, lies solely in the option of the writer or speaker. The vivid form reproduces the time and situation in which the quoted words were used. The vivid form is preferred by some writers, as Thucydides; the indirect form by others, as the orators, Plato, and Xenophon.
I took "the subjunctive “ἐπίστηταί”" was retained in the same way as you did. I took the comment itself as humorous, rather than sarcastic or snide - but there is as much of me in that interpretation as there is the text. I took the subjunctive as extending the duration for which we as readers should consider the question - not the duration of the verb's action, but the duration or intensity of thought that we should give to it. For the οὐ ... πωλούμενοί εἰσι, I take the use of that mood as expressing something formulaic or mechanically true - we are prompted to take it as a given. For εἰ ... πωλοίη and the other optatives, I take them as being the statements or assertions made in the dialogue - the substance of the speech act that is novel.

I think that τὸ ἀργύριον is referring to silver as coinage rather than a chemical element.
Wes Wood wrote:Obviously, the bowels of my ignorance are bursting forth here.
Well if we want to go back to thinking like we did when we were nine or ten year old boys when we believed that because we controlled the direction of some water's flow or made insects follow the paths we set for them, that we were somehow masters of the world around us, while in fact all that we were doing was narrowing our gaze and projecting our own imaginations of greatness onto a small part of the world, then I would say that we have indeed understood what is going on both in this passage and, indeed, in the broader Greek language.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:The position of αὖ could do with an explanation (as could its meaning).
αὖ is a postpositive. When coupled with δὲ it makes a stronger contrast. It could be translated here as “on the other hand.”
Something like that.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:The meaning of πολεῖν something πρός something will probably need to be explained. It may be beneficial to note difference between πολεῖν something (+gen. - the measure of price) and πολεῖν something πρός (+acc.) reducing sale for coinage into a barter system of exchanging one thing for another, or then again it might not... Up to you.
I am definitely going to have to look at this. I had no clue how to take this, but have run out of time tonight to dig into it. I shall return to this a.s.a.p. (Hopefully, late tomorrow night after the festivities.) Thanks for your preemptive suggestions here.
That stuff about πρός is just straight from the dictionary. The constructions associated with ἀλλασσειν / ἀνταλλασσειν (exchange, barter) (+acc of thing exchanged, +gen. of thing exchanged for) don't help here. Temper the strength of your assertions, words are like people, there is often another side to them - good or bad - that you don't know, and you get to know them better the longer you spend with them, and in company with various others they seemingly change their character and behave in ways that you never thought possible. Some are more pliable than others, and indeed have varying degrees of pliability in the company of different others. If you introduce a word, don't talk to much about things, the person you are talking with is of equal humanity as yourself, and quite capable of their own observations, simply slightly direct their observations, after all that is what you would do if you were describing some mannerism or feature of a person you could both see.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Some people might be benefited by the suggestion to consider the οὐ and δὲ separately in both instances of οὐδὲ.
Would it be better to discuss the second οὐδέ in terms of the structure οὐδέ... εἰ?
I mean some people are in the habit of jumping to "neither", rather than assessing the structure first. It depends on their training, and their degree of reliance on another language to be able to understand the Greek. If you think it is warranted you could discuss the structure οὐδέ... εἰ. I see it as vaguely two structures, with a negative sub-structure in the first. You would need to make clear what part was negative, and what part was the if/then part.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I suspect that most readers will substantivise (reify / objectivise) the πωλούμενοί, rather than take it verbally - as you would take the participle with any other verb (if I've lost you I mean that the action of the present participle happens at the same time as the finite verb, and you could explain how that works here).
Is this better? “neither are the things wealth when they are sold...” I should have considered my options more carefully here. I was troubled by the lack of the article.
Lack of the article might be a clue, I'm not sure.

Perhaps better, yes. Are you understanding the verbal forms, the relative time-frame of the being wealth, being sold, then rendering it into English, or just translating from words to words? What strikes me as strange is that in the moment that the can possibly wealth, he no longer has them, that makes the translation "are" difficult, because they belong to another. "sold for", "exchanged for" or something that expresses that they are no longer his is okay. It sort of involves thinking about an instant "now" in an extended sense such as the nunc fluens.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Wes Wood
Posts: 693
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Wes Wood »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Even given the differences in time-zones, I think I've waited long enough to be able to answer your points here.
Absolutely. Thank you for your patience. It has been a chaotic week, and tonight was Halloween. :twisted:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I think that τὸ ἀργύριον is referring to silver as coinage rather than a chemical element.
This is how I understand it.
Stephen Hughes wrote: That stuff about πρός is just straight from the dictionary.
I know, but your perceptiveness is not. I am greatly impressed at your ability to predict where I am going to struggle. If you don't mind a diversion, I will tell you more precisely why. I recently changed the way I work through these. First, I read the text out loud three times. After the third reading, I give myself a moment to attempt to make sense of the parts I don't understand. If there are any words from the reading that I am unsure about after this, I go to the dictionary and read through the relevant entries. I then look at the text and write out my initial translation. This is as far as I got Wednesday before I ran out of time to work on it.
Usually, I would have gone back to my resources and worked through parts that I felt would improve my understanding of the passage. I finish by looking at your hints and seeing where I can make improvements or I where need to adjust my previous understanding. I don't look at your hints before this point, because then my efforts are no longer my efforts. (I fear the observer effect.) Sometimes, your hints sail right above or bounce off my thick skull, but frequently, even then, they predict where I have or am still struggling.
Still, I wanted to acknowledge your hard work Wednesday. So, I read the hints anyway and let you know that I had not yet been able to interact with them. Unfortunately, I spent so much time looking at the optative on Thursday that I did not have time to look at the entry for πολεῖν either, though I knew both days that doing so would make that stretch of text more clear.
Stephen Hughes wrote:I mean some people are in the habit of jumping to "neither", rather than assessing the structure first.
Yes. I am one of *those* people. I am sure you are aware of this, but I am not so sure that I have made it obvious that I am trying to reform.
Stephen Hughes wrote:What strikes me as strange is that in the moment that the can possibly wealth, he no longer has them, that makes the translation "are" difficult, because they belong to another. "sold for", "exchanged for" or something that expresses that they are no longer his is okay. It sort of involves thinking about an instant "now" in an extended sense such as the nunc fluens.
What I had in my mind initially, not what I understood the text to say but my mind's attempt to make sense of the text, was that he exchanged one item for another. This would be a gain of sorts, but, since what he acquired was another item that he was unable to use, the things which were sold did not increase his wealth.
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ
Post Reply

Return to “Other Greek Texts”